Poll: Majority of Democrats and Republicans support Medicare for all

[Ray From Cleveland]

So the most viable minimum that I stated still stands. That is considered by some that even that may not even come close. No one has yet come up with a viable way to pay for it without increasing taxes. Nor has anyone come up with a viable alternative of what would be done if it turns out to be much more expensive then predicted.

The real problem is we are looking for solutions in the wrong way.

The biggest problem is the cost. So that's what needs to be worked on first. There are nearly a dozen ways to lower cost of medical care. Once we can do that, then we can figure out a way to pay for it. But that's why ObamaCare was such a failure. It never addressed cost. It only shifted money from one place to another. The cost was still high and kept getting higher, but they just found new ways to pay for it, so it never solved our initial problems.

While you are correct in some ways you fail to see a number of very important points.

First is everyone needs to decide what we are talking about. Medicare or single payer. They are not the same. Single payer would be much more expensive. We can not decide what or how to tackle any of the problems until everyone agrees on what they want.

The main problem with ACA was that insurance companies were still involved and were limited to the areas that they could service. There was also the fact that many that had never been or had not been for many years to a doctor suddenly flooded offices. Then the insurance companies were forced to take on catastrophic patients who had paid not premiums before. You are also correct that ACA never addressed costs.

The next problem we have to agree on and understand is that the only way to pay for it is by increasing taxes. It will not be free and too many want it or expect it to be free.

Yes we can get costs down but we need to agree on how much risk we are willing to take. How much testing are we willing to forgo to be sure that new drugs are safe? How many tests are we willing to forgo in being sure of a diagnosis? How much money are we willing to cap wrongful death or malpractice to? How are we going to combat medical fraud? How are we going to pay for the enevatible rise in prices as new tests, procedures, even such things as genetic engineering come up.

Last but not least we need to agree and have a strategy in place if it costs more then we think. Do we build in a high cost to start with and give a tax break if it is less expensive(my choice). Do we do an automatic tax increase and risk people, cities or states suing or rebelling? Do we drop the new system and try to go back to our current system? Perhaps we just decide to allow the government go broke at a faster pace.

The main failure of Commie Care was politics. That's it in a nutshell. It was designed for several reasons: first of all, to buy votes. If you make french fries or stock shelves at Walmart, Commie Care was great because you could get good coverage for about 70 bucks a month. But then again, low wage workers often vote Democrat.

If you are a middle-class earner, it was unaffordable. I know because I singed up. What they wanted from me was a mortgage payment, and the plan was absolute crap only good if I decided to see what it's like to get run over by a moving bus. But then again many middle-class earners vote Republican, so screw them.

Secondly, it was designed to create as many new government dependents as possible; over 20 million according to Obama's White House. It was no accident either. The more government dependents, the more likely Democrat voters.

So the first problem is getting politics out of our medical care, particularly on the left. Democrats seldom do what's good for the country. They do what's good for the party.

Liability is a much larger issue than most think. Again, politics. Our medical care system is flooded with unnecessary testing also known as defensive medicine. Defensive medicine costs billions of dollars per year, and few politicians want to offer protection. Years ago you used to go to your doctor for an ear ache or torn leg muscle. The doctor would treat your symptoms and only send you to a specialist if all else failed. Today, a doctor is nothing more than a referral service. Go to him for an ear ache, he sends you to an ear, nose and throat specialist. Go to him for a torn leg muscle, he sends you to an orthopedic doctor. The list goes on and on.

It's not that doctors know less than they did years ago. In fact, they know much more. But they simply don't want the liability on their hands. Pass that problem to somebody else or several others. That makes medical care extremely costly.

 

[JoeB131]

Sure, working people will, but the non working or poor won't. Like it is now, everything is at no cost to them. Taxpayers have to foot the bill, and that's exactly what Joe wants.

But like I said earlier, if you want to shut these people up about government healthcare, suggest we all pay evenly. Let's have a consumption tax of 20 cents on the dollar. Everybody pays, the rich, the poor, the middle-class, the drug dealers, the prostitutes, everybody. You'll see how fast they dummy up about it.

