Kamala Harris Denies Govt-Run Single Payer is 'Socialism'

[JoeB131]

Sure it. It socializes health insurance, putting it under control of government.

But let's grant you your conceit. Let's say it isn't, according to your definition, "socialism". It doesn't change a single thing about why I don't like it. It's still giving government way too much power. It's still putting Donald Trump in charge of my family's health insurance and that's something I'll fight hard to avoid.

Dammit, DBlack wants a big corporation to decide whether he lives or dies because that's "Freedom". The Koch Brothers said so...

 

[Winston]

It’s the textbook definition of socialism

What textbook are you reading ?

Having a safety net for those who can’t get private health insurance is not socialism.

The government owning the means and production of a good or service is. The reason for it is irrelevant.

So what hospitals are government owned and manned with government employed doctors.

Th

It’s the textbook definition of socialism

What textbook are you reading ?

Having a safety net for those who can’t get private health insurance is not socialism.

The government owning the means and production of a good or service is. The reason for it is irrelevant.

So what hospitals are government owned and manned with government employed doctors.

VA hospitals

 

[McRocket]

Stop wasting my time with a link to a search engine result. What nonsense.

Show me a link to actual lists of critical care hospitals that are fully private in Ontario? Not clinics or hospitals that really are clinics or 'hospitals' that only handle physio or cosmetic surgeries (which are privately legal in Ontario to charge whatever they wish).
CRITICAL CARE HOSPITALS.

I showed you links that prove I am right. All you show me is a link to a search engine result.

And save your blather about what people tell you. I do not care.

If you have not actually been shot or spent time in jail or raced winged, open-wheel cars (two of these I have done) - you cannot know what these things are like...no matter how many people tell you about it. The same goes with the Canadian Healthcare system. Unless you have experienced it FIRST HAND...you have no idea what you are talking about.

Either post links to direct and unbiased facts or stop wasting my time.

Profit or Non-Profit: Are Hospitals Selling Out? | Canadian Women's Health Network

Most of Canada's approximately 850 hospitals are owned and operated by non-profit, voluntary organizations. Hospitals receive the largest block of provincial health funding, approximately 34% compared to 15% for physician services. ... Since most hospitals are not government-owned, they cannot be "privatized".

One - your link is from 1998?!? It's 20 years old.

Two - there are a hell of a lot more than 850 hospitals in Canada
Number hospitals Canada by province 2016 | Statistic

Three - from your (old) link...'Although almost all Canadians believe hospitals are publicly owned and accountable institutions, under provincial legislation 95% operate on a non-profit basis. Most of Canada's approximately 850 hospitals are owned and operated by non-profit, voluntary organizations.'

Yes...they operate as 'non-profit'. If I said they were owned/run by the government, I was mistaken. But that is irrelevant. Who built them? Overwhelmingly is is taxpayer money or donations. You think a corporation is going to built a huge hospital and than run it non-profitly? Suuuuure.

The government funds most of them and then a non-profit group runs them.

But that is NOT for profit...which is my ENTIRE POINT.

Profits mean competition (and better customer service). Competition means lower prices.

That is economics 101.

And it is what the Canadian Healthcare System does NOT have and that is why it sucks (in many ways - some ways it is fine).

So post where this has changed over the past 20 years.

Most of the hospitals/ facilities here are owned by Summit Health. A non profit.


Not government owned.

And I said, if I said they were government owned, I was mistaken. But I guarantee you that almost all of the funds to build EVERY Canadian hospital came from either taxpayers or charities. Corporations ain't gonna spend billions on a hospital that makes them ZERO profit.

But it is IRRELEVANT to my point.

The point is are they run FOR A PROFIT.

Your own link shows that they are NON PROFIT.

They are run so that the facility may be non profit overall. That does not mean thy can't make a profit. It depends a lot on what they do with those profits.

HUH? It means EXACTLY that.

