The Democratic Candidates
Comments
-
And how much do you pay for that insurance, and treatment? Can everyone afford it?mrussel1 said:
I don't think I'm brainwashed and I think I'm kind of bright. Have either of you ever had private insurance? I can tell you that I can get an MRI in a week. A guy at work torqued his knee and is getting surgery by an excellent ortho next week, a mere week after he injured himself.PJ_Soul said:
They may or may not be bright. I think they are all just brainwashed, either way. But as someone already pointed out, I don't think Americans overwhelmingly support private healthcare.Meltdown99 said:
Then those who prefer private insurance companies are not very bright...mrussel1 said:
And when you ask people if they want to move from private to government funded insurance, the reply is overwhelmingly no. So while I may agree with you, it's not happening soon.Meltdown99 said:
Fund all health care or none at all...how's that? I see no problem with the state funding abortion in the case of rape, incest or mothers health...but the US will never have Universal health care...the insurance lobby is too strong.mrussel1 said:
True. But pregnancy isn't one of them since it's at some level, a choice. Medicaid does cover birth control. I must admit that I'm not with Biden here for purely practical purposes. If a woman had a child simply because she couldn't afford the abortion, that will create yet another financial burden on the government. But if the Hyde Amendment keeps moderate states at bay on abortion, then keep it.Meltdown99 said:
I'm sure it is. But I'm sure many Americans are struggling to pay for treatments for conditions that they have no control over.PJ_Soul said:
The government funding abortions really isn't the leading concern at this point.Meltdown99 said:If they do not fund cancer treatments or other heinous illness's, why should the government fund abortions..."Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
Im not sharing anything like that with you. But it's not like yours is free.Spiritual_Chaos said:
And how much do you pay for that insurance, and treatment? Can everyone afford it?mrussel1 said:
I don't think I'm brainwashed and I think I'm kind of bright. Have either of you ever had private insurance? I can tell you that I can get an MRI in a week. A guy at work torqued his knee and is getting surgery by an excellent ortho next week, a mere week after he injured himself.PJ_Soul said:
They may or may not be bright. I think they are all just brainwashed, either way. But as someone already pointed out, I don't think Americans overwhelmingly support private healthcare.Meltdown99 said:
Then those who prefer private insurance companies are not very bright...mrussel1 said:
And when you ask people if they want to move from private to government funded insurance, the reply is overwhelmingly no. So while I may agree with you, it's not happening soon.Meltdown99 said:
Fund all health care or none at all...how's that? I see no problem with the state funding abortion in the case of rape, incest or mothers health...but the US will never have Universal health care...the insurance lobby is too strong.mrussel1 said:
True. But pregnancy isn't one of them since it's at some level, a choice. Medicaid does cover birth control. I must admit that I'm not with Biden here for purely practical purposes. If a woman had a child simply because she couldn't afford the abortion, that will create yet another financial burden on the government. But if the Hyde Amendment keeps moderate states at bay on abortion, then keep it.Meltdown99 said:
I'm sure it is. But I'm sure many Americans are struggling to pay for treatments for conditions that they have no control over.PJ_Soul said:
The government funding abortions really isn't the leading concern at this point.Meltdown99 said:If they do not fund cancer treatments or other heinous illness's, why should the government fund abortions...0 -
mrussel1 said:
Im not sharing anything like that with you. But it's not like yours is free.Spiritual_Chaos said:
And how much do you pay for that insurance, and treatment? Can everyone afford it?mrussel1 said:
I don't think I'm brainwashed and I think I'm kind of bright. Have either of you ever had private insurance? I can tell you that I can get an MRI in a week. A guy at work torqued his knee and is getting surgery by an excellent ortho next week, a mere week after he injured himself.PJ_Soul said:
They may or may not be bright. I think they are all just brainwashed, either way. But as someone already pointed out, I don't think Americans overwhelmingly support private healthcare.Meltdown99 said:
Then those who prefer private insurance companies are not very bright...mrussel1 said:
And when you ask people if they want to move from private to government funded insurance, the reply is overwhelmingly no. So while I may agree with you, it's not happening soon.Meltdown99 said:
Fund all health care or none at all...how's that? I see no problem with the state funding abortion in the case of rape, incest or mothers health...but the US will never have Universal health care...the insurance lobby is too strong.mrussel1 said:
True. But pregnancy isn't one of them since it's at some level, a choice. Medicaid does cover birth control. I must admit that I'm not with Biden here for purely practical purposes. If a woman had a child simply because she couldn't afford the abortion, that will create yet another financial burden on the government. But if the Hyde Amendment keeps moderate states at bay on abortion, then keep it.Meltdown99 said:
I'm sure it is. But I'm sure many Americans are struggling to pay for treatments for conditions that they have no control over.PJ_Soul said:
The government funding abortions really isn't the leading concern at this point.Meltdown99 said:If they do not fund cancer treatments or other heinous illness's, why should the government fund abortions...Other people have shared that info. We know that it is a LOT, and no, not everyone can afford it. Not even close.But back to my response.... you know we have options too, right? (or are you brainwashed into thinking we don't???
