The Democratic Candidates

Spiritual_Chaos · June 2019

Meltdown99 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Meltdown99 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Meltdown99 said:

mrussel1 said:

Meltdown99 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Meltdown99 said:

If they do not fund cancer treatments or other heinous illness's, why should the government fund abortions...

The government funding abortions really isn't the leading concern at this point.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 .

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?

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 would have been interesting driving around after the change...so no major problems occurred, which is good.

It's probably not a pointless fact...but I love this kind of trivia.

Thank you for making me have to read up on it. Haha. Love trivia too.

I only know it as a famous case here where the people wanted one thing, and the government/parliament went in another direction "for the better".

mrussel1 · June 2019

PJ_Soul said:

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.

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.

I understand. But I'm not sure I understand why a public/private option cannot work. We essentially have that today for seniors and the very poor with medicare and medicaid. You can expand medicaid to higher income levels through Obamacare and broaden the subsidies into the middle class.

Meltdown99 · June 2019

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Meltdown99 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Meltdown99 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Meltdown99 said:

mrussel1 said:

Meltdown99 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Meltdown99 said:

If they do not fund cancer treatments or other heinous illness's, why should the government fund abortions...

The government funding abortions really isn't the leading concern at this point.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 .

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?

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 would have been interesting driving around after the change...so no major problems occurred, which is good.

It's probably not a pointless fact...but I love this kind of trivia.

Thank you for making me have to read up on it. Haha. Love trivia too.

I only know it as a famous case here where the people wanted one thing, and the government/parliament went in another direction "for the better".

I wonder if it made autos cheaper...since most of the world drive on the right... the majority of vehicles are manufactured for the right side...

That is interesting. I thought only British Colonies drove on the left. Canada is a British colony that drives on the right, but that makes sense since the US drives on the right...imagine the fucking confusion if they drove on the right and us on the left...holy fuck...that'd be a mess.

mcgruff10 · June 2019

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

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.

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.

I understand. But I'm not sure I understand why a public/private option cannot work. We essentially have that today for seniors and the very poor with medicare and medicaid. You can expand medicaid to higher income levels through Obamacare and broaden the subsidies into the middle class.

I m definitely not a fan of universal health care. I am not an expert in the health care industry but I don’t see why both type of insurances can’t coexist.

PJ_Soul · June 2019

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

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.

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.

I understand. But I'm not sure I understand why a public/private option cannot work. We essentially have that today for seniors and the very poor with medicare and medicaid. You can expand medicaid to higher income levels through Obamacare and broaden the subsidies into the middle class.

I m definitely not a fan of universal health care. I am not an expert in the health care industry but I don’t see why both type of insurances can’t coexist.

Because of stone cold reality in this fucked up world. That would create a two-tiered system where all the best doctors are serving all the people with money with all the best care, while the majority of people - those without all the money - are getting far inferior care from inferior doctors who are earning too little. It would just further the growing chasm between the rich and poor. That is about the most dangerous road a nation can go down IMO.

mrussel1 · June 2019

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

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.

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.

I understand. But I'm not sure I understand why a public/private option cannot work. We essentially have that today for seniors and the very poor with medicare and medicaid. You can expand medicaid to higher income levels through Obamacare and broaden the subsidies into the middle class.

I m definitely not a fan of universal health care. I am not an expert in the health care industry but I don’t see why both type of insurances can’t coexist.

Because of stone cold reality in this fucked up world. That would create a two-tiered system where all the best doctors are serving all the people with money with all the best care, while the majority of people - those without all the money - are getting far inferior care from inferior doctors who are earning too little. It would just further the growing chasm between the rich and poor. That is about the most dangerous road a nation can go down IMO.

Private physicians take Medicare and Medicaid today. There are no federal doctors for those programs. The VA does have that and there are lots of problems.

Meltdown99 · June 2019

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

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.

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.

I understand. But I'm not sure I understand why a public/private option cannot work. We essentially have that today for seniors and the very poor with medicare and medicaid. You can expand medicaid to higher income levels through Obamacare and broaden the subsidies into the middle class.

I m definitely not a fan of universal health care. I am not an expert in the health care industry but I don’t see why both type of insurances can’t coexist.