'Nonprofit corporations differ from profit-driven corporations in several respects. The most basic difference is that nonprofit corporations cannot operate for profit. That is, they cannot distribute corporate income to shareholders. The funds acquired by nonprofit corporations must stay within the corporate accounts to pay for reasonable salaries, expenses, and the activitiesof the corporation. If the income of a corporation inures to the personal benefit of any individual, the corporation is consideredto be profit driven. Salaries are not considered personal benefits because they are necessary for the operation of thecorporation. An excessive salary, however, may cause a corporation to lose its nonprofit status.'

nonprofit

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

1. There was a wall before Trump, so Democrats loved the wall until Trump was for building more of it.

2. Name a Socialist Nation that does not suffer from High Taxes on it society?

3. In your socialist nation you will tax the rich to pay the poor but when there is no more rich who pays for your programs?

1) Show me where there is a 40' concrete wall that is not in a congested area.You people really need to turn off Fox News &Rush Limbaugh & get better informed. This ia not about border barriers. This is about a 40' concrete wall.

2) High taxes, high benefits. Like single payer that would reduce the amount people spent on healthcare

3) No one is wanting a socialist nation so shove your fake argument up your ass. But hey, you want to hand the wealthy tax breaks & make the poor pay for them.

Why are you freaking out about this? It's just a chat...yet you are treating it like it's war.


And his last point is a good one, IMO...most of the progressive ideas - guaranteed income, guaranteed jobs, free college for everyone - will cost SHIT loads of money.

And not one of them has given the slightest example of how to pay for them except Ocasio-Cortez's lame 'get the Fed to pay for it' (funding pipe dreams is NOTHING to do with the Fed).
A guaranteed income alone will add trillions to the deficit...trillions.

And before you start screaming 'no progressive asked for that'...Ocasio-Cortez did.

What’s a universal basic income doing in Ocasio-Cortez’s “Green New Deal”?

So tell us, please...how EXACTLY are progressives going to pay for a guaranteed income?

We basically have something similar to guaranteed basic income in the food stamps, rent assistance, TANF, etc. What s the value of all of those services. There is a lot of theory that says a basic income would encourage more to get jobs. It could be cheaper than what we do now.

The cost of offering a free community college/community trade school based education would not be that expensive.

Don't think all colleges will be free. Its not like you go to Harvard & the government pays for it.

I am sick & tied of all the lies & distortions on the NGD. They put "green" in the title & the right freaks out.

A lot of the GD makes obvious sense.

All that can be done on the State level and does not need the Federal Government to do it.

You know this, so why is your state refusing to tax accordingly to your state population?

Also you stated Free schooling while admitting it is never free and the taxpayer will flip the bill.

I am all for JTPA's that will put Americans to work and know the cost for the education versus the amount of taxes collected is well worth it, but again this can be implemented on the State level.

So tell me why do you need the Federal Government to do the State Job?

Because all States may not do it???????

So you believe All States must comply to the will of other States?

Sorry, but I disagree.

The Federal Government should not be in the business of telling the State of Texas that it must be like California and have all the same laws because if that is the case why do we even have States and not just one big Federal System?

Of course you might prefer the big Federal System over State to State system because you believe States and their voting population do not have any right to govern themselves and accept or deny social programs.

Also Dave you were corrected about politicians wanting a Socialist Nation because Sanders and Cortez are for it and it is not Fox News just spinning it but their own exact words.

Finally, here in the United States of America you can have your State pass the laws to support your Socialist Society but when you fail you try to go National and try to force the Federal Government to do what the State should do while punishing other States that do not want your Socialism.

So if you can not get your programs at the local and State level then please do not ask the Federal Government for it but instead elect leaders in your State that will do the will of the people...

 

[Winston]

So what hospitals are government owned and manned with government employed doctors.

Hospitals, Doctors, and Insurance Companies are protected by the Govt.

Case in point:
My mother had a back operation. A company sent 2 of their doctors to assist my mother's doctor during the operation, which she knew nothing about. The doc worked on her for 10 minutes - the other 2 worked on her for about 2 hours. They put an experimental part in her - not approved by the govt. It broke, her body rejected it, and she is now in excruciating pain.

SC Politicians passed a law to limit the amount of money someone can sue for now, believing lumping everyone in the same category would limit frivolous law suits and save on health care costs. This law has completely F*ed my mom over.

Every lawyer she has talked to has told her she could not have a better case is she tried...but no one will take the case because the limit for which you can sue has been lowered so much that they all say it would not be worth their while financially to take the case.
-- The Medical Device Company would fight it, and they would pump a butt-load of money into stalling, delaying, fighting, etc...