). The bottom line is that there is NO good argument against universal healthcare. That is why I think those who think there is are brainwashed, or at least ignorant to the facts. Post edited by PJ_Soul onWith all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
100% out of pocket? Our timely delivery of services comes as part of the plan. Im on the record for supporting 100% health. My point is there are reasons why people like their private insurance.PJ_Soul said:
Err. we can get an MRI in a week too, if we want to pay for it. It's not like we don't have the option. My own mom just got a PET scan within 5 days last month because she didn't want to wait. She had the money so great. The thing is, people who don't have money still get a scan too, even if they have to wait. Also, if the scans are needed for lifesaving or dire diagnostics/treatment, then we get them in a week for free.mrussel1 said:
I don't think I'm brainwashed and I think I'm kind of bright. Have either of you ever had private insurance? I can tell you that I can get an MRI in a week. A guy at work torqued his knee and is getting surgery by an excellent ortho next week, a mere week after he injured himself.PJ_Soul said:
They may or may not be bright. I think they are all just brainwashed, either way. But as someone already pointed out, I don't think Americans overwhelmingly support private healthcare.Meltdown99 said:
Then those who prefer private insurance companies are not very bright...mrussel1 said:
And when you ask people if they want to move from private to government funded insurance, the reply is overwhelmingly no. So while I may agree with you, it's not happening soon.Meltdown99 said:
Fund all health care or none at all...how's that? I see no problem with the state funding abortion in the case of rape, incest or mothers health...but the US will never have Universal health care...the insurance lobby is too strong.mrussel1 said:
True. But pregnancy isn't one of them since it's at some level, a choice. Medicaid does cover birth control. I must admit that I'm not with Biden here for purely practical purposes. If a woman had a child simply because she couldn't afford the abortion, that will create yet another financial burden on the government. But if the Hyde Amendment keeps moderate states at bay on abortion, then keep it.Meltdown99 said:
I'm sure it is. But I'm sure many Americans are struggling to pay for treatments for conditions that they have no control over.PJ_Soul said:
The government funding abortions really isn't the leading concern at this point.Meltdown99 said:If they do not fund cancer treatments or other heinous illness's, why should the government fund abortions...0 -
You should never need to share that info...if you are happy with your coverage, then that what matters...mrussel1 said:
Im not sharing anything like that with you. But it's not like yours is free.Spiritual_Chaos said:
And how much do you pay for that insurance, and treatment? Can everyone afford it?mrussel1 said:
I don't think I'm brainwashed and I think I'm kind of bright. Have either of you ever had private insurance? I can tell you that I can get an MRI in a week. A guy at work torqued his knee and is getting surgery by an excellent ortho next week, a mere week after he injured himself.PJ_Soul said:
They may or may not be bright. I think they are all just brainwashed, either way. But as someone already pointed out, I don't think Americans overwhelmingly support private healthcare.Meltdown99 said:
Then those who prefer private insurance companies are not very bright...mrussel1 said:
And when you ask people if they want to move from private to government funded insurance, the reply is overwhelmingly no. So while I may agree with you, it's not happening soon.Meltdown99 said:
Fund all health care or none at all...how's that? I see no problem with the state funding abortion in the case of rape, incest or mothers health...but the US will never have Universal health care...the insurance lobby is too strong.mrussel1 said:
True. But pregnancy isn't one of them since it's at some level, a choice. Medicaid does cover birth control. I must admit that I'm not with Biden here for purely practical purposes. If a woman had a child simply because she couldn't afford the abortion, that will create yet another financial burden on the government. But if the Hyde Amendment keeps moderate states at bay on abortion, then keep it.Meltdown99 said:
I'm sure it is. But I'm sure many Americans are struggling to pay for treatments for conditions that they have no control over.PJ_Soul said:
The government funding abortions really isn't the leading concern at this point.Meltdown99 said:If they do not fund cancer treatments or other heinous illness's, why should the government fund abortions...Give Peas A Chance…0 -
Lol, I realize that, but the amount you all pay for insurance comes to WAAAAY more than we would pay out of pocket if we felt like it, plus the scans are still available to poor people in general, not just those with very expensive insurance plans. So my point is still that those who support a private insurance system over a universal system have no good argument at the end of the day. At best, they can say they prefer being able to pay for themselves, and don't give a flying fuck about the rest of society. IMO. I personally can't understand that level of selfishness.mrussel1 said:
100% out of pocket? Our timely delivery of services comes as part of the plan. Im on the record for supporting 100% health. My point is there are reasons why people like their private insurance.PJ_Soul said:
Err. we can get an MRI in a week too, if we want to pay for it. It's not like we don't have the option. My own mom just got a PET scan within 5 days last month because she didn't want to wait. She had the money so great. The thing is, people who don't have money still get a scan too, even if they have to wait. Also, if the scans are needed for lifesaving or dire diagnostics/treatment, then we get them in a week for free.mrussel1 said:
I don't think I'm brainwashed and I think I'm kind of bright. Have either of you ever had private insurance? I can tell you that I can get an MRI in a week. A guy at work torqued his knee and is getting surgery by an excellent ortho next week, a mere week after he injured himself.PJ_Soul said:
They may or may not be bright. I think they are all just brainwashed, either way. But as someone already pointed out, I don't think Americans overwhelmingly support private healthcare.Meltdown99 said:
Then those who prefer private insurance companies are not very bright...mrussel1 said:
And when you ask people if they want to move from private to government funded insurance, the reply is overwhelmingly no. So while I may agree with you, it's not happening soon.Meltdown99 said:
Fund all health care or none at all...how's that? I see no problem with the state funding abortion in the case of rape, incest or mothers health...but the US will never have Universal health care...the insurance lobby is too strong.mrussel1 said:
True. But pregnancy isn't one of them since it's at some level, a choice. Medicaid does cover birth control. I must admit that I'm not with Biden here for purely practical purposes. If a woman had a child simply because she couldn't afford the abortion, that will create yet another financial burden on the government. But if the Hyde Amendment keeps moderate states at bay on abortion, then keep it.Meltdown99 said:
I'm sure it is. But I'm sure many Americans are struggling to pay for treatments for conditions that they have no control over.PJ_Soul said:
The government funding abortions really isn't the leading concern at this point.Meltdown99 said:If they do not fund cancer treatments or other heinous illness's, why should the government fund abortions...
Post edited by PJ_Soul onWith all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
I did not skip anything. I provided the information that was available from the source. There was no info given about answering a question of "wanting to move from private to government funded healthcare" so I did not make a judgment on that. As you can see. Notice my Sanders comment about bringing sanity and change everyones mind.mrussel1 said:
Oops. Did you skip the actual poll where support drops to 37% when told it would mean elimination of private insurance? One might say you were lying about it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.Spiritual_Chaos said:mrussel1 said:
And when you ask people if they want to move from private to government funded insurance, the reply is overwhelmingly no. So while I may agree with you, it's not happening soon.Meltdown99 said:
Fund all health care or none at all...how's that? I see no problem with the state funding abortion in the case of rape, incest or mothers health...but the US will never have Universal health care...the insurance lobby is too strong.mrussel1 said:
True. But pregnancy isn't one of them since it's at some level, a choice. Medicaid does cover birth control. I must admit that I'm not with Biden here for purely practical purposes. If a woman had a child simply because she couldn't afford the abortion, that will create yet another financial burden on the government. But if the Hyde Amendment keeps moderate states at bay on abortion, then keep it.Meltdown99 said:
I'm sure it is. But I'm sure many Americans are struggling to pay for treatments for conditions that they have no control over.PJ_Soul said:
The government funding abortions really isn't the leading concern at this point.Meltdown99 said:If they do not fund cancer treatments or other heinous illness's, why should the government fund abortions...
