Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
There's nothing necessary about it. You've watched too many insurance company ads.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.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.
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.
I don't expect it to be charitable. More of a necessary evil.
That's just group insurance. Which isn't insurance at all. It's employer-provided health care.I know how insurance works. First of all you have to have a large enough pool of ...
So tell us, what is your solution for the health care system?
Leave people alone and let them deal with their own health care issues however they see fit.
he likes to troll around.There's nothing necessary about it. You've watched too many insurance company ads.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.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.
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.
I don't expect it to be charitable. More of a necessary evil.
That's just group insurance. Which isn't insurance at all. It's employer-provided health care.I know how insurance works. First of all you have to have a large enough pool of ...
So tell us, what is your solution for the health care system?
Leave people alone and let them deal with their own health care issues however they see fit.
"That's just group insurance. Which isn't insurance at all. It's employer-provided health care."
Were you able type this with a straight face?
Here, let me help.
Which isn't insurance at all. It's employer-provided health insurance.
he likes to troll around.There's nothing necessary about it. You've watched too many insurance company ads.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.
I don't expect it to be charitable. More of a necessary evil.
That's just group insurance. Which isn't insurance at all. It's employer-provided health care.I know how insurance works. First of all you have to have a large enough pool of ...
So tell us, what is your solution for the health care system?
Leave people alone and let them deal with their own health care issues however they see fit.
"That's just group insurance. Which isn't insurance at all. It's employer-provided health care."
Were you able type this with a straight face?
Here, let me help.
Which isn't insurance at all. It's employer-provided health insurance.
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
A link to a group of search engine results? What lazy ass nonsense.
Post a link that shows the ACTUAL names of hospitals...not clinics or cosmetic surgery 'hospitals' or physio 'hospitals'. But full blown hospitals that do operations like bypass surgeries and the like.
I posted two links that proves there are only two private PROPER HOSPITALS in Ontario.
BTW - two of Toronto's 'private hospitals' (like Mount Sinai) are part of the University of Toronto....which is a public research university. In other words - it AIN'T private. So the hospitals are not private.
Mount Sinai Hospital (Toronto) - Wikipedia
Besides, what would be the point of them? BY LAW, they cannot charge people for critical care more than the government does...so what would be the point? So why would they bother? They certainly cannot make huge profits like some American hospitals can.
All I know is that 90% of Canadians and Brits love their plans.
But what do they know over American rubes who have never lived anywhere?
Do you have a link to these numbers?
The problem Andy, is that you have people looking at this thing from a poor perspective verses a well perspective, and thus the two shall never meet.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
A link to a group of search engine results? What lazy ass nonsense.
Post a link that shows the ACTUAL names of hospitals...not clinics or cosmetic surgery 'hospitals' or physio 'hospitals'. But full blown hospitals that do operations like bypass surgeries and the like.
I posted two links that proves there are only two private PROPER HOSPITALS in Ontario.
BTW - two of Toronto's 'private hospitals' (like Mount Sinai) are part of the University of Toronto....which is a public research university. In other words - it AIN'T private. So the hospitals are not private.
Mount Sinai Hospital (Toronto) - Wikipedia
Besides, what would be the point of them? BY LAW, they cannot charge people for critical care more than the government does...so what would be the point? So why would they bother? They certainly cannot make huge profits like some American hospitals can.
All I know is that 90% of Canadians and Brits love their plans.
But what do they know over American rubes who have never lived anywhere?
Funny because I know a Canadian who moved to the US from Canada, because he wife was getting such terrible care there, that he was tired of seeing her abused.
Oddly, when you are paying bill, people treat you better, over where the government is paying the bill, and no matter how badly they treat you, they know they'll get paid. If a private doctor treats me badly, I don't go there again, and the doctor loses money. If a government doctor treats you badly, and you leave.... nothing happens. He's paid by the government.
That said, most people in Canada, don't know how much better the care is here.