Since the poor don't have anything, 20 cents on a dollar they don't have isn't that much of a burden.

Now, if you can find a way to tax the drug dealers and prostitutes, I would be impressed. We'd have to legalize those things first.

Of course, we are all ALREADY paying for it. We spend 17% of our GDP. The thing is, I'd rather see that money go to treating poor people than Ed Hanaway's Nine Figure Retirement package...

 

[JoeB131]

If you are a middle-class earner, it was unaffordable. I know because I singed up. What they wanted from me was a mortgage payment, and the plan was absolute crap only good if I decided to see what it's like to get run over by a moving bus. But then again many middle-class earners vote Republican, so screw them.

again, guy, i was able to get a perfectly good plan for $250.00 a month... which is hardly a mortgage payment. My guess, is you went to one place, heard something that confirmed your hatred of the black guy, and gave up.

Liability is a much larger issue than most think. Again, politics. Our medical care system is flooded with unnecessary testing also known as defensive medicine. Defensive medicine costs billions of dollars per year, and few politicians want to offer protection.

Myth of Defensive Medicine | Diagnostic Tests

Actually, doctors order tests because it increases their revenue stream, not because they are afraid of lawsuits...

The truth is, doctors sometimes order extensive testing because it increases their revenue stream. Of course, they want to ensure patients are properly diagnosed, but because they have the ability to order a variety of pricey tests, they often do. These tests cost patients and insurance companies staggering sums of money every single year. In 2014, UCLA Medical School reviewed 2012 Medicare data, which revealed, “… high-earning clinicians make more money by ordering more procedures and services per patient rather than by seeing more patients, which may not be in patients’ best interest.”

Additionally, a doctor may order an array of tests because of the present workload in the office. A 2013 survey of hospital attending doctors published in JAMA Internal Medicine showed that 22 percent of physicians reported that their workloads caused them to “order potentially unnecessary tests, procedures, consultations, or radiographs due to not having the time to assess the patient adequately in person.” In other words, they order tests as a shortcut instead of spending time with the patient and thinking critically about a patient’s situation. Thus, perhaps the fear of a lawsuit is not actually the driving force behind increased health care costs.

 

[Maxdeath]

So the most viable minimum that I stated still stands. That is considered by some that even that may not even come close. No one has yet come up with a viable way to pay for it without increasing taxes. Nor has anyone come up with a viable alternative of what would be done if it turns out to be much more expensive then predicted.

The real problem is we are looking for solutions in the wrong way.

The biggest problem is the cost. So that's what needs to be worked on first. There are nearly a dozen ways to lower cost of medical care. Once we can do that, then we can figure out a way to pay for it. But that's why ObamaCare was such a failure. It never addressed cost. It only shifted money from one place to another. The cost was still high and kept getting higher, but they just found new ways to pay for it, so it never solved our initial problems.

While you are correct in some ways you fail to see a number of very important points.

First is everyone needs to decide what we are talking about. Medicare or single payer. They are not the same. Single payer would be much more expensive. We can not decide what or how to tackle any of the problems until everyone agrees on what they want.

The main problem with ACA was that insurance companies were still involved and were limited to the areas that they could service. There was also the fact that many that had never been or had not been for many years to a doctor suddenly flooded offices. Then the insurance companies were forced to take on catastrophic patients who had paid not premiums before. You are also correct that ACA never addressed costs.

The next problem we have to agree on and understand is that the only way to pay for it is by increasing taxes. It will not be free and too many want it or expect it to be free.

Yes we can get costs down but we need to agree on how much risk we are willing to take. How much testing are we willing to forgo to be sure that new drugs are safe? How many tests are we willing to forgo in being sure of a diagnosis? How much money are we willing to cap wrongful death or malpractice to? How are we going to combat medical fraud? How are we going to pay for the enevatible rise in prices as new tests, procedures, even such things as genetic engineering come up.

Last but not least we need to agree and have a strategy in place if it costs more then we think. Do we build in a high cost to start with and give a tax break if it is less expensive(my choice). Do we do an automatic tax increase and risk people, cities or states suing or rebelling? Do we drop the new system and try to go back to our current system? Perhaps we just decide to allow the government go broke at a faster pace.