The vast majority of Americans, 70 percent, now support Medicare-for-all, otherwise known as single-payer health care, according to a new Reuters survey. That includes 85 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of Republicans. Only 20 percent of Americans say they outright oppose the idea.“Medicare is a very popular program, so the idea of expanding it to everyone is popular as well,” Larry Levitt, senior vice president for health reform at the Kaiser Family Foundation, tells CNBC Make It. “The advantage of Medicare-for-all, which is much closer to how the rest of the world provides health care to their residents, is that you can achieve universal coverage at a lower cost.”
https://youtu.be/EcEWbzXF3Es
Sanders will change everyones mind. Sanity is coming. Sanity is coming. Sanity is coming to town.
Favorable ratings drop to -21 when told it would eliminate their private insurance. When told it may lead to delays in coverage (which does not happen anywhere in the private world today, like it does in the VA) it drops to -44.
What has your 37% number to do with anything - do you think a majority of Swedes want to "eliminate private health insurance companies" because we have our fair and humane tax funded healthcare?
I don't know what dropping to minus 21 means... How can something be negative percents (guessing is is not percent). But I guess that is where you back up your statement about americans scared of a switch. Haha.
Okey okey.
By the way - Swedes voted against "driving on the right side of the road" because people can be weary of change. It's human. But the government changed it because it was better, and they are not elected to be "weary".
And look at Sweden now. Driving on the right side of the road .
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
Sharing is caring.mrussel1 said:
Im not sharing anything like that with you. But it's not like yours is free.Spiritual_Chaos said:
And how much do you pay for that insurance, and treatment? Can everyone afford it?mrussel1 said:
I don't think I'm brainwashed and I think I'm kind of bright. Have either of you ever had private insurance? I can tell you that I can get an MRI in a week. A guy at work torqued his knee and is getting surgery by an excellent ortho next week, a mere week after he injured himself.PJ_Soul said:
They may or may not be bright. I think they are all just brainwashed, either way. But as someone already pointed out, I don't think Americans overwhelmingly support private healthcare.Meltdown99 said:
Then those who prefer private insurance companies are not very bright...mrussel1 said:
And when you ask people if they want to move from private to government funded insurance, the reply is overwhelmingly no. So while I may agree with you, it's not happening soon.Meltdown99 said:
Fund all health care or none at all...how's that? I see no problem with the state funding abortion in the case of rape, incest or mothers health...but the US will never have Universal health care...the insurance lobby is too strong.mrussel1 said:
True. But pregnancy isn't one of them since it's at some level, a choice. Medicaid does cover birth control. I must admit that I'm not with Biden here for purely practical purposes. If a woman had a child simply because she couldn't afford the abortion, that will create yet another financial burden on the government. But if the Hyde Amendment keeps moderate states at bay on abortion, then keep it.Meltdown99 said:
I'm sure it is. But I'm sure many Americans are struggling to pay for treatments for conditions that they have no control over.PJ_Soul said:
The government funding abortions really isn't the leading concern at this point.Meltdown99 said:If they do not fund cancer treatments or other heinous illness's, why should the government fund abortions..."Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
Imagine if the repubs had spent the last 9 years working with dems to tweak Obamacare, make it better, more solvent, compromise, a little bit of this, a little bit of that, rather than spend the last 7 of 9 trying to repeal it. They and Team Trump Treason would have been heros and cemented a repub majority for years to come. But you know, the black guy. Personally, I like my employer sponsored health insurance and would be okay with expanding medicare for those unable to afford or who don't have access to employer sponsored health insurance. Massachusetts is doing just fine with their program and it was one, if not the first, in the nation to mandate it and allow it.mrussel1 said:
This is the plan that Biden and others have floated. Keep Obamacare, which targeted uninsured, and allow people with access to private to opt out and buy into public. It's a good idea and one that could allow a transition to Medicare for all, if it appears to be working.Meltdown99 said:
Only private insurance I have ever had with regard to health was benefit coverage or travel health insurance. Yes, I agree you do get your services delivered in am an excellent timely fashion. My Uncle who lived in the UD (has since passed) needed triple by-pass...got his done in less than an after being told he needed one week...could have been sooner, but just in case, he wanted one last weekend to enjoy with his family, just in case...mrussel1 said:
I don't think I'm brainwashed and I think I'm kind of bright. Have either of you ever had private insurance? I can tell you that I can get an MRI in a week. A guy at work torqued his knee and is getting surgery by an excellent ortho next week, a mere week after he injured himself.PJ_Soul said:
They may or may not be bright. I think they are all just brainwashed, either way. But as someone already pointed out, I don't think Americans overwhelmingly support private healthcare.Meltdown99 said:
Then those who prefer private insurance companies are not very bright...mrussel1 said:
And when you ask people if they want to move from private to government funded insurance, the reply is overwhelmingly no. So while I may agree with you, it's not happening soon.Meltdown99 said:
Fund all health care or none at all...how's that? I see no problem with the state funding abortion in the case of rape, incest or mothers health...but the US will never have Universal health care...the insurance lobby is too strong.mrussel1 said:
True. But pregnancy isn't one of them since it's at some level, a choice. Medicaid does cover birth control. I must admit that I'm not with Biden here for purely practical purposes. If a woman had a child simply because she couldn't afford the abortion, that will create yet another financial burden on the government. But if the Hyde Amendment keeps moderate states at bay on abortion, then keep it.Meltdown99 said:
I'm sure it is. But I'm sure many Americans are struggling to pay for treatments for conditions that they have no control over.PJ_Soul said:
The government funding abortions really isn't the leading concern at this point.Meltdown99 said:If they do not fund cancer treatments or other heinous illness's, why should the government fund abortions...
The government can still provide universal health while keeping the private system...other countries have.The percentage of Massachusetts residents without health insurance fell again last year, to a new low of 2.5 percent, the US Census Bureau said Tuesday. That's down from 2.8 percent of Massachusetts residents who went without health insurance in 2015, and 3.7 percent who were uninsured in 2013.Sep 12, 2017Number of uninsured in Mass. continues to fall - The Boston Globe
What percentage of us has health insurance?