A reporter was talking with a Canadian patient who had waited 3 years in pain, because she needed knee surgery, the waiting list was all she got. The reporter mentioned that to see a specialist and get knee surgery in the US was under a month, and the woman simply didn't believe it. She just assumed that multi-year waiting lists was the norm everywhere.
When you don't know how badly your system sucks, yeah, you tend to think it's great because at least you are not paying money for it.
Same with France. In France, nearly half the medications we have here in the US, are simply not available. So a French person likely thinks they are getting the best care, at no cost... simply because they don't know what care is available in a capitalist system where you pay for it.
Pretty easy to think you are getting great care, when you don't know there is a drug out there that does the same thing that yours does, only without making you sick and vomiting. If you don't know there is something better, pretty easy to say your system is great.
Here, Look at it from this lady, who lived in the US, and moved to the UK.
A tale of 2 sickbeds: Health care in U.K. vs. U.S.
She admits, it's great to not have any expenses.... Although she loses 9% of her income straight to the Health Tax.... of course that's actually a lie, because if you actually look up the numbers, a large chunk of the regular income tax, also goes to health care in the UK, so 9% is a lie. It's likely up near 15% or 20%.
But her experience shows that she hated the UK health care over the US health care. Having nurses that didn't give a crap. Being stuck in a hallway, because no beds were available. Being largely ignored otherwise. People laying in their own poop for hours. Having a woman crying for help, for almost an hour, while nurses run by ignoring them. And a doctor that showed up, at most, once in a day, and otherwise good luck seeing one.
I, myself, had a similar experience with a publicly funded clinic here in Columbus Ohio. I was sent there (thank the Lord), only to get a drug test for employment. I walked in to a room with no A/C in august, find myself sitting on a broken chair, with an actual CRT 12" TV in the corner that had such bad reception, that you couldn't hear what the people on it were saying. Just fuzz. The nurse was incredibly rude, and got angry with me for asking a question. The lobby that was smaller than a city bus, was packed with about 15 people.
I waited, and waited for over 1.5 hours. Finally yet another angry nurse demanded I come in. I finished the drug test, and started to leave, only to realize that not a single person in the room had been called in that time. 1.5 hours, the crying kids were still cry. The clearly in pain people, were still propped up on chairs. The worried looking mothers, were still sitting there stroking their children. Not one person had been seen, since I had entered over 1.5 hours ago.
I can't help but compare this to my experience with a private doctors. The nurse smiled, and asked me if I needed anything while I waited. I was seen 15 minutes later, and the nurse greeted me with a smile, and asked if I was comfortable. And other people had been seen, in that short 15 minutes I was there. Not people sitting there for hours while ignored. The lobby was clean, and the chairs were new, and the TV was a large flat screen. The doctor was friendly, and listened to all my issues. I was asked where would be best for me, to get a prescription.
Yeah, it cost money. Yes people make profit from it. But it is vastly better care, and better service. Just like the lady who went to the UK.
And all those people in the UK, likely think their health care is great. But that is because they have never used our system, where they are treated like real people, and are given prompt care.
When you don't know how much better our system is, you think yours is great.
When you are a mindless fool, who only listens to the media and political activists, all you know is "US care costs too much! UK care is free!".... if that is the limit to your understanding of the differences between the two systems, then yes it is easy to think government-care is great, and capitalist care is crap.
But when you look at survival rates. When you look at the quality of the care. When you look at how people are treated, and the wait times, and the dehumanizing nature of the system....
No, our system is way better. By far.
Great points made.I don't think so. If you have individual insurance, you're part of an insurance pool. Some of your premiums will go to cover others making claims and some will go to profit.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) ????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.
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.
No, it's not a pool.
Now does the company, maybe take money from me to pay claims of others?
Well sure. That's called "insurance". If you have car insurance, and your neighbor wrecks his car, and you don't.... some of your car insurance premiums might go to your neighbors car repair.
Similarly, if we both have life insurance, and my neighbor dies, some of my life insurance premiums could go to his widow.
So what? That isn't socialism... because he paid for that service, just like I paid for that service. It's not to each according to their need. My neighbor is any engineer that makes a 6-figure income, and I make $25K. Yet if we have similar cars and similar driving history, our premiums will be similar. Equally if he crashes and I don't, he'll get money according to policy, and I won't.