The main failure of Commie Care was politics. That's it in a nutshell. It was designed for several reasons: first of all, to buy votes. If you make french fries or stock shelves at Walmart, Commie Care was great because you could get good coverage for about 70 bucks a month. But then again, low wage workers often vote Democrat.

If you are a middle-class earner, it was unaffordable. I know because I singed up. What they wanted from me was a mortgage payment, and the plan was absolute crap only good if I decided to see what it's like to get run over by a moving bus. But then again many middle-class earners vote Republican, so screw them.

Secondly, it was designed to create as many new government dependents as possible; over 20 million according to Obama's White House. It was no accident either. The more government dependents, the more likely Democrat voters.

So the first problem is getting politics out of our medical care, particularly on the left. Democrats seldom do what's good for the country. They do what's good for the party.

Liability is a much larger issue than most think. Again, politics. Our medical care system is flooded with unnecessary testing also known as defensive medicine. Defensive medicine costs billions of dollars per year, and few politicians want to offer protection. Years ago you used to go to your doctor for an ear ache or torn leg muscle. The doctor would treat your symptoms and only send you to a specialist if all else failed. Today, a doctor is nothing more than a referral service. Go to him for an ear ache, he sends you to an ear, nose and throat specialist. Go to him for a torn leg muscle, he sends you to an orthopedic doctor. The list goes on and on.

It's not that doctors know less than they did years ago. In fact, they know much more. But they simply don't want the liability on their hands. Pass that problem to somebody else or several others. That makes medical care extremely costly.

I do not believe that I would go as far as you have. My personal feeling is that it started out as the usual misguided idea to give people what they wanted without an understanding of the economics involved. Which of course is nothing new. Then 44 made his 22 changes later on which was even more of a complete disaster.

I will give you an example of how well ACA worked for me. For close to thirty years I had very good insurance. I could see any doctor, visit any hospital, if a doctor referred me to a doctor or hospital far away they even paid travel expenses.Three years after ACA was enacted my insurance was just shy of doubling and I had gotten a letter informing me that I could expect another increase on my insurance anniversary. I decided to look into ACA. The first thing I found was that I did not qualify for any assistance ( or what ever it was called). The best policy I could find was almost as much as I had paid on my past insurance before it had begun to increase. But when I looked at the coverage it was terrible. I would have been required to drive 120 miles one way to see a doctor or hospital in their network. To be fair their was an ob/gyn in my town but that was no help. Plus there were numerous exclusions that it would not cover.
I did without insurance until I decide to retire early. I thought that ACA would be better. I entered my monthly household income and boy oh boy I got $100.00 off each month. I looked at all the policies I could now get, very limited choices. The best would only cover in state. Had numerous exclusions. Since my plan in retirement was to travel not a policy I wanted. In fact there was no policy that covered me if I traveled. To top it off, the amount for the best policy after subtracting the $100.00 credit was $82.00 more then my monthly income. The bare minimum I found left me $200.00 a month, with the credit, to live on.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So the most viable minimum that I stated still stands. That is considered by some that even that may not even come close. No one has yet come up with a viable way to pay for it without increasing taxes. Nor has anyone come up with a viable alternative of what would be done if it turns out to be much more expensive then predicted.

The real problem is we are looking for solutions in the wrong way.

The biggest problem is the cost. So that's what needs to be worked on first. There are nearly a dozen ways to lower cost of medical care. Once we can do that, then we can figure out a way to pay for it. But that's why ObamaCare was such a failure. It never addressed cost. It only shifted money from one place to another. The cost was still high and kept getting higher, but they just found new ways to pay for it, so it never solved our initial problems.

While you are correct in some ways you fail to see a number of very important points.

First is everyone needs to decide what we are talking about. Medicare or single payer. They are not the same. Single payer would be much more expensive. We can not decide what or how to tackle any of the problems until everyone agrees on what they want.