In 2016, the percentage of people without health insurance coverage for the entire calendar year was 8.8 percent, or 28.1 million, lower than the rate and number of uninsured in 2015 (9.1 percent or 29.0 million).Health insurance coverage in the United States - Wikipedia
2.5% without is still too many but also almost "universal." And the state isn't failing as predicted.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Why not allow people like your Mother who prefers not to wait a long while the ability to purchase private insurance...as long as the procedure is done at a private clinic. I do not believe private clinics will drain the public system. I live just outside of Windsor, Detroit area has many state of the art hospitals and we really have no doctor shortage...these doctors in my area easily could work in Detroit area and make far more dollars...but they choose to work in the public system...PJ_Soul said:mrussel1 said:
Im not sharing anything like that with you. But it's not like yours is free.Spiritual_Chaos said:
And how much do you pay for that insurance, and treatment? Can everyone afford it?mrussel1 said:
I don't think I'm brainwashed and I think I'm kind of bright. Have either of you ever had private insurance? I can tell you that I can get an MRI in a week. A guy at work torqued his knee and is getting surgery by an excellent ortho next week, a mere week after he injured himself.PJ_Soul said:
They may or may not be bright. I think they are all just brainwashed, either way. But as someone already pointed out, I don't think Americans overwhelmingly support private healthcare.Meltdown99 said:
Then those who prefer private insurance companies are not very bright...mrussel1 said:
And when you ask people if they want to move from private to government funded insurance, the reply is overwhelmingly no. So while I may agree with you, it's not happening soon.Meltdown99 said:
Fund all health care or none at all...how's that? I see no problem with the state funding abortion in the case of rape, incest or mothers health...but the US will never have Universal health care...the insurance lobby is too strong.mrussel1 said:
True. But pregnancy isn't one of them since it's at some level, a choice. Medicaid does cover birth control. I must admit that I'm not with Biden here for purely practical purposes. If a woman had a child simply because she couldn't afford the abortion, that will create yet another financial burden on the government. But if the Hyde Amendment keeps moderate states at bay on abortion, then keep it.Meltdown99 said:
I'm sure it is. But I'm sure many Americans are struggling to pay for treatments for conditions that they have no control over.PJ_Soul said:
The government funding abortions really isn't the leading concern at this point.Meltdown99 said:If they do not fund cancer treatments or other heinous illness's, why should the government fund abortions...Other people have shared that info. We know that it is a LOT, and no, not everyone can afford it. Not even close.But back to my response.... you know we have options too, right? (or are you brainwashed into thinking we don't??? ). The bottom line is that there is NO good argument against universal healthcare. That is why I think those who think there is are brainwashed, or at least ignorant to the facts.
Give Peas A Chance…0 -
Meltdown99 said:
Why not allow people like your Mother who prefers not to wait a long while the ability to purchase private insurance...as long as the procedure is done at a private clinic. I do not believe private clinics will drain the public system. I live just outside of Windsor, Detroit area has many state of the art hospitals and we really have no doctor shortage...these doctors in my area easily could work in Detroit area and make far more dollars...but they choose to work in the public system...PJ_Soul said:mrussel1 said:
Im not sharing anything like that with you. But it's not like yours is free.Spiritual_Chaos said:
And how much do you pay for that insurance, and treatment? Can everyone afford it?mrussel1 said:
I don't think I'm brainwashed and I think I'm kind of bright. Have either of you ever had private insurance? I can tell you that I can get an MRI in a week. A guy at work torqued his knee and is getting surgery by an excellent ortho next week, a mere week after he injured himself.PJ_Soul said:
They may or may not be bright. I think they are all just brainwashed, either way. But as someone already pointed out, I don't think Americans overwhelmingly support private healthcare.Meltdown99 said:
Then those who prefer private insurance companies are not very bright...mrussel1 said:
And when you ask people if they want to move from private to government funded insurance, the reply is overwhelmingly no. So while I may agree with you, it's not happening soon.Meltdown99 said:
Fund all health care or none at all...how's that? I see no problem with the state funding abortion in the case of rape, incest or mothers health...but the US will never have Universal health care...the insurance lobby is too strong.mrussel1 said:
True. But pregnancy isn't one of them since it's at some level, a choice. Medicaid does cover birth control. I must admit that I'm not with Biden here for purely practical purposes. If a woman had a child simply because she couldn't afford the abortion, that will create yet another financial burden on the government. But if the Hyde Amendment keeps moderate states at bay on abortion, then keep it.Meltdown99 said:
I'm sure it is. But I'm sure many Americans are struggling to pay for treatments for conditions that they have no control over.PJ_Soul said:
The government funding abortions really isn't the leading concern at this point.Meltdown99 said:If they do not fund cancer treatments or other heinous illness's, why should the government fund abortions...Other people have shared that info. We know that it is a LOT, and no, not everyone can afford it. Not even close.But back to my response.... you know we have options too, right? (or are you brainwashed into thinking we don't??? ). The bottom line is that there is NO good argument against universal healthcare. That is why I think those who think there is are brainwashed, or at least ignorant to the facts. Because my mother doesn't want or need it. She loves the system we have. Private insurance is way, way more expensive in the long run. The only reason she didn't want to wait this time was because she felt impatient. If the scan had been an urgent medical matter, she would have gotten it just as fast for free. I actually once got the exact same scan for free, within a week. That was because they were concerned that I might have something that could seriously threaten my health and/or life (Turned out I did not).Post edited by PJ_Soul onWith all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
Read the source article of the poll. It was in your post. Then if you still don't understand, I can't help you. Either way, your post was misleading. You can also just blame the article you cited, if that's easier on you.Spiritual_Chaos said:
I did not skip anything. I provided the information that was available from the source. There was no info given about answering a question of "wanting to move from private to government funded healthcare" so I did not make a judgment on that. As you can see. Notice my Sanders comment about bringing sanity and change everyones mind.mrussel1 said:
Oops. Did you skip the actual poll where support drops to 37% when told it would mean elimination of private insurance? One might say you were lying about it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.Spiritual_Chaos said:mrussel1 said:
And when you ask people if they want to move from private to government funded insurance, the reply is overwhelmingly no. So while I may agree with you, it's not happening soon.Meltdown99 said:
Fund all health care or none at all...how's that? I see no problem with the state funding abortion in the case of rape, incest or mothers health...but the US will never have Universal health care...the insurance lobby is too strong.mrussel1 said:
True. But pregnancy isn't one of them since it's at some level, a choice. Medicaid does cover birth control. I must admit that I'm not with Biden here for purely practical purposes. If a woman had a child simply because she couldn't afford the abortion, that will create yet another financial burden on the government. But if the Hyde Amendment keeps moderate states at bay on abortion, then keep it.Meltdown99 said:
I'm sure it is. But I'm sure many Americans are struggling to pay for treatments for conditions that they have no control over.PJ_Soul said:
The government funding abortions really isn't the leading concern at this point.Meltdown99 said:If they do not fund cancer treatments or other heinous illness's, why should the government fund abortions...