ALSO, the law firms told her that basically 1 insurance company covers almost all the doctors in SC for mal-practice and that no doctor will help her in her case because this Insurance company has threatened the doctors who think about helping in cases like this by telling them if they help in a law suit they may lose their own coverage. Again, My mother is screwed.

The government passes a law handcuffing law firms, the insurance company threatens doctors into inaction, and the actual legitimate patients who have legitimate law suits get screwed. My mom's life is forever changed for the worse, always in pain, and there is nothing she can do, no one will help hold them accountable.

So Screw your govt-run health care system. It will be just like my mom's case, only worse.

It was Republicans in South Carolina that supported tort reform.

 

[beagle9]

'socialism
noun
so·cial·ism | \ ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm \
Definition of socialism

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods'

Definition of SOCIALISM

As Don't Taz Me Bro rightly said...single payer healthcare is THE VERY definition of socialism.

It is clear that progressives generally appear to be in DEEP denial about the actual definition of socialism.

So, what does the government own? Medicare does not manage patient care, where to getg care, how the care is given. It just pays the bill under a set of rules.

Medicare is NOT socialism.

The subject is single payer...not medicare.

With Medicare, you have a choice. With Single payer, you do not.

Under Single Payer (like in the UK), every, single doctor is a government employee. So every, single surgery performed is 'owned' by the government as they 'own' the hospital, all the equipment and employee all the nurses, doctors, specialists, staff, paper pushers...everyone. They decide the costs, charges, who pays and when.
And since virtually no other private healthcare is allowed, that means the government has a complete monopoly on almost all medical treatments.

Of course it is socialism.

Just had a thought.... Should we be comparing government to government when discussing the issue here ?

Where ever else these things are going on the in the world, and because of the type governments they have, it could be that the quality of their system is far greater than that which it would be if our government were to try such a thing because of the differences in their people correct ?

Otherwise the government's are made up of the people, and of the cultures that exist within a country, and if the people are of a lot higher caliber than maybe elsewhere in the world, would that not reflect positively in everything they might do ??????

So is it that we as a people are very unsatisfied with what has gone on in this country, and are very skeptical of anything working because we have been drifting downward towards a 3rd world status, and towards a very bad government for quite sometime now ???

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

'socialism
noun
so·cial·ism | \ ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm \
Definition of socialism

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods'

Definition of SOCIALISM

As Don't Taz Me Bro rightly said...single payer healthcare is THE VERY definition of socialism.

It is clear that progressives generally appear to be in DEEP denial about the actual definition of socialism.

So, what does the government own? Medicare does not manage patient care, where to getg care, how the care is given. It just pays the bill under a set of rules.

Medicare is NOT socialism.

The subject is single payer...not medicare.

With Medicare, you have a choice. With Single payer, you do not.

Under Single Payer (like in the UK), every, single doctor is a government employee. So every, single surgery performed is 'owned' by the government as they 'own' the hospital, all the equipment and employee all the nurses, doctors, specialists, staff, paper pushers...everyone. They decide the costs, charges, who pays and when.
And since virtually no other private healthcare is allowed, that means the government has a complete monopoly on almost all medical treatments.

Of course it is socialism.

Just had a thought.... Should we be comparing government to government when discussing the issue here ?

Where ever else these things are going on the in the world, and because of the type governments they have, it could be that the quality of their system is far greater than that which it would be if our government were to try such a thing because of the differences in their people correct ?

Otherwise the government's are made up of the people, and of the cultures that exist within a country, and if the people are of a lot higher caliber than maybe elsewhere in the world, would that not reflect positively in everything they might do ??????

So is it that we as a people are very unsatisfied with what has gone on in this country, and are very skeptical of anything working because we have been drifting downward towards a 3rd world status, and towards a very bad government for quite sometime now ???

The reality is majority of whites do not want to support other whites unless from the same society.

You have Catholics and you will get then to support each other in their community but Irish do not want to support Italian Catholics.

Now of you have that issue how can you expect whites to do Socialism with Blacks, Hispanics or Asians?