Because of stone cold reality in this fucked up world. That would create a two-tiered system where all the best doctors are serving all the people with money with all the best care, while the majority of people - those without all the money - are getting far inferior care from inferior doctors who are earning too little. It would just further the growing chasm between the rich and poor. That is about the most dangerous road a nation can go down IMO.

Private physicians take Medicare and Medicaid today. There are no federal doctors for those programs. The VA does have that and there are lots of problems.

If your Mother paid out of pocket for a medical procedure...then we have 2 tier healthcare...

And we have had two teir healthcare for a long time...and if dr.s were to leave the public sector, they would have it's called the US home and as I pointed out, where I live there is no dr. shortage and drs could easily work at state of the art hospitals in the US...not the 1950 hospitals that most of Canada have.

jeffbr · June 2019

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Meltdown99 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.

Then those who prefer private insurance companies are not very bright...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The poor absolutely benefited from Obamacare. I knew people who finally were able to get coverage once Obamacare was enacted. So it definitely worked for them But the bolded part of your post is where I think critical mass needs to be for candidates talking to constituents. I know that Mace has talked about his coverage in the Healthcare thread and I have talked at length about it as well in that thread. Regular people like me may have coverage, but all disposable income goes toward covering the premiums. That leaves nothing for co-pays and deductibles. So the standard first step before deciding to seek medical treatment is to check the current balance on the bank account. That's the first step when deciding what course of treatment to take as well. Can I survive this without having to go see a doctor? Can Ibuprofen at least mask the symptoms and make things bearable until next payday? I had a procedure last year at an in-network hospital. I of course still had a hefty portion of the bill to pay due to co-pay. Luckily they let me make payments over the course of the year. But I goddamned knew that I wasn't going to go to the doctor for the next year until the previous procedure was paid off. It also costs me a $60 office visit co-pay just to walk in the door. So I recently had an issue, paid my $60, spent a couple of minutes with the doctor and got a referral to a specialist. Went to the specialist and paid my $60 office visit co-pay. Then got to pay my co-pay for x-rays, lab tests, meds, etc... Then back the next week for a follow-up and another $60. And again two weeks after that. So my little issue cost me $240 just in office visit co-pays. $240 just to see the doctor for one issue. Now I decide whether to spend the $60 to say hi to my Dr. or perhaps use that money for some Costco sized bottles of Ibuprofen and call it good. So far the latter is working out for me this year. Since I'd prefer not to bankrupt my family, I will likely ignore any issues that have the potential to get into 5 or 6 figure medical bills. US healthcare is bullshit. We spend twice per capita of any other western industrialized nation, we have some of the lowest mortality rates and outcomes of those same nations. To say universal healthcare wouldn't work here is to say we are too dumb to understand what the rest of the modern industrialized western democracies understand. If we took premiums that we pay, that employers pay, and that the government is currently paying and apply that to universal healthcare in the form of taxes, we'd probably be ahead. And we'd have no more co-pays or financial decisions to make about whether to seek treatment. But fuck it. The middle class can fend for themselves rather than risk "socialism".

mrussel1 · June 2019

Meltdown99 said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

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.

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.

I understand. But I'm not sure I understand why a public/private option cannot work. We essentially have that today for seniors and the very poor with medicare and medicaid. You can expand medicaid to higher income levels through Obamacare and broaden the subsidies into the middle class.

I m definitely not a fan of universal health care. I am not an expert in the health care industry but I don’t see why both type of insurances can’t coexist.

Because of stone cold reality in this fucked up world. That would create a two-tiered system where all the best doctors are serving all the people with money with all the best care, while the majority of people - those without all the money - are getting far inferior care from inferior doctors who are earning too little. It would just further the growing chasm between the rich and poor. That is about the most dangerous road a nation can go down IMO.

Private physicians take Medicare and Medicaid today. There are no federal doctors for those programs. The VA does have that and there are lots of problems.

If your Mother paid out of pocket for a medical procedure...then we have 2 tier healthcare...

And we have had two teir healthcare for a long time...and if dr.s were to leave the public sector, they would have it's called the US home and as I pointed out, where I live there is no dr. shortage and drs could easily work at state of the art hospitals in the US...not the 1950 hospitals that most of Canada have.