The vast majority of Americans, 70 percent, now support Medicare-for-all, otherwise known as single-payer health care, according to a new Reuters survey. That includes 85 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of Republicans. Only 20 percent of Americans say they outright oppose the idea.“Medicare is a very popular program, so the idea of expanding it to everyone is popular as well,” Larry Levitt, senior vice president for health reform at the Kaiser Family Foundation, tells CNBC Make It. “The advantage of Medicare-for-all, which is much closer to how the rest of the world provides health care to their residents, is that you can achieve universal coverage at a lower cost.”
https://youtu.be/EcEWbzXF3Es
Sanders will change everyones mind. Sanity is coming. Sanity is coming. Sanity is coming to town.
Favorable ratings drop to -21 when told it would eliminate their private insurance. When told it may lead to delays in coverage (which does not happen anywhere in the private world today, like it does in the VA) it drops to -44.
What has your 37% number to do with anything - do you think a majority of Swedes want to "eliminate private health insurance companies" because we have our fair and humane tax funded healthcare?
I don't know what dropping to minus 21 means... How can something be negative percents (guessing is is not percent). But I guess that is where you back up your statement about americans scared of a switch. Haha.
Okey okey.
By the way - Swedes voted against "driving on the right side of the road" because people can be weary of change. It's human. But the government changed it because it was better, and they are not elected to be "weary".
And look at Sweden now. Driving on the right side of the road .0 -
Nope. It is not free:
But something still differ between our two countries. As seen from the graph.
And if we leave cost, the important thing is that we built a system based on solidarity and first and foremost for the people - not stockholders and boardroom members. Remember the swedish philosophy of "The Peoples Home" I taught you about back when? Think of a society built around that idea of being a family where everyone contributes what they can, and will be helped when they can. Compare it to the american idea of "ME - because I happen to be able to pay for it".
What is the best foundation for a society? We all know the answer. And Sanders knows it too.
SANDERS 2020*
*Or maybe Warren or Mayor Pete"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
It's impossible for you to make the statement that there are no good arguments for public over private. There is no US tax structure in place to understand what the cost would be out of pocket, compared to what a person pays today. So how can one possibly make an educated decision without that? Second, the prices that people pay vary widely. For example, if you work for a large corporation, those companies are self insured. So the costs tend to be lower because the plan only needs to break even, after administrative costs. Contrast that for a small to mid size company that actually relies on an insurance company to provide the insurance. Those plans tend to be much pricier because there is a profit margin. Last, many companies (like the one I worked for 15 years) actually has two separate rates. If you made less than 100k per year, you paid a far lower insurance premium than if you made more than 100k. It was quite progressive.PJ_Soul said:
Lol, I realize that, but the amount you all pay for insurance comes to WAAAAY more than we would pay out of pocket if we felt like it, plus the scans are still available to poor people in general, not just those with very expensive insurance plans. So my point is still that those who support a private insurance system over a universal system have no good argument at the end of the day. At best, they can say they prefer being able to pay for themselves, and don't give a flying fuck about the rest of society. IMO. I personally can't understand that level of selfishness.mrussel1 said:
100% out of pocket? Our timely delivery of services comes as part of the plan. Im on the record for supporting 100% health. My point is there are reasons why people like their private insurance.PJ_Soul said:
Err. we can get an MRI in a week too, if we want to pay for it. It's not like we don't have the option. My own mom just got a PET scan within 5 days last month because she didn't want to wait. She had the money so great. The thing is, people who don't have money still get a scan too, even if they have to wait. Also, if the scans are needed for lifesaving or dire diagnostics/treatment, then we get them in a week for free.mrussel1 said:
I don't think I'm brainwashed and I think I'm kind of bright. Have either of you ever had private insurance? I can tell you that I can get an MRI in a week. A guy at work torqued his knee and is getting surgery by an excellent ortho next week, a mere week after he injured himself.PJ_Soul said:
They may or may not be bright. I think they are all just brainwashed, either way. But as someone already pointed out, I don't think Americans overwhelmingly support private healthcare.Meltdown99 said:
Then those who prefer private insurance companies are not very bright...mrussel1 said:
And when you ask people if they want to move from private to government funded insurance, the reply is overwhelmingly no. So while I may agree with you, it's not happening soon.Meltdown99 said:
Fund all health care or none at all...how's that? I see no problem with the state funding abortion in the case of rape, incest or mothers health...but the US will never have Universal health care...the insurance lobby is too strong.mrussel1 said:
True. But pregnancy isn't one of them since it's at some level, a choice. Medicaid does cover birth control. I must admit that I'm not with Biden here for purely practical purposes. If a woman had a child simply because she couldn't afford the abortion, that will create yet another financial burden on the government. But if the Hyde Amendment keeps moderate states at bay on abortion, then keep it.Meltdown99 said:
I'm sure it is. But I'm sure many Americans are struggling to pay for treatments for conditions that they have no control over.PJ_Soul said:
The government funding abortions really isn't the leading concern at this point.Meltdown99 said:If they do not fund cancer treatments or other heinous illness's, why should the government fund abortions...0 -
Just curious. Sweden used to drive on the left, now they drive on the right. How has the transition gone/went? I think it could be a disadvantage having a car that was meant to be driven on the left, now having to drive on the right...or did Sweden buy everyone a car meant to drive on the right...s/. Or are you being sarcastic and Sweden has always driven on the right?Spiritual_Chaos said:
I did not skip anything. I provided the information that was available from the source. There was no info given about answering a question of "wanting to move from private to government funded healthcare" so I did not make a judgment on that. As you can see. Notice my Sanders comment about bringing sanity and change everyones mind.mrussel1 said:
Oops. Did you skip the actual poll where support drops to 37% when told it would mean elimination of private insurance? One might say you were lying about it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.Spiritual_Chaos said:mrussel1 said:
And when you ask people if they want to move from private to government funded insurance, the reply is overwhelmingly no. So while I may agree with you, it's not happening soon.Meltdown99 said:
Fund all health care or none at all...how's that? I see no problem with the state funding abortion in the case of rape, incest or mothers health...but the US will never have Universal health care...the insurance lobby is too strong.mrussel1 said:
True. But pregnancy isn't one of them since it's at some level, a choice. Medicaid does cover birth control. I must admit that I'm not with Biden here for purely practical purposes. If a woman had a child simply because she couldn't afford the abortion, that will create yet another financial burden on the government. But if the Hyde Amendment keeps moderate states at bay on abortion, then keep it.Meltdown99 said:
I'm sure it is. But I'm sure many Americans are struggling to pay for treatments for conditions that they have no control over.PJ_Soul said:
The government funding abortions really isn't the leading concern at this point.Meltdown99 said:If they do not fund cancer treatments or other heinous illness's, why should the government fund abortions...