The main problem with ACA was that insurance companies were still involved and were limited to the areas that they could service. There was also the fact that many that had never been or had not been for many years to a doctor suddenly flooded offices. Then the insurance companies were forced to take on catastrophic patients who had paid not premiums before. You are also correct that ACA never addressed costs.

The next problem we have to agree on and understand is that the only way to pay for it is by increasing taxes. It will not be free and too many want it or expect it to be free.

Yes we can get costs down but we need to agree on how much risk we are willing to take. How much testing are we willing to forgo to be sure that new drugs are safe? How many tests are we willing to forgo in being sure of a diagnosis? How much money are we willing to cap wrongful death or malpractice to? How are we going to combat medical fraud? How are we going to pay for the enevatible rise in prices as new tests, procedures, even such things as genetic engineering come up.

Last but not least we need to agree and have a strategy in place if it costs more then we think. Do we build in a high cost to start with and give a tax break if it is less expensive(my choice). Do we do an automatic tax increase and risk people, cities or states suing or rebelling? Do we drop the new system and try to go back to our current system? Perhaps we just decide to allow the government go broke at a faster pace.

The main failure of Commie Care was politics. That's it in a nutshell. It was designed for several reasons: first of all, to buy votes. If you make french fries or stock shelves at Walmart, Commie Care was great because you could get good coverage for about 70 bucks a month. But then again, low wage workers often vote Democrat.

If you are a middle-class earner, it was unaffordable. I know because I singed up. What they wanted from me was a mortgage payment, and the plan was absolute crap only good if I decided to see what it's like to get run over by a moving bus. But then again many middle-class earners vote Republican, so screw them.

Secondly, it was designed to create as many new government dependents as possible; over 20 million according to Obama's White House. It was no accident either. The more government dependents, the more likely Democrat voters.

So the first problem is getting politics out of our medical care, particularly on the left. Democrats seldom do what's good for the country. They do what's good for the party.

Liability is a much larger issue than most think. Again, politics. Our medical care system is flooded with unnecessary testing also known as defensive medicine. Defensive medicine costs billions of dollars per year, and few politicians want to offer protection. Years ago you used to go to your doctor for an ear ache or torn leg muscle. The doctor would treat your symptoms and only send you to a specialist if all else failed. Today, a doctor is nothing more than a referral service. Go to him for an ear ache, he sends you to an ear, nose and throat specialist. Go to him for a torn leg muscle, he sends you to an orthopedic doctor. The list goes on and on.

It's not that doctors know less than they did years ago. In fact, they know much more. But they simply don't want the liability on their hands. Pass that problem to somebody else or several others. That makes medical care extremely costly.

I do not believe that I would go as far as you have. My personal feeling is that it started out as the usual misguided idea to give people what they wanted without an understanding of the economics involved. Which of course is nothing new. Then 44 made his 22 changes later on which was even more of a complete disaster.

I will give you an example of how well ACA worked for me. For close to thirty years I had very good insurance. I could see any doctor, visit any hospital, if a doctor referred me to a doctor or hospital far away they even paid travel expenses.Three years after ACA was enacted my insurance was just shy of doubling and I had gotten a letter informing me that I could expect another increase on my insurance anniversary. I decided to look into ACA. The first thing I found was that I did not qualify for any assistance ( or what ever it was called). The best policy I could find was almost as much as I had paid on my past insurance before it had begun to increase. But when I looked at the coverage it was terrible. I would have been required to drive 120 miles one way to see a doctor or hospital in their network. To be fair their was an ob/gyn in my town but that was no help. Plus there were numerous exclusions that it would not cover.
I did without insurance until I decide to retire early. I thought that ACA would be better. I entered my monthly household income and boy oh boy I got $100.00 off each month. I looked at all the policies I could now get, very limited choices. The best would only cover in state. Had numerous exclusions. Since my plan in retirement was to travel not a policy I wanted. In fact there was no policy that covered me if I traveled. To top it off, the amount for the best policy after subtracting the $100.00 credit was $82.00 more then my monthly income. The bare minimum I found left me $200.00 a month, with the credit, to live on.

My experience was very similar. They only offered one company that had a policy that would cover my doctor and hospital, and that's the one that had the price of a monthly mortgage payment with virtually no coverage on anything.