Just like life insurance. His widow could be filthy rich, but if he dies and I don't, she gets the money, and I don't.
And the fact is, every business could be looked at the same way. If you buy a car, and your neighbor buys a car.... it is highly likely that some of the money you spent, was used to make your neighbors cars. How do you think they built your neighbors car? You think they built it with your neighbors money? Because they didn't have his money, until he bought the completely car. So the money they used to build that car... came from you.
So it must be socialism! No it is not.
And lastly, you say profit like that is bad. I profit from working. Nearly all people do. If they didn't, they wouldn't work.
And where do you think jobs are created from? Profits. You show me the non-government funded company, that created millions of jobs, with zero profits. Good luck with that.
Profits are good. If a company doesn't have profits, then it doesn't exist, and where would you get insurance then?
Lets say that you create a law, that says that hospitals are not allowed by law, to make a profit. The buildings heating system breaks down in the middle of winter. Where do they get the money to fix the heating system? They simply don't. Because where you get the money to fund building maintenance, is through profits. No profits, then you have no heat when the HVAC breaks down.
This is why in France, they had people inside the hospital dying of heat stroke, during heat wave... because they didn't have air conditioning.
Well how do you propose to pay for air conditioning, when you have no profits to use for those kinds of improvements?
And lastly......
One thing that blows my mind, is that left-wingers think that "profits" is an argument. If someone provides me a good or service, that is worth the money, they should profit from it. So "profits" is not evil.
But more importantly than that, left-wingers must live in a blind dumb and stupid utopian world, if they think that having a socialized system means there are no profits. There are most certainly profits in a socialist system.
It's just that instead of the public benefiting from those profits, only the elite in government and their political supporters profit from it.
See, with walmart, I own stock in walmart... so I personally as a private citizen, benefit from those profits.
But if walmart was socialized.... would there be no profits? Sure there would.... just not for the public. It would be their political supporters. Just like AOC had money funneled through a political action group, and then back to her boyfriend. Just like Hillary Clinton had money funneled to the Women's Hall of Fame, which then shockingly inducted Hillary into the Women's Hall of Fame. Just like Obama sent billions to green energy groups like Solyondra, who collected the money and disappeared. Just like Clinton was giving out favors for Enron. Just like Harris was named porker of the year, after proposing programs that could cost tax payers up to $78 Billion dollars, in programs that went to her political supporters.
And by the way, do not think that you are not creating rich fat cat wealthy people, with your socialism.
Just like the Castros are wealthy while cubans are poor (with their free health care)... or Venezuelians are poor while the Maduro administration is rich, and putting oil money in off shore accounts (with their free health care), or the elites of China, or former Soviet Russia, or North Korea.
All of them have free government everything, while the people live in poverty, and the elite live life extravagantly in government.
Similarly, putting government in charge of health care, doesn't mean the rich fat cats will have to live like the rest of us. NO, they will be rich wealthy people, while we pay the taxes to fund them.
Top 100 Most Well-Paid Employees
Head of the food and drug administration, makes just under $400,000 a year. And unlike a CEO, who generally takes most of their pay in stock options... this is cold hard tax payer cash.
Are you ready to pay double your tax rate, so they can give you a waiting list, while they collect $400K a year off your working butt?
I'll take the average CEO over that, any day.
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.
Hey dummy read what you wrote.
You just described healthy people paying for sick people. That's HOW insurance works.
The problem Andy, is that you have people looking at this thing from a poor perspective verses a well perspective, and thus the two shall never meet.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
A link to a group of search engine results? What lazy ass nonsense.
Post a link that shows the ACTUAL names of hospitals...not clinics or cosmetic surgery 'hospitals' or physio 'hospitals'. But full blown hospitals that do operations like bypass surgeries and the like.
I posted two links that proves there are only two private PROPER HOSPITALS in Ontario.
