but why base policies on things like evidence when you have theory that contradicts evidence
but why base policies on things like evidence when you have theory that contradicts evidence
Two tiered system (the public plan would have a smaller network, longer wait times, and be politically vulnerable to cuts)
And you don't get the administrative savings if providers still have to deal with the fuckery of billing ten different plans with different rates and all.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Also anyone been to deadspin the last couple of mins there are some wild posts going up there. www.deadspin.com
same people that sit on here all day and talk about what a fascist terrible government we live under want to give them full control of their health insurance really activates those almonds
Yes you could keep them with much more regulation, including all-payer rate setting and requiring doctors to take patients regardless of insurer. (note that the plans that keep private insurance don't do these things and are therefore bad)
But why?
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Like I'm pretty sure they get good health care in China.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
And abundant organ transplants.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
say norway one more time
Arch if you let us drill baby drill through Alaska and California and oil becomes 25% of our GDP and 70% of our exports we can talk about wealth taxes and outlawing private insurance ya
rain your filthy oil dividends on me like i'm a coked out stripper with an absent father figure