Perry Nullifies Obamacare in Texas!

[Asher]

So it's sad that people choose to pay as they go rather than pay for insurance when they don't need it? That's actually a rational, economic decision. If one is relatively healthy and doesn't engage in any high risk behaviours, why spend megabucks on healthcare insurance, when you can save that money and spend much less to deal with things as they crop up?



Why is it ridiculous? If you're getting in a car accident that's bad enough that you can't walk away from - you have more serious problems than debt. This is why you drive carefully and don't drive like a dumbass Torontonian.

It's ridiculous because of stupid people like you.

Do you seriously have hundreds of thousands of dollars saved up for when you get diagnosed with Leukemia? Could you really cover the cost of an appendectomy (average cost of $33,000 -- some people paying upwards of $180,000 (source)?

The costs are so obscene and outrageous no reasonable person -- especially a mentally challenged illegal such as yourself -- could have enough funds to cover such treatment.

There is nothing rational or reasonable with what you are doing. You are gambling and you are retarded.

[Asher]

PS: I don't spend megabucks on healthcare insurance, yet I'm still covered.

The Canadian government spent $2,120 per capita on health care in 2004, while in the same year the US government spent over $2,700 per capita. People had to spend a FORTUNE on top of that to get basic coverage.

The math doesn't add up. The ridiculous and obvious inefficiencies of the US system is bleeding the public dry, and you're too ****ing stupid to comprehend it. Americans fixate on not having a "Canadian system" because God knows a fiscally responsible system that demonstrably results in lower infant mortality and higher life expectancy rates would be completely unacceptable.

[Jon Miller]

It is communism.

JM

[SlowwHand]

This thread isn't about Canada, or Texas sticking their nose into Canadian concerns. This is a thread about how people, of whose no business is it, sticking noses into how Texas conducts their affairs. At least that's what it's become. If people don't like it, **** off. Go handle your own affairs.

[giblets]

Texas is not a country. Whenever the federal government is involved in Texas it is not "sticking noses into someone else's affairs" because the federal government has sovereignty in Texas just as in every other state. What happens in Texas or any other state is the federal government's affair.

[Dinner]

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/11/12681272-even-in-worst-case-scenario-conservatives-look-beyond-obamacare?lite

The law along with the exchanges will go forward though instead of getting to set up its own on it's own terms now Texas will simply get one set up for them by the Feds. Republican lying douche bag obstructionists fail again. They're so busy pandering to their base that they're losing their opportunity to shape the final outcome. It's nothing but a political stunt which will make them worse off then if they just shut the **** up and did nothing.

[kentonio]

And that is precisely why it is a bad law. If we went the Canada route, we'd be in better shape. Even the UK route would be a marginal improvement.

You spent 17.6% of GDP on healthcare in 2010 and had 50 million people without insurance. We spent 9.6% and covered absolutely everyone. Please explain how this qualifies as a 'marginal' improvement?

[Asher]

This thread isn't about Canada, or Texas sticking their nose into Canadian concerns. This is a thread about how people, of whose no business is it, sticking noses into how Texas conducts their affairs. At least that's what it's become. If people don't like it, **** off. Go handle your own affairs.

I agree that Texas should separate to avoid bringing further shame to America.

[Guynemer]

You spent 17.6% of GDP on healthcare in 2010 and had 50 million people without insurance. We spent 9.6% and covered absolutely everyone. Please explain how this qualifies as a 'marginal' improvement?

Simply because your health care outcomes were, on the whole, no better than ours. Granted, you spent less and spent it more equitably, but from a physician's perspective, on the metric that truly matters, it would be a lateral move.

[kentonio]

Simply because your health care outcomes were, on the whole, no better than ours. Granted, you spent less and spent it more equitably, but from a physician's perspective, on the metric that truly matters, it would be a lateral move.

Physicians aren't concerned about 50 million people without coverage and the whole thing costing vastly more? I'm not trying to be snarky btw, I'm just genuinely confused by that.

[Guynemer]

No, of course physicians are concerned about that. But you have to remember that even people who have no coverage can still be treated in the ED, and that their (our) primary concern is the ultimate health outcomes for their patients.

[kentonio]

No, of course physicians are concerned about that. But you have to remember that even people who have no coverage can still be treated in the ED, and that their (our) primary concern is the ultimate health outcomes for their patients.

But surely if ED is your only healthcare source, then you're going to skip the whole range of preventative healthcare and early treatment etc?

[Asher]

But surely if ED is your only healthcare source, then you're going to skip the whole range of preventative healthcare and early treatment etc?

Therein lies the cost ineffectiveness of the US system.

[Guynemer]

Yes. Very cost-ineffective, but outcome-neutral relative to the UK system.

[kentonio]

Yes. Very cost-ineffective, but outcome-neutral relative to the UK system.

How is that possible when 50 million people only have emergency room care? Does that only include the outcome for the people with coverage?