The vast majority of Americans, 70 percent, now support Medicare-for-all, otherwise known as single-payer health care, according to a new Reuters survey. That includes 85 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of Republicans. Only 20 percent of Americans say they outright oppose the idea.“Medicare is a very popular program, so the idea of expanding it to everyone is popular as well,” Larry Levitt, senior vice president for health reform at the Kaiser Family Foundation, tells CNBC Make It. “The advantage of Medicare-for-all, which is much closer to how the rest of the world provides health care to their residents, is that you can achieve universal coverage at a lower cost.”
https://youtu.be/EcEWbzXF3Es
Sanders will change everyones mind. Sanity is coming. Sanity is coming. Sanity is coming to town.
Favorable ratings drop to -21 when told it would eliminate their private insurance. When told it may lead to delays in coverage (which does not happen anywhere in the private world today, like it does in the VA) it drops to -44.
What has your 37% number to do with anything - do you think a majority of Swedes want to "eliminate private health insurance companies" because we have our fair and humane tax funded healthcare?
I don't know what dropping to minus 21 means... How can something be negative percents (guessing is is not percent). But I guess that is where you back up your statement about americans scared of a switch. Haha.
Okey okey.
By the way - Swedes voted against "driving on the right side of the road" because people can be weary of change. It's human. But the government changed it because it was better, and they are not elected to be "weary".
And look at Sweden now. Driving on the right side of the road .Give Peas A Chance…0 -
I had to look this up out of curiosity. They really did drive on the left before. It changed in the 60s though. I doubt too many people are having issues with left side cars these days!Meltdown99 said:
Just curious. Sweden used to drive on the left, now they drive on the right. How has the transition gone/went? I think it could be a disadvantage having a car that was meant to be driven on the left, now having to drive on the right...or did Sweden buy everyone a car meant to drive on the right...s/. Or are you being sarcastic and Sweden has always driven on the right?Spiritual_Chaos said:
I did not skip anything. I provided the information that was available from the source. There was no info given about answering a question of "wanting to move from private to government funded healthcare" so I did not make a judgment on that. As you can see. Notice my Sanders comment about bringing sanity and change everyones mind.mrussel1 said:
Oops. Did you skip the actual poll where support drops to 37% when told it would mean elimination of private insurance? One might say you were lying about it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.Spiritual_Chaos said:mrussel1 said:
And when you ask people if they want to move from private to government funded insurance, the reply is overwhelmingly no. So while I may agree with you, it's not happening soon.Meltdown99 said:
Fund all health care or none at all...how's that? I see no problem with the state funding abortion in the case of rape, incest or mothers health...but the US will never have Universal health care...the insurance lobby is too strong.mrussel1 said:
True. But pregnancy isn't one of them since it's at some level, a choice. Medicaid does cover birth control. I must admit that I'm not with Biden here for purely practical purposes. If a woman had a child simply because she couldn't afford the abortion, that will create yet another financial burden on the government. But if the Hyde Amendment keeps moderate states at bay on abortion, then keep it.Meltdown99 said:
I'm sure it is. But I'm sure many Americans are struggling to pay for treatments for conditions that they have no control over.PJ_Soul said:
The government funding abortions really isn't the leading concern at this point.Meltdown99 said:If they do not fund cancer treatments or other heinous illness's, why should the government fund abortions...
The vast majority of Americans, 70 percent, now support Medicare-for-all, otherwise known as single-payer health care, according to a new Reuters survey. That includes 85 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of Republicans. Only 20 percent of Americans say they outright oppose the idea.“Medicare is a very popular program, so the idea of expanding it to everyone is popular as well,” Larry Levitt, senior vice president for health reform at the Kaiser Family Foundation, tells CNBC Make It. “The advantage of Medicare-for-all, which is much closer to how the rest of the world provides health care to their residents, is that you can achieve universal coverage at a lower cost.”
https://youtu.be/EcEWbzXF3Es
Sanders will change everyones mind. Sanity is coming. Sanity is coming. Sanity is coming to town.
Favorable ratings drop to -21 when told it would eliminate their private insurance. When told it may lead to delays in coverage (which does not happen anywhere in the private world today, like it does in the VA) it drops to -44.
What has your 37% number to do with anything - do you think a majority of Swedes want to "eliminate private health insurance companies" because we have our fair and humane tax funded healthcare?
I don't know what dropping to minus 21 means... How can something be negative percents (guessing is is not percent). But I guess that is where you back up your statement about americans scared of a switch. Haha.
Okey okey.
By the way - Swedes voted against "driving on the right side of the road" because people can be weary of change. It's human. But the government changed it because it was better, and they are not elected to be "weary".
And look at Sweden now. Driving on the right side of the road .