BTW - two of Toronto's 'private hospitals' (like Mount Sinai) are part of the University of Toronto....which is a public research university. In other words - it AIN'T private. So the hospitals are not private.
Mount Sinai Hospital (Toronto) - Wikipedia
Besides, what would be the point of them? BY LAW, they cannot charge people for critical care more than the government does...so what would be the point? So why would they bother? They certainly cannot make huge profits like some American hospitals can.
All I know is that 90% of Canadians and Brits love their plans.
But what do they know over American rubes who have never lived anywhere?
Funny because I know a Canadian who moved to the US from Canada, because he wife was getting such terrible care there, that he was tired of seeing her abused.
Oddly, when you are paying bill, people treat you better, over where the government is paying the bill, and no matter how badly they treat you, they know they'll get paid. If a private doctor treats me badly, I don't go there again, and the doctor loses money. If a government doctor treats you badly, and you leave.... nothing happens. He's paid by the government.
That said, most people in Canada, don't know how much better the care is here.
A reporter was talking with a Canadian patient who had waited 3 years in pain, because she needed knee surgery, the waiting list was all she got. The reporter mentioned that to see a specialist and get knee surgery in the US was under a month, and the woman simply didn't believe it. She just assumed that multi-year waiting lists was the norm everywhere.
When you don't know how badly your system sucks, yeah, you tend to think it's great because at least you are not paying money for it.
Same with France. In France, nearly half the medications we have here in the US, are simply not available. So a French person likely thinks they are getting the best care, at no cost... simply because they don't know what care is available in a capitalist system where you pay for it.
Pretty easy to think you are getting great care, when you don't know there is a drug out there that does the same thing that yours does, only without making you sick and vomiting. If you don't know there is something better, pretty easy to say your system is great.
Here, Look at it from this lady, who lived in the US, and moved to the UK.
A tale of 2 sickbeds: Health care in U.K. vs. U.S.
She admits, it's great to not have any expenses.... Although she loses 9% of her income straight to the Health Tax.... of course that's actually a lie, because if you actually look up the numbers, a large chunk of the regular income tax, also goes to health care in the UK, so 9% is a lie. It's likely up near 15% or 20%.
But her experience shows that she hated the UK health care over the US health care. Having nurses that didn't give a crap. Being stuck in a hallway, because no beds were available. Being largely ignored otherwise. People laying in their own poop for hours. Having a woman crying for help, for almost an hour, while nurses run by ignoring them. And a doctor that showed up, at most, once in a day, and otherwise good luck seeing one.
I, myself, had a similar experience with a publicly funded clinic here in Columbus Ohio. I was sent there (thank the Lord), only to get a drug test for employment. I walked in to a room with no A/C in august, find myself sitting on a broken chair, with an actual CRT 12" TV in the corner that had such bad reception, that you couldn't hear what the people on it were saying. Just fuzz. The nurse was incredibly rude, and got angry with me for asking a question. The lobby that was smaller than a city bus, was packed with about 15 people.
I waited, and waited for over 1.5 hours. Finally yet another angry nurse demanded I come in. I finished the drug test, and started to leave, only to realize that not a single person in the room had been called in that time. 1.5 hours, the crying kids were still cry. The clearly in pain people, were still propped up on chairs. The worried looking mothers, were still sitting there stroking their children. Not one person had been seen, since I had entered over 1.5 hours ago.
I can't help but compare this to my experience with a private doctors. The nurse smiled, and asked me if I needed anything while I waited. I was seen 15 minutes later, and the nurse greeted me with a smile, and asked if I was comfortable. And other people had been seen, in that short 15 minutes I was there. Not people sitting there for hours while ignored. The lobby was clean, and the chairs were new, and the TV was a large flat screen. The doctor was friendly, and listened to all my issues. I was asked where would be best for me, to get a prescription.
Yeah, it cost money. Yes people make profit from it. But it is vastly better care, and better service. Just like the lady who went to the UK.
And all those people in the UK, likely think their health care is great. But that is because they have never used our system, where they are treated like real people, and are given prompt care.
When you don't know how much better our system is, you think yours is great.
