Discussion in 'Healthcare/Insurance/Govt Healthcare' started by nat4900, Jul 18, 2017.
that is because you liberals keep shooting each other. Has nothing to do with medical care.
As you know, the study done by Elizabeth Warren has been proven bogus many times over.
How would you change the voting system?
Nat4900 has a false idea about our longevity being shorter than other countries because of single payer health care. That has been proven bogus yet desperate Progressives continue to cling to this bogus idea. As always, they desperately grasp at straws.
The United States is a country of mixed races, national origins, and histories. Nat4900 and other desperate Progressives compare us with homogeneous countries, such as Sweden.
Many of the citizens of Minnesota are of Scandinavian heritage. Even their dialect is Scandinavian in nature. They draw out the vowels. Much as I did in my early years.
The life span in Minnesota is 81.1 years.
The life span in Sweden is 82.68 years.
Not nearly the difference Progressives cling to.
The same is true about the life expectancy of citizens from Hawaii. Theirs is the longest in the US at 81.3 years.
The life expectancy of Asian countries varies between 84 in Japan to 76 in China and Vietnam.
Try again losers.
Single Payer is a dead issue!
Vermont has tried Single Payer and it has proven to be a failure.
From the far left site, Politico: Why single payer died in Vermont
Also from Forbes: Six Reasons Why Vermont's Single-Payer Health Plan Was Doomed From The Start
FAR, FAR LEFT California proposed legislation for their own Single Payer system. EVEN California, after doing the numbers discovered much to their dismay, that Single Payer Health Care would cost as much as their entire state budget. EVEN they said...oops!
As we all know too, Single Payer is a failure in Canada as well as Britain.
Why do Progressives demand unaffordable and worse still, inferior single payer health care for our country?
Any kind of alternative system that alleviates the lesser-of-two-evils factor. The link in the quote above is a good place to start.
I'm deprived of my final choice. There is not a snowballs chance in heck that would ever become the standard.
Someone could easily win an election with 30 or even less, percent of the vote.
"A" wins 30% of the initial vote, "B" 27%, "C"23% and "D" 20% so "D" is eliminated.
The second count of the same ballots, "A" wins 34%, "B" 29%, "C" 37% so "B" is eliminated.
The third count of the same ballots "C" wins 51% and "A" wins 49%
"B" wins the election with 23% of the initial vote. Totally unacceptable.
Our current system has worked superbly for over 240 years. If your candidate loses, get a better candidate.
liberals continue to push it because they think it will be free for THEM.
Oh, I know. Let the media pick the winner.
The U.S. is now over $20 trillion in debt — here’s how it got there
Reported on September 12th.
Separate names with a comma.