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
What I meant was that there is no good argument for the current US system over universal healthcare. I could blah blah blah about that for a while, and talk about how US healthcare costs way more than it does in any other country, but the bottom line is simply that's because there is no good argument for poor people not being able to access healthcare, nor for regular people going broke because they get sick. And both of those things happen in the USA because of the current insurance system. And frankly, I don't see how a system where the rich pay for private insurance while the poor are on some public system would work. I don't think that is possible while still maintaining human rights.mrussel1 said:
It's impossible for you to make the statement that there are no good arguments for public over private. There is no US tax structure in place to understand what the cost would be out of pocket, compared to what a person pays today. So how can one possibly make an educated decision without that? Second, the prices that people pay vary widely. For example, if you work for a large corporation, those companies are self insured. So the costs tend to be lower because the plan only needs to break even, after administrative costs. Contrast that for a small to mid size company that actually relies on an insurance company to provide the insurance. Those plans tend to be much pricier because there is a profit margin. Last, many companies (like the one I worked for 15 years) actually has two separate rates. If you made less than 100k per year, you paid a far lower insurance premium than if you made more than 100k. It was quite progressive.PJ_Soul said:
Lol, I realize that, but the amount you all pay for insurance comes to WAAAAY more than we would pay out of pocket if we felt like it, plus the scans are still available to poor people in general, not just those with very expensive insurance plans. So my point is still that those who support a private insurance system over a universal system have no good argument at the end of the day. At best, they can say they prefer being able to pay for themselves, and don't give a flying fuck about the rest of society. IMO. I personally can't understand that level of selfishness.mrussel1 said:
100% out of pocket? Our timely delivery of services comes as part of the plan. Im on the record for supporting 100% health. My point is there are reasons why people like their private insurance.PJ_Soul said:
Err. we can get an MRI in a week too, if we want to pay for it. It's not like we don't have the option. My own mom just got a PET scan within 5 days last month because she didn't want to wait. She had the money so great. The thing is, people who don't have money still get a scan too, even if they have to wait. Also, if the scans are needed for lifesaving or dire diagnostics/treatment, then we get them in a week for free.mrussel1 said:
I don't think I'm brainwashed and I think I'm kind of bright. Have either of you ever had private insurance? I can tell you that I can get an MRI in a week. A guy at work torqued his knee and is getting surgery by an excellent ortho next week, a mere week after he injured himself.PJ_Soul said:
They may or may not be bright. I think they are all just brainwashed, either way. But as someone already pointed out, I don't think Americans overwhelmingly support private healthcare.Meltdown99 said:
Then those who prefer private insurance companies are not very bright...mrussel1 said:
And when you ask people if they want to move from private to government funded insurance, the reply is overwhelmingly no. So while I may agree with you, it's not happening soon.Meltdown99 said:
Fund all health care or none at all...how's that? I see no problem with the state funding abortion in the case of rape, incest or mothers health...but the US will never have Universal health care...the insurance lobby is too strong.mrussel1 said:
True. But pregnancy isn't one of them since it's at some level, a choice. Medicaid does cover birth control. I must admit that I'm not with Biden here for purely practical purposes. If a woman had a child simply because she couldn't afford the abortion, that will create yet another financial burden on the government. But if the Hyde Amendment keeps moderate states at bay on abortion, then keep it.Meltdown99 said:
I'm sure it is. But I'm sure many Americans are struggling to pay for treatments for conditions that they have no control over.PJ_Soul said:
The government funding abortions really isn't the leading concern at this point.Meltdown99 said:If they do not fund cancer treatments or other heinous illness's, why should the government fund abortions...
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
Meltdown99 said:
Just curious. Sweden used to drive on the left, now they drive on the right. How has the transition gone/went? I think it could be a disadvantage having a car that was meant to be driven on the left, now having to drive on the right...or did Sweden buy everyone a car meant to drive on the right...s/. Or are you being sarcastic and Sweden has always driven on the right?Spiritual_Chaos said:
I did not skip anything. I provided the information that was available from the source. There was no info given about answering a question of "wanting to move from private to government funded healthcare" so I did not make a judgment on that. As you can see. Notice my Sanders comment about bringing sanity and change everyones mind.mrussel1 said:
Oops. Did you skip the actual poll where support drops to 37% when told it would mean elimination of private insurance? One might say you were lying about it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.Spiritual_Chaos said:mrussel1 said:
And when you ask people if they want to move from private to government funded insurance, the reply is overwhelmingly no. So while I may agree with you, it's not happening soon.Meltdown99 said:
Fund all health care or none at all...how's that? I see no problem with the state funding abortion in the case of rape, incest or mothers health...but the US will never have Universal health care...the insurance lobby is too strong.mrussel1 said:
True. But pregnancy isn't one of them since it's at some level, a choice. Medicaid does cover birth control. I must admit that I'm not with Biden here for purely practical purposes. If a woman had a child simply because she couldn't afford the abortion, that will create yet another financial burden on the government. But if the Hyde Amendment keeps moderate states at bay on abortion, then keep it.Meltdown99 said:
I'm sure it is. But I'm sure many Americans are struggling to pay for treatments for conditions that they have no control over.PJ_Soul said:
The government funding abortions really isn't the leading concern at this point.Meltdown99 said:If they do not fund cancer treatments or other heinous illness's, why should the government fund abortions...
The vast majority of Americans, 70 percent, now support Medicare-for-all, otherwise known as single-payer health care, according to a new Reuters survey. That includes 85 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of Republicans. Only 20 percent of Americans say they outright oppose the idea.“Medicare is a very popular program, so the idea of expanding it to everyone is popular as well,” Larry Levitt, senior vice president for health reform at the Kaiser Family Foundation, tells CNBC Make It. “The advantage of Medicare-for-all, which is much closer to how the rest of the world provides health care to their residents, is that you can achieve universal coverage at a lower cost.”
https://youtu.be/EcEWbzXF3Es
Sanders will change everyones mind. Sanity is coming. Sanity is coming. Sanity is coming to town.
Favorable ratings drop to -21 when told it would eliminate their private insurance. When told it may lead to delays in coverage (which does not happen anywhere in the private world today, like it does in the VA) it drops to -44.
What has your 37% number to do with anything - do you think a majority of Swedes want to "eliminate private health insurance companies" because we have our fair and humane tax funded healthcare?
I don't know what dropping to minus 21 means... How can something be negative percents (guessing is is not percent). But I guess that is where you back up your statement about americans scared of a switch. Haha.
Okey okey.
By the way - Swedes voted against "driving on the right side of the road" because people can be weary of change. It's human. But the government changed it because it was better, and they are not elected to be "weary".
And look at Sweden now. Driving on the right side of the road .
5 AM September 3 1967
Haha.
It is true.
1955 was the public vote. 80 percent wanted to stay driving on the left. 12 years later we changed to driving on the right.
"Due to the fact that most of the cars in Sweden were left-handled, where in the left-hand traffic there is a better view towards the roadside, there was some concern from car drivers that one would get worse control of how close the roadside one was driving at right-hand traffic. This argument was not considered a decisive disadvantage of a move to right-hand traffic and something that most people would quickly learn to handle."
