|
|
Post by amoeba15 on Jul 13, 2012 9:20:30 GMT -5
The healthcare law will bring the United States in line with Europe by insuring more women and reducing their healthcare cost burden, according to a new study. The Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit research foundation that supports President Obama's health overhaul, emphasized that the law must be fully implemented for the United States and Europe to be more closely aligned. The Supreme Court's ruling made the law's Medicaid expansion, its major tool for increasing coverage, optional for states. "We are on the cusp of a remarkable feat — providing comprehensive, affordable health insurance to almost all American women," Commonwealth President Karen Davis said in a statement. "It is crucial that states actively work to implement the reform law and take full advantage of all the benefits the Affordable Care Act stands to offer to their residents." The study described U.S. and European women as "oceans apart" in terms of healthcare costs and found that many in the United States forgo needed medical care as a result. U.S. women also report problems paying medical bills at more than double the rate of countries such as Australia, France and Sweden, and at 13 times the rate of women in the United Kingdom, according to the study. thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/237737-study-health-law-to-bring-us-more-in-line-with-europe |
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on Jul 13, 2012 10:29:30 GMT -5
More in line with their failing economies too.
|
|
|
|
Post by TW on Jul 13, 2012 12:52:43 GMT -5
Failing economies don't really have anything to do with quality of health care. It has to do with the failings of businesses, and overly zealous money laundering of what was worthless paper related to property, and pyramid schemes based around bonds for commercial venture.
Profit taking from shaky ventures keyed the whole thing, by destroying the financial base that was key to keeping the Jinga stacks solvent.
|
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on Jul 13, 2012 14:24:10 GMT -5
Universal healthcare is a lag on any economy, a wet blanket if you will.
Why do you think the English had to shrink their Kingdom back to a tiny island from ruling half of the civilized world? Because they had to pay for lazy bastards who didn't now how to work. This is how the sloths undo powerful nations and the US is next.
|
|
|
|
Post by amoeba15 on Jul 13, 2012 14:50:14 GMT -5
Universal healthcare is a lag on any economy, a wet blanket if you will. Why do you think the English had to shrink their Kingdom back to a tiny island from ruling half of the civilized world? Because they had to pay for lazy bastards who didn't now how to work. This is how the sloths undo powerful nations and the US is next. Yes, and without a doubt you believe the same to be true with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.  |
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on Jul 13, 2012 15:02:22 GMT -5
Universal healthcare is a lag on any economy, a wet blanket if you will. Why do you think the English had to shrink their Kingdom back to a tiny island from ruling half of the civilized world? Because they had to pay for lazy bastards who didn't now how to work. This is how the sloths undo powerful nations and the US is next Yes, and without a doubt you believe the same to be true with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Dude, England doens't have Social Seurity, Medicare or Medicaid. |
|
|
|
Post by TW on Jul 13, 2012 15:27:39 GMT -5
They don't have programs by those names, but they have pensions and paid health insurance, along with assistance for those with low income.
Why do you think something similar doesn't exist?
|
|
|
|
Post by amoeba15 on Jul 13, 2012 15:38:04 GMT -5
PC, remember more pensions were DESTROYED under Bush then under any other president. Another of Bush's all-time being totally stupid, uncaring and inept. Also, REMEMBER Bush wanted to end social security by giving everybody their SS money and having everybody invest their money on Wall Street. Imagine what would have happened then. Oh, that's right, the wealthy would have become even more wealthy then they are right now and Americans would not have a pot to piss in. |
|
|
|
Post by TW on Jul 13, 2012 15:40:32 GMT -5
My wife and I both lost our pensions under Bush. It's pretty difficult for me to blame Obama for that.
But, I do blame Congress in general, for being such asses since the day GW took office!
|
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on Jul 13, 2012 15:49:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by amoeba15 on Jul 13, 2012 15:54:02 GMT -5
NOPE, it happened during Bush's watch. Whatever happened to 'the buck stops here?' |
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on Jul 13, 2012 17:23:46 GMT -5
I have to ask the same thing under the Obama Administration. Certainly that Ahole doesn't accept the idea that the buck stops with him as he has pointed out time, and time and time, and time and time and time again how things are not his fault....boo hoo hoo.
|
|
|
|
Post by amoeba15 on Jul 16, 2012 9:30:56 GMT -5
I have to ask the same thing under the Obama Administration. Certainly that Ahole doesn't accept the idea that the buck stops with him as he has pointed out time, and time and time, and time and time and time again how things are not his fault....boo hoo hoo. Once again, Republicans want Bush to have a free ride. Republicans DID NOT want to hold Bush to the fire when he was president and after raping Americans and repeatedly using the US Constitution to wipe his arse with, Republicans are trying to pin the fallout on Bush to everybody else.  MOST of the negative that we are currently experiencing WOULD NOT have happened IF Bush was not repeateldy given such blind and stupid support. |
|
|
|
Post by happypacker on Jul 16, 2012 14:22:20 GMT -5
just a short bite of history. Bush has a SURPLUS when he took office, after 8 years the government was more than how many TRILLION? not billion but TRILLION then comes Romeny who is telling people that Oboma is putting the government into trillions of dollars in debt, only they are using an added number from what BUSH left him he indeed is making the debt larger but NOWHERE NEAR AS MUCH AND AS FAST AS bUSH HAD.
I am really not on any one person or party side. I hate, and i rarely use that word, but i hate the way this country is moving it is all about lieing,stealing, using at the EXPENSE OF THE WORKING MAJORITY that are middle class to lower income. they are the ones paying the Congress and the people who have business interest the shirt off they backs to make easy and fast money for them.
I enjoy going to small towns where the people are more separated from big business and govenment. there the people as a whole have there owners ,business and they are the well to do, but the people willing to work in those small towns have a much greater spendable income than many other places with more people and the rich are the rulers and the middle class fight for jobs while there just are not many other jobs that can support a home and its bills. this is a very difficult thing to explain, but i am hoping that you get that what i am bascilly saying is, once big government and big business gets its grib on the area, the middle class shrinks the poor get pooer and they not only become rich for the business they run but they are getting not hundreds but thousands of times richer all at the working majority expense. they introduced CREDIT CARDS for reason, to insure the lower income people who see what the rich have can go out and put themselves in debt a;; while they raise not reasonable rates but rated so high they will never get out and much pay for there remaining lives. I could go on but the public is so brain washed and been owned by the greedy filthy a-moral business people it it sicking. I wonder just what could be done with people like Romney who have 100s of millions of dollars if they made less and did not over charge for whatever and that money went back into there very own busness. many big corps. the slice of the profit goes to the board members the CEO, and bonus, before it goes to research and upkeeping of the structures of there business, they run them down, get the government to pay and then squeeze what they can and then move out of the state or the country.
One business in my home town was making a 20 millionn dollar profit,(small business) and the CEO wanted a pay raise, so where did he look first? the labor cost and he found out he could move the whole business to the border or Mexico, pay them nothing, then move the product back into the states and because the business and the government worked out the NOrth American trade agreement he payed nothing to bring it back so a like business in this country had to pay decent wages to there people all while he payed the Mexicans 1.00 an hour. I wonder who had to cut cost and so forth to stay in business?
|
|
|
|
Post by TW on Jul 16, 2012 16:15:25 GMT -5
A major portion of the negative spending would be offset simply by increasing the taxes to the previous level, for the wealthy.
|
|