So you are correct because it works in Norway does not mean it will work here and a good example to point to is the former Soviet Union or Yugoslavia and how if given a choice Serbs did not want to support Croatians or Ukrainians not wanting to support Russians....

 

[dblack]

Sure it. It socializes health insurance, putting it under control of government.

But let's grant you your conceit. Let's say it isn't, according to your definition, "socialism". It doesn't change a single thing about why I don't like it. It's still giving government way too much power. It's still putting Donald Trump in charge of my family's health insurance and that's something I'll fight hard to avoid.

Dammit, DBlack wants a big corporation to decide whether he lives or dies because that's "Freedom". The Koch Brothers said so...

And you want Trump's cock up your ass. Go figure.

Believe it or not, Joe, we don't have to subjugate ourselves. Life is not a choice between enslaving ourselves to corporations or the government.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Before Obamacare, they had the power to let you die , even if you did buy the product. Remember?

What are you talking about?? We all have the power to let people die. We do it every day.

I'm talking about Annual and lifetime caps on coverage, and denial of coverage for pre existing conditions. Now, What are YOU talking about?!

How is that "letting" people die? As long as they are clear about the terms up front, how is that cheating anyone in any way?

How is it not letting people die? They may know what the policy says, but they don't know how sick they will get , or don't believe that they will. Then it happens and the (real) death panels issue a death sentence.

No, they follow the letter of the insurance policy. Insurance won't work if they don't do that. They're no more responsible for "letting" someone die that any of us.

Interesting how you, on one hand say that you don't trust the insurance execs and at the same time, your an apologist for them and deny that they put profits over people.

 

[dblack]

What are you talking about?? We all have the power to let people die. We do it every day.

I'm talking about Annual and lifetime caps on coverage, and denial of coverage for pre existing conditions. Now, What are YOU talking about?!

How is that "letting" people die? As long as they are clear about the terms up front, how is that cheating anyone in any way?

How is it not letting people die? They may know what the policy says, but they don't know how sick they will get , or don't believe that they will. Then it happens and the (real) death panels issue a death sentence.

No, they follow the letter of the insurance policy. Insurance won't work if they don't do that. They're no more responsible for "letting" someone die that any of us.

Interesting how you, on one hand say that you don't trust the insurance execs and at the same time, your an apologist for them and deny that they put profits over people.

I'm doing neither. I'm not an apologist for the insurance companies, and I'm not denying they put "profits over people". I'm explaining to you how insurance works. It's not a charity. It's not socialism. It's not your caretaker. Asking insurance companies to fill those roles is dumb.

 

[Andylusion]

LOL - I hear you already. Like I said. Call it whatever you want. I oppose it for what it is, not the label attached to it.

So you want a health insurance company's CEO to be in charge of your healthcare.

I'm always baffled that you think this is an argument.

"So you want a politician, and their political lobbying groups, to be in charge of your healthcare?"

The difference between my statement, and your statement, is that mine is actually accurate, while yours is mythology.

I have been to a doctor when I didn't have insurance. I've been to a hospital without insurance.

Both times, I got something called a "bill". I then paid the "bill".

What insurance CEO has control over my health care?

That isn't a valid complaint. People who have insurance, choose to have insurance, because they value the service provided by the insurance company. You don't have to have insurance. You can choose to not have insurance, and just pay the bill yourself.

And quite frankly, if you think government politicians are going to take care of you... you are crazy.

AOC has been caught funneling money to her lover, through corrupt transactions. You think she is going to take care of you?

Reminds me of the MP up in Canada, getting cancer, and flying to the US for care, on tax payer dollars. She's taking care of herself... not the public. While people are dying on 3 year long waiting lists in Canada, she's using their tax dollars to fly to the US to get good care.

Or Castro in Cuba, not using the garbage Cuban health care system, but hiring a private doctor, and flying him and his medical equipment, to personally service Castro alone... while the average Cuban can't even get Aspirin.

You people seem completely detached from reality. You live in this mythical fairy land, where elitist in Washington, who have never worked a full days wage in their life... are going to take care of you?

Please.... if I have to choose, I'll take a CEO who has provided a service to millions of people, over a 1970s socialist mummy who was kicked out of his own commune, because he was too lazy.