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
Fair enough. God to hear that you are fine. Listen I have no problem with our health care...other than it needs to be expanded...it's time.PJ_Soul said:Meltdown99 said:
Why not allow people like your Mother who prefers not to wait a long while the ability to purchase private insurance...as long as the procedure is done at a private clinic. I do not believe private clinics will drain the public system. I live just outside of Windsor, Detroit area has many state of the art hospitals and we really have no doctor shortage...these doctors in my area easily could work in Detroit area and make far more dollars...but they choose to work in the public system...PJ_Soul said:mrussel1 said:
Im not sharing anything like that with you. But it's not like yours is free.Spiritual_Chaos said:
And how much do you pay for that insurance, and treatment? Can everyone afford it?mrussel1 said:
I don't think I'm brainwashed and I think I'm kind of bright. Have either of you ever had private insurance? I can tell you that I can get an MRI in a week. A guy at work torqued his knee and is getting surgery by an excellent ortho next week, a mere week after he injured himself.PJ_Soul said:
They may or may not be bright. I think they are all just brainwashed, either way. But as someone already pointed out, I don't think Americans overwhelmingly support private healthcare.Meltdown99 said:
Then those who prefer private insurance companies are not very bright...mrussel1 said:
And when you ask people if they want to move from private to government funded insurance, the reply is overwhelmingly no. So while I may agree with you, it's not happening soon.Meltdown99 said:
Fund all health care or none at all...how's that? I see no problem with the state funding abortion in the case of rape, incest or mothers health...but the US will never have Universal health care...the insurance lobby is too strong.mrussel1 said:
True. But pregnancy isn't one of them since it's at some level, a choice. Medicaid does cover birth control. I must admit that I'm not with Biden here for purely practical purposes. If a woman had a child simply because she couldn't afford the abortion, that will create yet another financial burden on the government. But if the Hyde Amendment keeps moderate states at bay on abortion, then keep it.Meltdown99 said:
I'm sure it is. But I'm sure many Americans are struggling to pay for treatments for conditions that they have no control over.PJ_Soul said:
The government funding abortions really isn't the leading concern at this point.Meltdown99 said:If they do not fund cancer treatments or other heinous illness's, why should the government fund abortions...Other people have shared that info. We know that it is a LOT, and no, not everyone can afford it. Not even close.But back to my response.... you know we have options too, right? (or are you brainwashed into thinking we don't??? ). The bottom line is that there is NO good argument against universal healthcare. That is why I think those who think there is are brainwashed, or at least ignorant to the facts. Because my mother doesn't want or need it. She loves the system we have. Private insurance is way, way more expensive in the long run. The only reason she didn't want to wait this time was because she felt impatient. If the scan had been an urgent medical matter, she would have gotten it just as fast for free. I actually once got the exact same scan for free, within a week. That was because they were concerned that I might have something that could seriously threaten my health and/or life (Turned out I did not).Give Peas A Chance…0 -
It would have been interesting driving around after the change...so no major problems occurred, which is good.Spiritual_Chaos said:Meltdown99 said:
Just curious. Sweden used to drive on the left, now they drive on the right. How has the transition gone/went? I think it could be a disadvantage having a car that was meant to be driven on the left, now having to drive on the right...or did Sweden buy everyone a car meant to drive on the right...s/. Or are you being sarcastic and Sweden has always driven on the right?Spiritual_Chaos said:
I did not skip anything. I provided the information that was available from the source. There was no info given about answering a question of "wanting to move from private to government funded healthcare" so I did not make a judgment on that. As you can see. Notice my Sanders comment about bringing sanity and change everyones mind.mrussel1 said:
Oops. Did you skip the actual poll where support drops to 37% when told it would mean elimination of private insurance? One might say you were lying about it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.Spiritual_Chaos said:mrussel1 said:
And when you ask people if they want to move from private to government funded insurance, the reply is overwhelmingly no. So while I may agree with you, it's not happening soon.Meltdown99 said:
Fund all health care or none at all...how's that? I see no problem with the state funding abortion in the case of rape, incest or mothers health...but the US will never have Universal health care...the insurance lobby is too strong.mrussel1 said:
True. But pregnancy isn't one of them since it's at some level, a choice. Medicaid does cover birth control. I must admit that I'm not with Biden here for purely practical purposes. If a woman had a child simply because she couldn't afford the abortion, that will create yet another financial burden on the government. But if the Hyde Amendment keeps moderate states at bay on abortion, then keep it.Meltdown99 said:
I'm sure it is. But I'm sure many Americans are struggling to pay for treatments for conditions that they have no control over.PJ_Soul said:
The government funding abortions really isn't the leading concern at this point.Meltdown99 said:If they do not fund cancer treatments or other heinous illness's, why should the government fund abortions...
The vast majority of Americans, 70 percent, now support Medicare-for-all, otherwise known as single-payer health care, according to a new Reuters survey. That includes 85 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of Republicans. Only 20 percent of Americans say they outright oppose the idea.“Medicare is a very popular program, so the idea of expanding it to everyone is popular as well,” Larry Levitt, senior vice president for health reform at the Kaiser Family Foundation, tells CNBC Make It. “The advantage of Medicare-for-all, which is much closer to how the rest of the world provides health care to their residents, is that you can achieve universal coverage at a lower cost.”
https://youtu.be/EcEWbzXF3Es
Sanders will change everyones mind. Sanity is coming. Sanity is coming. Sanity is coming to town.
Favorable ratings drop to -21 when told it would eliminate their private insurance. When told it may lead to delays in coverage (which does not happen anywhere in the private world today, like it does in the VA) it drops to -44.
What has your 37% number to do with anything - do you think a majority of Swedes want to "eliminate private health insurance companies" because we have our fair and humane tax funded healthcare?
I don't know what dropping to minus 21 means... How can something be negative percents (guessing is is not percent). But I guess that is where you back up your statement about americans scared of a switch. Haha.
Okey okey.
By the way - Swedes voted against "driving on the right side of the road" because people can be weary of change. It's human. But the government changed it because it was better, and they are not elected to be "weary".
And look at Sweden now. Driving on the right side of the road .
5 AM September 3 1967
Haha.
It is true.
1955 was the public vote. 80 percent wanted to stay driving on the left. 12 years later we changed to driving on the right.
"Due to the fact that most of the cars in Sweden were left-handled, where in the left-hand traffic there is a better view towards the roadside, there was some concern from car drivers that one would get worse control of how close the roadside one was driving at right-hand traffic. This argument was not considered a decisive disadvantage of a move to right-hand traffic and something that most people would quickly learn to handle."
It's probably not a pointless fact...but I love this kind of trivia.Give Peas A Chance…0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help