When you are a mindless fool, who only listens to the media and political activists, all you know is "US care costs too much! UK care is free!".... if that is the limit to your understanding of the differences between the two systems, then yes it is easy to think government-care is great, and capitalist care is crap.
But when you look at survival rates. When you look at the quality of the care. When you look at how people are treated, and the wait times, and the dehumanizing nature of the system....
No, our system is way better. By far.
The agenda comes before any rational thinking anymore, and that's because the Agenda's are irrational in thought to begin with.The problem Andy, is that you have people looking at this thing from a poor perspective verses a well perspective, and thus the two shall never meet.
A link to a group of search engine results? What lazy ass nonsense.
Post a link that shows the ACTUAL names of hospitals...not clinics or cosmetic surgery 'hospitals' or physio 'hospitals'. But full blown hospitals that do operations like bypass surgeries and the like.
I posted two links that proves there are only two private PROPER HOSPITALS in Ontario.
BTW - two of Toronto's 'private hospitals' (like Mount Sinai) are part of the University of Toronto....which is a public research university. In other words - it AIN'T private. So the hospitals are not private.
Mount Sinai Hospital (Toronto) - Wikipedia
Besides, what would be the point of them? BY LAW, they cannot charge people for critical care more than the government does...so what would be the point? So why would they bother? They certainly cannot make huge profits like some American hospitals can.
All I know is that 90% of Canadians and Brits love their plans.
But what do they know over American rubes who have never lived anywhere?
Funny because I know a Canadian who moved to the US from Canada, because he wife was getting such terrible care there, that he was tired of seeing her abused.
Oddly, when you are paying bill, people treat you better, over where the government is paying the bill, and no matter how badly they treat you, they know they'll get paid. If a private doctor treats me badly, I don't go there again, and the doctor loses money. If a government doctor treats you badly, and you leave.... nothing happens. He's paid by the government.
That said, most people in Canada, don't know how much better the care is here.
A reporter was talking with a Canadian patient who had waited 3 years in pain, because she needed knee surgery, the waiting list was all she got. The reporter mentioned that to see a specialist and get knee surgery in the US was under a month, and the woman simply didn't believe it. She just assumed that multi-year waiting lists was the norm everywhere.
When you don't know how badly your system sucks, yeah, you tend to think it's great because at least you are not paying money for it.
Same with France. In France, nearly half the medications we have here in the US, are simply not available. So a French person likely thinks they are getting the best care, at no cost... simply because they don't know what care is available in a capitalist system where you pay for it.
Pretty easy to think you are getting great care, when you don't know there is a drug out there that does the same thing that yours does, only without making you sick and vomiting. If you don't know there is something better, pretty easy to say your system is great.
Here, Look at it from this lady, who lived in the US, and moved to the UK.
A tale of 2 sickbeds: Health care in U.K. vs. U.S.
She admits, it's great to not have any expenses.... Although she loses 9% of her income straight to the Health Tax.... of course that's actually a lie, because if you actually look up the numbers, a large chunk of the regular income tax, also goes to health care in the UK, so 9% is a lie. It's likely up near 15% or 20%.
But her experience shows that she hated the UK health care over the US health care. Having nurses that didn't give a crap. Being stuck in a hallway, because no beds were available. Being largely ignored otherwise. People laying in their own poop for hours. Having a woman crying for help, for almost an hour, while nurses run by ignoring them. And a doctor that showed up, at most, once in a day, and otherwise good luck seeing one.
I, myself, had a similar experience with a publicly funded clinic here in Columbus Ohio. I was sent there (thank the Lord), only to get a drug test for employment. I walked in to a room with no A/C in august, find myself sitting on a broken chair, with an actual CRT 12" TV in the corner that had such bad reception, that you couldn't hear what the people on it were saying. Just fuzz. The nurse was incredibly rude, and got angry with me for asking a question. The lobby that was smaller than a city bus, was packed with about 15 people.