I don't understand what you're saying. My mom is on Medicare because she is a senior. She goes to a private doctor. The only federal doctors that im aware of are military and VA .

PJ_Soul · June 2019

Meltdown99 said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

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.

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.

I understand. But I'm not sure I understand why a public/private option cannot work. We essentially have that today for seniors and the very poor with medicare and medicaid. You can expand medicaid to higher income levels through Obamacare and broaden the subsidies into the middle class.

I m definitely not a fan of universal health care. I am not an expert in the health care industry but I don’t see why both type of insurances can’t coexist.

Because of stone cold reality in this fucked up world. That would create a two-tiered system where all the best doctors are serving all the people with money with all the best care, while the majority of people - those without all the money - are getting far inferior care from inferior doctors who are earning too little. It would just further the growing chasm between the rich and poor. That is about the most dangerous road a nation can go down IMO.

Private physicians take Medicare and Medicaid today. There are no federal doctors for those programs. The VA does have that and there are lots of problems.

If your Mother paid out of pocket for a medical procedure...then we have 2 tier healthcare...

And we have had two teir healthcare for a long time...and if dr.s were to leave the public sector, they would have it's called the US home and as I pointed out, where I live there is no dr. shortage and drs could easily work at state of the art hospitals in the US...not the 1950 hospitals that most of Canada have.

No, because a person without the money would have gotten the exact same care. They just would have had to wait a little longer. If they wouldn't medically afford to wait, then they would not have to wait, and would have still gotten the exact same care as my mom did. That is obviously NOT the kind of distinctions I was talking about at all. I'm talking about good healthcare for the rich, and shit healthcare for the poor. That is not the case in Canada.

PJ_Soul · June 2019

mrussel1 said:

Meltdown99 said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

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.

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.

I understand. But I'm not sure I understand why a public/private option cannot work. We essentially have that today for seniors and the very poor with medicare and medicaid. You can expand medicaid to higher income levels through Obamacare and broaden the subsidies into the middle class.

I m definitely not a fan of universal health care. I am not an expert in the health care industry but I don’t see why both type of insurances can’t coexist.

Because of stone cold reality in this fucked up world. That would create a two-tiered system where all the best doctors are serving all the people with money with all the best care, while the majority of people - those without all the money - are getting far inferior care from inferior doctors who are earning too little. It would just further the growing chasm between the rich and poor. That is about the most dangerous road a nation can go down IMO.

Private physicians take Medicare and Medicaid today. There are no federal doctors for those programs. The VA does have that and there are lots of problems.

If your Mother paid out of pocket for a medical procedure...then we have 2 tier healthcare...

And we have had two teir healthcare for a long time...and if dr.s were to leave the public sector, they would have it's called the US home and as I pointed out, where I live there is no dr. shortage and drs could easily work at state of the art hospitals in the US...not the 1950 hospitals that most of Canada have.

I don't understand what you're saying. My mom is on Medicare because she is a senior. She goes to a private doctor. The only federal doctors that im aware of are military and VA .

I think he was talking to me.

mcgruff10 · June 2019

PJ_Soul said:

Meltdown99 said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

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.

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.

I understand. But I'm not sure I understand why a public/private option cannot work. We essentially have that today for seniors and the very poor with medicare and medicaid. You can expand medicaid to higher income levels through Obamacare and broaden the subsidies into the middle class.

I m definitely not a fan of universal health care. I am not an expert in the health care industry but I don’t see why both type of insurances can’t coexist.

Because of stone cold reality in this fucked up world. That would create a two-tiered system where all the best doctors are serving all the people with money with all the best care, while the majority of people - those without all the money - are getting far inferior care from inferior doctors who are earning too little. It would just further the growing chasm between the rich and poor. That is about the most dangerous road a nation can go down IMO.

Private physicians take Medicare and Medicaid today. There are no federal doctors for those programs. The VA does have that and there are lots of problems.

If your Mother paid out of pocket for a medical procedure...then we have 2 tier healthcare...