Absolutely, I'll take the CEO. You can have your VA Hospital waiting list, and pray the politicians fix your life. We'll see who ends up better off.

Why the Mayo Clinic is refusing to see Medicare patients

I'll go to the Mayo clinic, and get top quality care. You can go to your medicare approved doctor, and we'll see who is better off.

One of my co-workers needed hand surgery, didn't want to pay for it, went through the government, and that doctor screwed up her hand so badly, she never came back to work.

My father who is a career painter and water color artist, had the same surgery though a private doctor, and it was expensive, and now he can paint again.

Yeah, let's see who ends up better off.

VA: Secret waiting list delayed care for 87 veterans in 2017


Good luck with that.

The VA hospitals were government run. Under single payer hospitals are private run.

Got any other stupid excuse?

Medicare is more efficient that insurance companies.

No they are not. You have NO IDEA what you are talking about.

Canada has virtually no private hospitals.

Ontario - by far the most populated province - has over 13 million people and 492 hospitals. Only two are private...and they are very small at that and are public/private.

Number hospitals Canada by province 2016 | Statistic
Centric Health: One of Ontario's Two Public Private Hospitals | Beaches|Life magazine

No you are not correct.

list of private hospitals in canada - Bing

Both of you are not correct.

Originally under the Canadian single-payer system, private hospitals were illegal. Every single hospital, and every single doctor, was under the control of the government. The health care system sucked so badly, that the people of Canada sued their own government for the right to have private health care.

So yes, there are now private hospitals, and private doctors, who take money from the public in exchange for health care.

Which defeats the biggest whine and cry of left-wingers here, which is that the rich get better care than the poor. Well in Canada, the rich get better care than the poor. The rich pay for health care and get it, while the poor suffer and die on waiting lists.

However, Dana is correct to a minor extent. There are in fact a few private hospitals that take government patients.

The problem there is, the government dictate how much the hospital is compensated for treating those patients. As a result the quality of care at private hospitals that treat government-patients, is not much better than the government run hospitals.

The benefits of competition and free-market capitalism, only exist when it is actually competitive and free-market. If the government dictates how it works.... then it doesn't work.

If government controls every aspect of how something works.... just merely putting on paper that it is a privately run business, doesn't change anything.

This is why dogs in Canada get better care than people.

https://www.amazon.com/Lucky-Dog-Being-Veterinarian-Saved/dp/1770893512&tag=ff0d01-20

Animal health care is in fact a free-market capitalist system in Canada. As a result, a Dog can get an MRI in hours, while a human could wait 6 months. A Dog can get surgery in days, where a human could wait 3 years.

The cost for treating a dog, has gone down from competition, where as the cost of to treat a human has drastically gone up. (increased more by being forced to fly out of the country for care).

 

[beagle9]

I'm talking about Annual and lifetime caps on coverage, and denial of coverage for pre existing conditions. Now, What are YOU talking about?!

How is that "letting" people die? As long as they are clear about the terms up front, how is that cheating anyone in any way?

How is it not letting people die? They may know what the policy says, but they don't know how sick they will get , or don't believe that they will. Then it happens and the (real) death panels issue a death sentence.

No, they follow the letter of the insurance policy. Insurance won't work if they don't do that. They're no more responsible for "letting" someone die that any of us.

Interesting how you, on one hand say that you don't trust the insurance execs and at the same time, your an apologist for them and deny that they put profits over people.

I'm doing neither. I'm not an apologist for the insurance companies, and I'm not denying they put "profits over people". I'm explaining to you how insurance works. It's not a charity. It's not socialism. It's not your caretaker. Asking insurance companies to fill those roles is dumb.

Hmmm, don't insurance companies practice the very concept of socialism within it's program offered ??? Otherwise a pool or pools are created, and in these pools everyone is gathered together in order to take care of each other by way of the insurance staff managing the pool for it's customers.. Otherwise, (the healthiest then paying into the pool takes care of the sick who are placed into the pool as well right) ????

You know socialism may not exist in everything, but it sure does exist in this country, and it is found in operation in government, in companies, and in corporations through in and through out.

It's just that if it becomes an unhealthy dosage as with any drug, then it kills it's host or causes an eventual self destruct mode or countdown to begin.