I waited, and waited for over 1.5 hours. Finally yet another angry nurse demanded I come in. I finished the drug test, and started to leave, only to realize that not a single person in the room had been called in that time. 1.5 hours, the crying kids were still cry. The clearly in pain people, were still propped up on chairs. The worried looking mothers, were still sitting there stroking their children. Not one person had been seen, since I had entered over 1.5 hours ago.
I can't help but compare this to my experience with a private doctors. The nurse smiled, and asked me if I needed anything while I waited. I was seen 15 minutes later, and the nurse greeted me with a smile, and asked if I was comfortable. And other people had been seen, in that short 15 minutes I was there. Not people sitting there for hours while ignored. The lobby was clean, and the chairs were new, and the TV was a large flat screen. The doctor was friendly, and listened to all my issues. I was asked where would be best for me, to get a prescription.
Yeah, it cost money. Yes people make profit from it. But it is vastly better care, and better service. Just like the lady who went to the UK.
And all those people in the UK, likely think their health care is great. But that is because they have never used our system, where they are treated like real people, and are given prompt care.
When you don't know how much better our system is, you think yours is great.
When you are a mindless fool, who only listens to the media and political activists, all you know is "US care costs too much! UK care is free!".... if that is the limit to your understanding of the differences between the two systems, then yes it is easy to think government-care is great, and capitalist care is crap.
But when you look at survival rates. When you look at the quality of the care. When you look at how people are treated, and the wait times, and the dehumanizing nature of the system....
No, our system is way better. By far.
Yeah, I'm starting to get that. Actually its not even a perspective problem... it's their ideology is more important that reality or facts. Bottom line, they want to believe this ignorant stupidity because they think it supports their moronic ideology. It's that simple. The people are foolish left-wing partisan idiots, and will believe whatever they want to fit their narrative.
It's the same thing as AOC and her facts don't matter.
View attachment 247420
These left-wingers are on the same level of mindless stupidity as AOC.
Life insurance, if I don't make a living wage it pays me the difference so I can live.I don't think so. If you have individual insurance, you're part of an insurance pool. Some of your premiums will go to cover others making claims and some will go to profit.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) ????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.
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.
No, it's not a pool.
Now does the company, maybe take money from me to pay claims of others?
Well sure. That's called "insurance". If you have car insurance, and your neighbor wrecks his car, and you don't.... some of your car insurance premiums might go to your neighbors car repair.
Similarly, if we both have life insurance, and my neighbor dies, some of my life insurance premiums could go to his widow.
So what? That isn't socialism... because he paid for that service, just like I paid for that service. It's not to each according to their need. My neighbor is any engineer that makes a 6-figure income, and I make $25K. Yet if we have similar cars and similar driving history, our premiums will be similar. Equally if he crashes and I don't, he'll get money according to policy, and I won't.
Just like life insurance. His widow could be filthy rich, but if he dies and I don't, she gets the money, and I don't.
And the fact is, every business could be looked at the same way. If you buy a car, and your neighbor buys a car.... it is highly likely that some of the money you spent, was used to make your neighbors cars. How do you think they built your neighbors car? You think they built it with your neighbors money? Because they didn't have his money, until he bought the completely car. So the money they used to build that car... came from you.
So it must be socialism! No it is not.
And lastly, you say profit like that is bad. I profit from working. Nearly all people do. If they didn't, they wouldn't work.
And where do you think jobs are created from? Profits. You show me the non-government funded company, that created millions of jobs, with zero profits. Good luck with that.
Profits are good. If a company doesn't have profits, then it doesn't exist, and where would you get insurance then?
Lets say that you create a law, that says that hospitals are not allowed by law, to make a profit. The buildings heating system breaks down in the middle of winter. Where do they get the money to fix the heating system? They simply don't. Because where you get the money to fund building maintenance, is through profits. No profits, then you have no heat when the HVAC breaks down.
This is why in France, they had people inside the hospital dying of heat stroke, during heat wave... because they didn't have air conditioning.
Well how do you propose to pay for air conditioning, when you have no profits to use for those kinds of improvements?
And lastly......