And we have had two teir healthcare for a long time...and if dr.s were to leave the public sector, they would have it's called the US home and as I pointed out, where I live there is no dr. shortage and drs could easily work at state of the art hospitals in the US...not the 1950 hospitals that most of Canada have.

No, because a person without the money would have gotten the exact same care. They just would have had to wait a little longer. If they wouldn't medically afford to wait, then they would not have to wait, and would have still gotten the exact same care as my mom did.

So the less you make the more you wait for care? Seems fair.

PJ_Soul · June 2019

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Meltdown99 said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

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.

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.

I understand. But I'm not sure I understand why a public/private option cannot work. We essentially have that today for seniors and the very poor with medicare and medicaid. You can expand medicaid to higher income levels through Obamacare and broaden the subsidies into the middle class.

I m definitely not a fan of universal health care. I am not an expert in the health care industry but I don’t see why both type of insurances can’t coexist.

Because of stone cold reality in this fucked up world. That would create a two-tiered system where all the best doctors are serving all the people with money with all the best care, while the majority of people - those without all the money - are getting far inferior care from inferior doctors who are earning too little. It would just further the growing chasm between the rich and poor. That is about the most dangerous road a nation can go down IMO.

Private physicians take Medicare and Medicaid today. There are no federal doctors for those programs. The VA does have that and there are lots of problems.

If your Mother paid out of pocket for a medical procedure...then we have 2 tier healthcare...

And we have had two teir healthcare for a long time...and if dr.s were to leave the public sector, they would have it's called the US home and as I pointed out, where I live there is no dr. shortage and drs could easily work at state of the art hospitals in the US...not the 1950 hospitals that most of Canada have.

No, because a person without the money would have gotten the exact same care. They just would have had to wait a little longer. If they wouldn't medically afford to wait, then they would not have to wait, and would have still gotten the exact same care as my mom did.

So the less you make the more you wait for care? Seems fair.

FFS. No. Are you not paying attention to what I'm saying? When it actually matters, medically, NOBODY waits longer than anyone else, and it certainly isn't on a sliding scale like you are implying. Skipping wait times for those who can afford it is never for care that is urgent. So yeah, people with money can pay through the nose if they are impatient, but that is not that big a deal in the scheme of things, considering what is available to EVERYONE, no matter how poor they may be. I did not claim it is a perfect system, ever. But I am saying it is a FAR better system than the USA's. I mean, you're talking about fair with that, while in the USA, people are literally going bankrupt, and literally DYING because they are poor. That seems more fair to you??

mcgruff10 · June 2019

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Meltdown99 said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

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.

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.

I understand. But I'm not sure I understand why a public/private option cannot work. We essentially have that today for seniors and the very poor with medicare and medicaid. You can expand medicaid to higher income levels through Obamacare and broaden the subsidies into the middle class.

I m definitely not a fan of universal health care. I am not an expert in the health care industry but I don’t see why both type of insurances can’t coexist.

Because of stone cold reality in this fucked up world. That would create a two-tiered system where all the best doctors are serving all the people with money with all the best care, while the majority of people - those without all the money - are getting far inferior care from inferior doctors who are earning too little. It would just further the growing chasm between the rich and poor. That is about the most dangerous road a nation can go down IMO.

Private physicians take Medicare and Medicaid today. There are no federal doctors for those programs. The VA does have that and there are lots of problems.

If your Mother paid out of pocket for a medical procedure...then we have 2 tier healthcare...

And we have had two teir healthcare for a long time...and if dr.s were to leave the public sector, they would have it's called the US home and as I pointed out, where I live there is no dr. shortage and drs could easily work at state of the art hospitals in the US...not the 1950 hospitals that most of Canada have.

No, because a person without the money would have gotten the exact same care. They just would have had to wait a little longer. If they wouldn't medically afford to wait, then they would not have to wait, and would have still gotten the exact same care as my mom did.

So the less you make the more you wait for care? Seems fair.

FFS. No. Are you not paying attention to what I'm saying? When it actually matters, medically, NOBODY waits longer than anyone else. Skipping wait times for those who can afford it is never for care that is urgent. So yeah, people with money can pay through the nose if they are impatient, but that is not that big a deal in the scheme of things, considering what is available to EVERYONE, no matter how poor they may be. I did not claim it is a perfect system, ever. But I am saying it is a FAR better system than the USA's.