It is all about economics. You can't give people something for free or at low cost without making somebody else pay for it. And heck, I would have even been happy with the $100.00 subsidy. They offered me $25.00 a month. Big deal.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

again, guy, i was able to get a perfectly good plan for $250.00 a month... which is hardly a mortgage payment. My guess, is you went to one place, heard something that confirmed your hatred of the black guy, and gave up.

Yes, I did go to one place: Commie Care.

Actually, doctors order tests because it increases their revenue stream, not because they are afraid of lawsuits...

The truth is, doctors sometimes order extensive testing because it increases their revenue stream. Of course, they want to ensure patients are properly diagnosed, but because they have the ability to order a variety of pricey tests, they often do. These tests cost patients and insurance companies staggering sums of money every single year. In 2014, UCLA Medical School reviewed 2012 Medicare data, which revealed, “… high-earning clinicians make more money by ordering more procedures and services per patient rather than by seeing more patients, which may not be in patients’ best interest.”

Additionally, a doctor may order an array of tests because of the present workload in the office. A 2013 survey of hospital attending doctors published in JAMA Internal Medicine showed that 22 percent of physicians reported that their workloads caused them to “order potentially unnecessary tests, procedures, consultations, or radiographs due to not having the time to assess the patient adequately in person.” In other words, they order tests as a shortcut instead of spending time with the patient and thinking critically about a patient’s situation. Thus, perhaps the fear of a lawsuit is not actually the driving force behind increased health care costs.

Which is utter bull because most doctors work in facilities they don't own. What do you think, that hospitals give a kickback to doctors when nobody is looking?

I'll find you dozens of articles to counter-claim yours, and reliable sources at that. They go hand-in-hand with all the referrals to specialists that have increased throughout the years.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Sure, working people will, but the non working or poor won't. Like it is now, everything is at no cost to them. Taxpayers have to foot the bill, and that's exactly what Joe wants.

But like I said earlier, if you want to shut these people up about government healthcare, suggest we all pay evenly. Let's have a consumption tax of 20 cents on the dollar. Everybody pays, the rich, the poor, the middle-class, the drug dealers, the prostitutes, everybody. You'll see how fast they dummy up about it.

Since the poor don't have anything, 20 cents on a dollar they don't have isn't that much of a burden.

Now, if you can find a way to tax the drug dealers and prostitutes, I would be impressed. We'd have to legalize those things first.

Of course, we are all ALREADY paying for it. We spend 17% of our GDP. The thing is, I'd rather see that money go to treating poor people than Ed Hanaway's Nine Figure Retirement package...

A consumption tax does tax prostitutes and drug dealers because we all buy things. We all eat, we all have cell phones and cell phone plans, we all watch television.

If we could ever take politics out of medical care, then I'm fine with that. But I've never seen a Democrat institute policy that helps all of the public--only their party, so that will never happen.

 

[Manonthestreet]

 

[JoeB131]

Which is utter bull because most doctors work in facilities they don't own. What do you think, that hospitals give a kickback to doctors when nobody is looking?

I'll find you dozens of articles to counter-claim yours, and reliable sources at that. They go hand-in-hand with all the referrals to specialists that have increased throughout the years.

I'm sure you can come up with all sorts of BS from the people who want to take away our right to redress from Medical incompetence, like a good little battered housewife Republican.

"Hit me again, Dr. Rich Person, I deserve it!"

 

[JoeB131]

Weren't these the assholes who wrote stuff about all men being equal, and then kept slavery in the Constitution?

Tell you what, when you start shitting in a chamberpot and using leeches to treat diseases, then you can tell us all about how these Dead White Assholes had such a bead on things.

Me. I like living in modern civilization.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Which is utter bull because most doctors work in facilities they don't own. What do you think, that hospitals give a kickback to doctors when nobody is looking?

I'll find you dozens of articles to counter-claim yours, and reliable sources at that. They go hand-in-hand with all the referrals to specialists that have increased throughout the years.

I'm sure you can come up with all sorts of BS from the people who want to take away our right to redress from Medical incompetence, like a good little battered housewife Republican.