 

[basquebromance]

"Kamala Harris proposes a $500 monthly tax credit for families making less than $100,000"

 

[Andylusion]

"Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) on Tuesday defended her support for “Medicare for all,” saying it is not a socialist idea.

"No, no. It’s about providing health care to all people," Harris said"



Kamala Harris is embarrassing herself while proving although she cal lie her ass off about Democrat Health Care BS she is still no Barak Obama...




Harris: 'Medicare for all' is not socialism

.

Republicans don't hate all socialism.

See what I mean?

1. There was a wall before Trump, so Democrats loved the wall until Trump was for building more of it.

2. Name a Socialist Nation that does not suffer from High Taxes on it society?

3. In your socialist nation you will tax the rich to pay the poor but when there is no more rich who pays for your programs?

1) Show me where there is a 40' concrete wall that is not in a congested area.You people really need to turn off Fox News &Rush Limbaugh & get better informed. This ia not about border barriers. This is about a 40' concrete wall.

2) High taxes, high benefits. Like single payer that would reduce the amount people spent on healthcare

3) No one is wanting a socialist nation so shove your fake argument up your ass. But hey, you want to hand the wealthy tax breaks & make the poor pay for them.

FYI:

I believe the whole wall idea is beyond retarded. Just enforce the laws on the books and revamp the Visa system.

So now is that something that Fox News would promote?

Of course not!

Because it has not worked.

When you kick people out, and they turn right around and walk back across the border, then we arrest them, we don't have a place for them.... they are forced to be released, and we end up separating kids from their parents and everyone screams...

Plan A isn't working. That's all there is to it. Plan A is a fail.

So we need plan B. Plan B is, we make it so they can't just walk back across the border, and then we enforce the law.

I think this will work.

All that crying over people being packed into ICE holding cells, isn't because people were funneling through a port of entry. Because we don't arrest people for applying for asylum at a port of entry.

The reason the ICE holding cells were over crowded, is because people are crossing illegally and getting arrested.

So a wall is important, and useful.

The real sad part about this, is that if we simply eliminated the welfare system, we wouldn't need to bother with any of this.

If we eliminated school lunch, and simply told people they need to provide food for their own kids... and eliminated medicaid, and told people to provide for their own health care, and eliminated free education, and told people they had to educated their kids themselves....

We could allow unlimited immigration. All these people could come here, and work, and provide for their own needs.

But because we have all these programs, the government simply can't afford to pay for everyone's everything, because their simply isn't money for that.

Why do you think all the countries in Europe have clamped down on immigration? Because they have more government funded stuff than we do, and immigration was killing them.

 

[basquebromance]

there are officially more women seeking the Democratic nomination than men..

Who Are the Women Running for President in 2020? Meet the Female Candidates Vying for the Oval Office

 

[dblack]

How is that "letting" people die? As long as they are clear about the terms up front, how is that cheating anyone in any way?

How is it not letting people die? They may know what the policy says, but they don't know how sick they will get , or don't believe that they will. Then it happens and the (real) death panels issue a death sentence.

No, they follow the letter of the insurance policy. Insurance won't work if they don't do that. They're no more responsible for "letting" someone die that any of us.

Interesting how you, on one hand say that you don't trust the insurance execs and at the same time, your an apologist for them and deny that they put profits over people.

I'm doing neither. I'm not an apologist for the insurance companies, and I'm not denying they put "profits over people". I'm explaining to you how insurance works. It's not a charity. It's not socialism. It's not your caretaker. Asking insurance companies to fill those roles is dumb.

Hmmm, don't insurance companies practice the very concept of socialism within it's program offered ???

No. Socialism is a form of government.

 

[Andylusion]

How is that "letting" people die? As long as they are clear about the terms up front, how is that cheating anyone in any way?

How is it not letting people die? They may know what the policy says, but they don't know how sick they will get , or don't believe that they will. Then it happens and the (real) death panels issue a death sentence.

No, they follow the letter of the insurance policy. Insurance won't work if they don't do that. They're no more responsible for "letting" someone die that any of us.

Interesting how you, on one hand say that you don't trust the insurance execs and at the same time, your an apologist for them and deny that they put profits over people.