So if you make a lot you can skip wait lines (in an obvious non emergency situation) and it isn't a big deal? So let's say my eye appoint is next Tuesda,y I could possibly be bumped to the following week if someone with more money doesn't want to wait? Again, seems fair.

Spiritual_Chaos · June 2019

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Meltdown99 said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

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.

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.

I understand. But I'm not sure I understand why a public/private option cannot work. We essentially have that today for seniors and the very poor with medicare and medicaid. You can expand medicaid to higher income levels through Obamacare and broaden the subsidies into the middle class.

I m definitely not a fan of universal health care. I am not an expert in the health care industry but I don’t see why both type of insurances can’t coexist.

Because of stone cold reality in this fucked up world. That would create a two-tiered system where all the best doctors are serving all the people with money with all the best care, while the majority of people - those without all the money - are getting far inferior care from inferior doctors who are earning too little. It would just further the growing chasm between the rich and poor. That is about the most dangerous road a nation can go down IMO.

Private physicians take Medicare and Medicaid today. There are no federal doctors for those programs. The VA does have that and there are lots of problems.

If your Mother paid out of pocket for a medical procedure...then we have 2 tier healthcare...

And we have had two teir healthcare for a long time...and if dr.s were to leave the public sector, they would have it's called the US home and as I pointed out, where I live there is no dr. shortage and drs could easily work at state of the art hospitals in the US...not the 1950 hospitals that most of Canada have.

No, because a person without the money would have gotten the exact same care. They just would have had to wait a little longer. If they wouldn't medically afford to wait, then they would not have to wait, and would have still gotten the exact same care as my mom did.

So the less you make the more you wait for care? Seems fair.

Americans.

mcgruff10 · June 2019

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Meltdown99 said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

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.

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.

I understand. But I'm not sure I understand why a public/private option cannot work. We essentially have that today for seniors and the very poor with medicare and medicaid. You can expand medicaid to higher income levels through Obamacare and broaden the subsidies into the middle class.

I m definitely not a fan of universal health care. I am not an expert in the health care industry but I don’t see why both type of insurances can’t coexist.

Because of stone cold reality in this fucked up world. That would create a two-tiered system where all the best doctors are serving all the people with money with all the best care, while the majority of people - those without all the money - are getting far inferior care from inferior doctors who are earning too little. It would just further the growing chasm between the rich and poor. That is about the most dangerous road a nation can go down IMO.

Private physicians take Medicare and Medicaid today. There are no federal doctors for those programs. The VA does have that and there are lots of problems.

If your Mother paid out of pocket for a medical procedure...then we have 2 tier healthcare...

And we have had two teir healthcare for a long time...and if dr.s were to leave the public sector, they would have it's called the US home and as I pointed out, where I live there is no dr. shortage and drs could easily work at state of the art hospitals in the US...not the 1950 hospitals that most of Canada have.

No, because a person without the money would have gotten the exact same care. They just would have had to wait a little longer. If they wouldn't medically afford to wait, then they would not have to wait, and would have still gotten the exact same care as my mom did.

So the less you make the more you wait for care? Seems fair.

Americans.

What part did I get wrong? I am not versed with the Canadian health care system since ya know, I'm American.

PJ_Soul · June 2019

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Meltdown99 said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

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.

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.

I understand. But I'm not sure I understand why a public/private option cannot work. We essentially have that today for seniors and the very poor with medicare and medicaid. You can expand medicaid to higher income levels through Obamacare and broaden the subsidies into the middle class.

I m definitely not a fan of universal health care. I am not an expert in the health care industry but I don’t see why both type of insurances can’t coexist.

Because of stone cold reality in this fucked up world. That would create a two-tiered system where all the best doctors are serving all the people with money with all the best care, while the majority of people - those without all the money - are getting far inferior care from inferior doctors who are earning too little. It would just further the growing chasm between the rich and poor. That is about the most dangerous road a nation can go down IMO.

Private physicians take Medicare and Medicaid today. There are no federal doctors for those programs. The VA does have that and there are lots of problems.