"Hit me again, Dr. Rich Person, I deserve it!"

View attachment 214918

Actually a winner takes all system of law would work best. Sue anybody you want, but if you lose, you are financially responsible for all the cost of the person you tried to sue. That would keep the ambulance chasers at home and greatly reduce all these phony lawsuits that plug up the works and greatly increase the cost of medical care in this country.

 

[JoeB131]

Actually a winner takes all system of law would work best. Sue anybody you want, but if you lose, you are financially responsible for all the cost of the person you tried to sue. That would keep the ambulance chasers at home and greatly reduce all these phony lawsuits that plug up the works and greatly increase the cost of medical care in this country.

It would make it easier for those with money and power to crush working people...

Again, a battered housewife Republican. The rich fuck him over, and he keeps bending over for more.

Hey, here's a crazy idea. Allow people to sue for malpractice and incompetence, and guess what, doctors will avoid malpractice and incompetence.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Actually a winner takes all system of law would work best. Sue anybody you want, but if you lose, you are financially responsible for all the cost of the person you tried to sue. That would keep the ambulance chasers at home and greatly reduce all these phony lawsuits that plug up the works and greatly increase the cost of medical care in this country.

It would make it easier for those with money and power to crush working people...

Again, a battered housewife Republican. The rich fuck him over, and he keeps bending over for more.

Hey, here's a crazy idea. Allow people to sue for malpractice and incompetence, and guess what, doctors will avoid malpractice and incompetence.

And guess what? Then healthcare stays unaffordable.




Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Maxdeath]

Actually a winner takes all system of law would work best. Sue anybody you want, but if you lose, you are financially responsible for all the cost of the person you tried to sue. That would keep the ambulance chasers at home and greatly reduce all these phony lawsuits that plug up the works and greatly increase the cost of medical care in this country.

It would make it easier for those with money and power to crush working people...

Again, a battered housewife Republican. The rich fuck him over, and he keeps bending over for more.

Hey, here's a crazy idea. Allow people to sue for malpractice and incompetence, and guess what, doctors will avoid malpractice and incompetence.

Keep plugging away at trying to make healthcare paid by others by making it less affordable. I still have yet to hear any idea other then pie in the sky, unicorns and rainbows as to how to lower costs and pay for universal healthcare. It would be nice if someone that wants it could actually talk about it intelligently.

I find too many people think that doctors somehow become greater then human. They are not allowed the same type of mistakes that all others are allowed. Not to mention that medicine is not an exact science and a large amount of it is still guesswork. Assuming that each person reacts to medications the same, each persons body displays the exact same symptoms in the exact same way is not only dangerous but crazy.

 

[JoeB131]

And guess what? Then healthcare stays unaffordable.

It's only unaffordable because we've turned it into a commodity.

Damn straight if I have something that can save your life, I won't charge what I cost me to produce it, I'll charge whatever I think I can squeeze out of you.

 

[JoeB131]

Keep plugging away at trying to make healthcare paid by others by making it less affordable. I still have yet to hear any idea other then pie in the sky, unicorns and rainbows as to how to lower costs and pay for universal healthcare. It would be nice if someone that wants it could actually talk about it intelligently.

Sure... Here's how UHC will lower costs.

1) Get rid of the non-productive expenses like shareholder Payouts and CEO Salaries.
2) Reduce the number of paper pushers. Ever been to a doctor's office? You have three people behind the desk that do nothing all day but argue with insurance companies.
3) Reduce the number of people using Emergency Rooms for non-emergency conditions.

Again THE REST OF THE WORLD HAS FIGURED THIS OUT. So when you say, "it can't be done", you forget Canada, the UK, Germany, Japan, France, etc... all of whom have done it just fine.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

1) Get rid of the non-productive expenses like shareholder Payouts and CEO Salaries.

And replace them with bureaucrats, ex cons and people who can barely speak or read English. Brilliant!

2) Reduce the number of paper pushers. Ever been to a doctor's office? You have three people behind the desk that do nothing all day but argue with insurance companies.