I'm doing neither. I'm not an apologist for the insurance companies, and I'm not denying they put "profits over people". I'm explaining to you how insurance works. It's not a charity. It's not socialism. It's not your caretaker. Asking insurance companies to fill those roles is dumb.

Hmmm, don't insurance companies practice the very concept of socialism within it's program offered ??? Otherwise a pool or pools are created, and in these pools everyone is gathered together in order to take care of each other by way of the insurance staff managing the pool for it's customers.. Otherwise, (the healthiest then paying into the pool takes care of the sick who are placed into the pool as well right) ????

You know socialism may not exist in everything, but it sure does exist in this country, and it is found in operation in government, in companies, and in corporations through in and through out.

It's just that if it becomes an unhealthy dosage as with any drug, then it kills it's host or causes an eventual self destruct mode or countdown to begin.

That a backward way of looking at it. Insurance pools are not created with the idea of health people paying for the unhealthy.

Insurance pools, look at the probable risk, and compare that risk to possible loss, and then charge a relative premium to offset that risk.

It has nothing to do with socialism. It is a free-market voluntary exchange, where a company charges premiums, to take on the burden of the risk.

Moreover, your comparison would only apply to specifically company insurance policies, which only exist because the government created such a system.

In a free market insurance system, no 'pool' exists. For example, I have private insurance right now. There is no 'pool' that I am in. I simply have a policy that covers just me.

Which is the way it should be. Everyone should have private non-employer provided insurance.

 

[Andylusion]

there are officially more women seeking the Democratic nomination than men..

Who Are the Women Running for President in 2020? Meet the Female Candidates Vying for the Oval Office

That doesn't surprise me, given half of Democrap men, are spineless cowards, and the other half think they can just self-identify as women anyway.

 

[danielpalos]

"Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) on Tuesday defended her support for “Medicare for all,” saying it is not a socialist idea.

"No, no. It’s about providing health care to all people," Harris said"



Kamala Harris is embarrassing herself while proving although she cal lie her ass off about Democrat Health Care BS she is still no Barak Obama...




Harris: 'Medicare for all' is not socialism

.

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage would enable more market participation.

 

[dblack]

How is it not letting people die? They may know what the policy says, but they don't know how sick they will get , or don't believe that they will. Then it happens and the (real) death panels issue a death sentence.

No, they follow the letter of the insurance policy. Insurance won't work if they don't do that. They're no more responsible for "letting" someone die that any of us.

Interesting how you, on one hand say that you don't trust the insurance execs and at the same time, your an apologist for them and deny that they put profits over people.

I'm doing neither. I'm not an apologist for the insurance companies, and I'm not denying they put "profits over people". I'm explaining to you how insurance works. It's not a charity. It's not socialism. It's not your caretaker. Asking insurance companies to fill those roles is dumb.

Hmmm, don't insurance companies practice the very concept of socialism within it's program offered ??? Otherwise a pool or pools are created, and in these pools everyone is gathered together in order to take care of each other by way of the insurance staff managing the pool for it's customers.. Otherwise, (the healthiest then paying into the pool takes care of the sick who are placed into the pool as well right) ????

You know socialism may not exist in everything, but it sure does exist in this country, and it is found in operation in government, in companies, and in corporations through in and through out.

It's just that if it becomes an unhealthy dosage as with any drug, then it kills it's host or causes an eventual self destruct mode or countdown to begin.

That a backward way of looking at it. Insurance pools are not created with the idea of health people paying for the unhealthy.

Insurance pools, look at the probable risk, and compare that risk to possible loss, and then charge a relative premium to offset that risk.

It has nothing to do with socialism. It is a free-market voluntary exchange, where a company charges premiums, to take on the burden of the risk.

Moreover, your comparison would only apply to specifically company insurance policies, which only exist because the government created such a system.

In a free market insurance system, no 'pool' exists. For example, I have private insurance right now. There is no 'pool' that I am in. I simply have a policy that covers just me.

Which is the way it should be. Everyone should have private non-employer provided insurance.

Exactly. Employer-provided, group insurance was a mistake. It was supported by progressives because it was seen as an inroad to socializing health care nationally.