If your Mother paid out of pocket for a medical procedure...then we have 2 tier healthcare...

And we have had two teir healthcare for a long time...and if dr.s were to leave the public sector, they would have it's called the US home and as I pointed out, where I live there is no dr. shortage and drs could easily work at state of the art hospitals in the US...not the 1950 hospitals that most of Canada have.

No, because a person without the money would have gotten the exact same care. They just would have had to wait a little longer. If they wouldn't medically afford to wait, then they would not have to wait, and would have still gotten the exact same care as my mom did.

So the less you make the more you wait for care? Seems fair.

FFS. No. Are you not paying attention to what I'm saying? When it actually matters, medically, NOBODY waits longer than anyone else. Skipping wait times for those who can afford it is never for care that is urgent. So yeah, people with money can pay through the nose if they are impatient, but that is not that big a deal in the scheme of things, considering what is available to EVERYONE, no matter how poor they may be. I did not claim it is a perfect system, ever. But I am saying it is a FAR better system than the USA's.

So if you make a lot you can skip wait lines (in an obvious non emergency situation) and it isn't a big deal? So let's say my eye appoint is next Tuesda,y I could possibly be bumped to the following week if someone with more money doesn't want to wait? Again, seems fair.

Nope. People can't pay their ways past people in line. That isn't how it works. They can pay their way into a private clinic that doesn't have anyone who doesn't pay out of pocket in line in the first place - they are operating in a complete separate little system (it's a very small one - most people are perfectly happy working within the public system), which wouldn't even exist if these people weren't paying for it out of pocket (in some cases these clinics actually do make room for people in the public system, and it's illegal to bump them because someone is paying to get ahead of them). And you just wait your turn at these private clinics. It's not like you can pay extra and jump their queue. Nobody is ever bumped by a rich person here. That is a ludicrous concept that wouldn't be tolerated in Canada. The only reason you get bumped down a waitlist is when someone is prioritized because of medical urgency only. I.e. if you need it but it's not urgent, and someone is going to die if they don't get it right away, then you could be bumped so they can save someone's life.

mickeyrat · June 2019

On Joe and his evolution on abortion, its important to note ge is a devout practicing catholic who holds that for him he personally is against it, but doesnt believe his belief should be imposed on anyone governmentally.

a stance many elected officials would do well to emulate.

Spiritual_Chaos · June 2019

WHY IS THIS QUOTING SHIT NOT BEING ABLE TO BE DELETED.

8 seconds of Biden humour right here:

https://vimeo.com/340549245

Meltdown99 · June 2019

PJ_Soul said:

Meltdown99 said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

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.

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.

I understand. But I'm not sure I understand why a public/private option cannot work. We essentially have that today for seniors and the very poor with medicare and medicaid. You can expand medicaid to higher income levels through Obamacare and broaden the subsidies into the middle class.

I m definitely not a fan of universal health care. I am not an expert in the health care industry but I don’t see why both type of insurances can’t coexist.

Because of stone cold reality in this fucked up world. That would create a two-tiered system where all the best doctors are serving all the people with money with all the best care, while the majority of people - those without all the money - are getting far inferior care from inferior doctors who are earning too little. It would just further the growing chasm between the rich and poor. That is about the most dangerous road a nation can go down IMO.

Private physicians take Medicare and Medicaid today. There are no federal doctors for those programs. The VA does have that and there are lots of problems.

If your Mother paid out of pocket for a medical procedure...then we have 2 tier healthcare...

And we have had two teir healthcare for a long time...and if dr.s were to leave the public sector, they would have it's called the US home and as I pointed out, where I live there is no dr. shortage and drs could easily work at state of the art hospitals in the US...not the 1950 hospitals that most of Canada have.

No, because a person without the money would have gotten the exact same care. They just would have had to wait a little longer. If they wouldn't medically afford to wait, then they would not have to wait, and would have still gotten the exact same care as my mom did. That is obviously NOT the kind of distinctions I was talking about at all. I'm talking about good healthcare for the rich, and shit healthcare for the poor. That is not the case in Canada.

If you have the option of paying for a medical procedure, instead of waiting in line ... that is 2 teir healthcare.

The Democratic Candidates

Comments

Categories