Actually most of the paper pushing is government mandates. Insurance companies don't like it either.

3) Reduce the number of people using Emergency Rooms for non-emergency conditions.

And how do you do that?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And guess what? Then healthcare stays unaffordable.

It's only unaffordable because we've turned it into a commodity.

Damn straight if I have something that can save your life, I won't charge what I cost me to produce it, I'll charge whatever I think I can squeeze out of you.

It's unaffordable for almost a dozen reasons--most of it government.


"Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem."
Ronald Reagan

 

[Maxdeath]

Keep plugging away at trying to make healthcare paid by others by making it less affordable. I still have yet to hear any idea other then pie in the sky, unicorns and rainbows as to how to lower costs and pay for universal healthcare. It would be nice if someone that wants it could actually talk about it intelligently.

Sure... Here's how UHC will lower costs.

1) Get rid of the non-productive expenses like shareholder Payouts and CEO Salaries.
2) Reduce the number of paper pushers. Ever been to a doctor's office? You have three people behind the desk that do nothing all day but argue with insurance companies.
3) Reduce the number of people using Emergency Rooms for non-emergency conditions.

Again THE REST OF THE WORLD HAS FIGURED THIS OUT. So when you say, "it can't be done", you forget Canada, the UK, Germany, Japan, France, etc... all of whom have done it just fine.

You seem to have a reading problem. Or perhaps you don't understand English. If that is the problem let me know and I will get a translation for you.

I think that a universal healthcare would be great.

You still have not come up with a viable way to fund what you are talking about.

You still have not stated what you actually want. Is it Medicare or is it single payer? Is it some form of them both?

ONE MORE TIME. THEY ARE PAYING DOUBLE OR MORE WHAT THE AVERAGE AMERICAN PAYS IN INCOME TAX!!! I have NEVER said it can not be done. I have said that the ONLY way I can see it being paid for is by increasing income tax. The problem is too many are not willing to pay the tax increase.

If you can not address what I have written don't bother replying because you are just playing at sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling things that make no difference and half of it is bull that you have made up.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Keep plugging away at trying to make healthcare paid by others by making it less affordable. I still have yet to hear any idea other then pie in the sky, unicorns and rainbows as to how to lower costs and pay for universal healthcare. It would be nice if someone that wants it could actually talk about it intelligently.

Sure... Here's how UHC will lower costs.

1) Get rid of the non-productive expenses like shareholder Payouts and CEO Salaries.
2) Reduce the number of paper pushers. Ever been to a doctor's office? You have three people behind the desk that do nothing all day but argue with insurance companies.
3) Reduce the number of people using Emergency Rooms for non-emergency conditions.

Again THE REST OF THE WORLD HAS FIGURED THIS OUT. So when you say, "it can't be done", you forget Canada, the UK, Germany, Japan, France, etc... all of whom have done it just fine.

You seem to have a reading problem. Or perhaps you don't understand English. If that is the problem let me know and I will get a translation for you.

I think that a universal healthcare would be great.

You still have not come up with a viable way to fund what you are talking about.

You still have not stated what you actually want. Is it Medicare or is it single payer? Is it some form of them both?

ONE MORE TIME. THEY ARE PAYING DOUBLE OR MORE WHAT THE AVERAGE AMERICAN PAYS IN INCOME TAX!!! I have NEVER said it can not be done. I have said that the ONLY way I can see it being paid for is by increasing income tax. The problem is too many are not willing to pay the tax increase.

If you can not address what I have written don't bother replying because you are just playing at sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling things that make no difference and half of it is bull that you have made up.

The only thing that bothers me about government healthcare is giving them the ability to control the populous.

Look at what Bamunism did when his wife was concerned that people are too fat; as if that's any of her business.

She had her husband create a law that all restaurants had to post calorie count on every food item they sell.

She took over school lunches creating menus that no kid in their right mind would ever buy yet alone eat.

Bloomberg tried to stop stores from selling large soda drinks.

These people have proven over and over again they cannot be trusted with power, because they will abuse it or use the ability to try and control our lives. If your drunken neighbor asks if he can borrow your car, you don't hand him the keys.