One thing that blows my mind, is that left-wingers think that "profits" is an argument. If someone provides me a good or service, that is worth the money, they should profit from it. So "profits" is not evil.
But more importantly than that, left-wingers must live in a blind dumb and stupid utopian world, if they think that having a socialized system means there are no profits. There are most certainly profits in a socialist system.
It's just that instead of the public benefiting from those profits, only the elite in government and their political supporters profit from it.
See, with walmart, I own stock in walmart... so I personally as a private citizen, benefit from those profits.
But if walmart was socialized.... would there be no profits? Sure there would.... just not for the public. It would be their political supporters. Just like AOC had money funneled through a political action group, and then back to her boyfriend. Just like Hillary Clinton had money funneled to the Women's Hall of Fame, which then shockingly inducted Hillary into the Women's Hall of Fame. Just like Obama sent billions to green energy groups like Solyondra, who collected the money and disappeared. Just like Clinton was giving out favors for Enron. Just like Harris was named porker of the year, after proposing programs that could cost tax payers up to $78 Billion dollars, in programs that went to her political supporters.
And by the way, do not think that you are not creating rich fat cat wealthy people, with your socialism.
Just like the Castros are wealthy while cubans are poor (with their free health care)... or Venezuelians are poor while the Maduro administration is rich, and putting oil money in off shore accounts (with their free health care), or the elites of China, or former Soviet Russia, or North Korea.
All of them have free government everything, while the people live in poverty, and the elite live life extravagantly in government.
Similarly, putting government in charge of health care, doesn't mean the rich fat cats will have to live like the rest of us. NO, they will be rich wealthy people, while we pay the taxes to fund them.
Top 100 Most Well-Paid Employees
Head of the food and drug administration, makes just under $400,000 a year. And unlike a CEO, who generally takes most of their pay in stock options... this is cold hard tax payer cash.
Are you ready to pay double your tax rate, so they can give you a waiting list, while they collect $400K a year off your working butt?
I'll take the average CEO over that, any day.
Yes. Because it's true. Group health "insurance" isn't insurance in any traditional sense. It's a cost sharing program financed by the employer, offered as a perk of employment."That's just group insurance. Which isn't insurance at all. It's employer-provided health care."
Were you able type this with a straight face?
Insurance isn't really insurance eh ? So when an employee goes to the hospital, they get rejected because the jokes on them eh ?Yes. Because it's true. Group health "insurance" isn't insurance in any traditional sense. It's a cost sharing program financed by the employer, offered as a perk of employment."That's just group insurance. Which isn't insurance at all. It's employer-provided health care."
Were you able type this with a straight face?
Here's an article that explains my claim in detail: Insurance Isn't Really Insurance | Manhattan Institute
She's just another social justice warrior, and this nation don't need anymore of that bullcrap right now.Kannabis Kamala doesn't have a chance!
Insurance isn't really insurance eh ?Yes. Because it's true. Group health "insurance" isn't insurance in any traditional sense. It's a cost sharing program financed by the employer, offered as a perk of employment."That's just group insurance. Which isn't insurance at all. It's employer-provided health care."
Were you able type this with a straight face?
Here's an article that explains my claim in detail: Insurance Isn't Really Insurance | Manhattan Institute
Are you trying to make a point? Did you read the link?So when an employee goes to the hospital, they get rejected because the jokes on them eh ?
"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
.
No, I'm reading your post, and then responding. You said insurance wasn't insurance ? Well what is it then ?Insurance isn't really insurance eh ?Yes. Because it's true. Group health "insurance" isn't insurance in any traditional sense. It's a cost sharing program financed by the employer, offered as a perk of employment."That's just group insurance. Which isn't insurance at all. It's employer-provided health care."
Were you able type this with a straight face?
Here's an article that explains my claim in detail: Insurance Isn't Really Insurance | Manhattan Institute
Group heath "insurance" isn't, no. Insurance is a hedge against risk. Group health insurance is just a cost sharing mechanism.
Are you trying to make a point? Did you read the link?So when an employee goes to the hospital, they get rejected because the jokes on them eh ?
