|
|
| Re: Shinseki ''Resigns'' (1190215) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Shinseki ''Resigns'' |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sun Jun 1 21:03:39 2014, in response to Re: Shinseki ''Resigns'', posted by Train Dude on Sun Jun 1 19:09:34 2014. You are claiming that there is a net zero gain in people covered by the US health care system...I claimed nothing of the sort. ...while the obamites claim that 30 million more people now have access to health care where they previously did not. Under the obama scenario, there has to be a net loss in health care coverage since they have done nothing to increase the healthcare infrastructure and personnel. I've already explained this quite succinctly; I'm not sure how much further I can dumb it down. OK, try this— which takes more health care resources, removing a small tumour from 30 million people, or a very lengthy hospital stay for 500,000 people to deal with late-stage cancer? You worked at Pitkin Yard, so here's an analogy. Suppose that the rush hour service requires 100 train cars. You are in charge of maintaining 150 decrepit R16s, keeping them just serviceable enough that 100 of them can go out on the road every rush hour. Then one day, the powers that be declare that service is being increased. Instead of having 100 trains on the road during rush hour, you'll need 130. They're not increasing your maintenance budget to accommodate— but they're taking away all of your decrepit R16s and replacing them with 150 brand-new R160s. That you need to keep 30 more trains operable for the same money is counterbalanced by all of the trains being that much cheaper to maintain. Similarly, the addition of 30 million people to the ranks of the covered (if it's actually the case) is counterbalanced by the fact that, with access to preventative health care and the ability to see a doctor when symptoms are minor, they will need far less health care. Under your scenario, if those 30 million already had access to health care, then what was the reason for the democratic party taking over the entire healthcare industry? "Taking over" is a strange way of saying "bailing out." In any case, you seem to be confusing care and coverage. Acess to care is the ability to see a doctor; access to coverage is having someone to pay the doctor for you, because you sure can't. The point that Fred made is that many of those 30 million already had technical access to health care but without health coverage they only sought it out once small problems became big and expensive— and then left the hospital to eat the bill. |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|