Socialized medicine does not work...

[jasonnfree]

A) Don't ever use Singapore as an example of anything, they're not a nation. They're a city state, I am half South Asian, nothing pisses me off more than some dumbass from Singapore saying stupid shit like "racism" doesn't exist here. Or in any way implying we the United fucking States of America are analogous to the little pissant place.

B) There is a reason you didn't put any pictures of Canadian or German hospitals up, they look just like ours. And again get the same results unless you're going to a premier hospital in America. And most western nations have their own premier hospitals...In a single payer system

The only reason it makes more sense to have our system in America is because we are a much more rural nation than these other societies. It makes serving rural areas very difficult in a non profit system.

Otehr than that, there are no downsides for the vast majority of citizens. Again unless you need something cutting edge, but we will still have the best universities and hospitals in the world in a single payer system. All our competitors are in single payer systems

edit - i don't' see how you could acknowledge my first post as true then try to contradict me like this...Makes no sense

If you accept they're getting the same results for half the price, that should say it all shouldn't it? Pricing is fixed by single payer, it's the only way

A: I'll use Singapore as an example, when it is true and fits the discussion we're having, and it is, and does. What pisses you off doesn't matter to the rest of us. If you want to debate the facts I've presented by all means. But just yelling that you don't like it.... I don't care. Did I give you the impression I cared? Debate the topic, or move on. Either works for me. I'll talk to someone else. I'm already ignoring that other guy.

B: There is a reason I didn't put German and Canadian hospitals up there.... The German health care system is a lot like our own, in that that have private and public hospitals, and nearly everyone has private insurance, and it's expensive. While the quality of German health care isn't at our level, it is very good. But it is also very expensive. So... it's not all that different from ours, it isn't an example of anything but, pretty much what we already have.

Canadian hospital do look like ours, that's true. They have a different problem. When you socialize health care, you have to fit the health care to the amount of money the government has. In order to do this, you can reduce quality of the care, such as how Singapore has done, by stacking 10 people to a room, and giving them a fan.

There's another way. The other way is simply by rationing the care. You put people on a waiting list, and have them sit for 3 years to get surgery.

In that situation the hospital is going to look exactly like ours, with the same quality of care. It's just that people wait for years to get it.

I just bought a book by a Veterinarian in Canada, called "Lucky Dog".

Lucky Dog: How Being a Veterinarian Saved My Life: Sarah Boston: 9781770893511: Amazon.com: Books

The basic story is, a Dog in Canada has much much better care than humans do. Because a life threatening cancer, can take literally months to diagnose, and then months to get treatment, all during which a dog can get diagnosed, and treated in a few days.

In this case, the Veterinarian actually ended up diagnosing herself, using medical equipment for a horse. Of course the average people in the country without such access... simply wait... and die.

But yes, the hospitals look the same.

Your first post largely talked about the cost of care. I agree the cost of care is high, and I listed my reasons for it. What I contradict is the idea that moving more towards the very causes of the problems, is a solution. Socialized health care is the reason our health care is so expensive. So the solution given by many, is that we should socialize it more. As if that is going to reduce cost. It isn't.

We already have health care systems refusing to accept Medicare and Medicaid, because it doesn't pay enough. The only reasons Hospitals still accept Medicare and Medicaid, is because private patients are over charged to make up that loss. Well what do you think is going to happen if everyone is on Medicare and Medicaid? The hospitals will either go broke and close (which has already happened in California, or they will refuse to accept Medicare and Medicaid (and we already have a few hospitals that have done this), or Medicare and Medicaid will drastically have to increase their payouts.... which means you will not be reducing costs. Taxes in this country will have to increase by no less than 15% on nearly everyone, if not more.

Costs will go up, not down if you socialize the system even more.

If these corporations are so great, then why do they need to lobby congress so much? You'd think they could make it on their own merit. Fact is, corporate america gets lots of help from uncle sam in subsidies and technology that was funded by the taxpayers.

 

[Andylusion]

A) Don't ever use Singapore as an example of anything, they're not a nation. They're a city state, I am half South Asian, nothing pisses me off more than some dumbass from Singapore saying stupid shit like "racism" doesn't exist here. Or in any way implying we the United fucking States of America are analogous to the little pissant place.

B) There is a reason you didn't put any pictures of Canadian or German hospitals up, they look just like ours. And again get the same results unless you're going to a premier hospital in America. And most western nations have their own premier hospitals...In a single payer system

The only reason it makes more sense to have our system in America is because we are a much more rural nation than these other societies. It makes serving rural areas very difficult in a non profit system.

Otehr than that, there are no downsides for the vast majority of citizens. Again unless you need something cutting edge, but we will still have the best universities and hospitals in the world in a single payer system. All our competitors are in single payer systems

edit - i don't' see how you could acknowledge my first post as true then try to contradict me like this...Makes no sense

If you accept they're getting the same results for half the price, that should say it all shouldn't it? Pricing is fixed by single payer, it's the only way

A: I'll use Singapore as an example, when it is true and fits the discussion we're having, and it is, and does. What pisses you off doesn't matter to the rest of us. If you want to debate the facts I've presented by all means. But just yelling that you don't like it.... I don't care. Did I give you the impression I cared? Debate the topic, or move on. Either works for me. I'll talk to someone else. I'm already ignoring that other guy.

B: There is a reason I didn't put German and Canadian hospitals up there.... The German health care system is a lot like our own, in that that have private and public hospitals, and nearly everyone has private insurance, and it's expensive. While the quality of German health care isn't at our level, it is very good. But it is also very expensive. So... it's not all that different from ours, it isn't an example of anything but, pretty much what we already have.

Canadian hospital do look like ours, that's true. They have a different problem. When you socialize health care, you have to fit the health care to the amount of money the government has. In order to do this, you can reduce quality of the care, such as how Singapore has done, by stacking 10 people to a room, and giving them a fan.

There's another way. The other way is simply by rationing the care. You put people on a waiting list, and have them sit for 3 years to get surgery.

In that situation the hospital is going to look exactly like ours, with the same quality of care. It's just that people wait for years to get it.

I just bought a book by a Veterinarian in Canada, called "Lucky Dog".

Lucky Dog: How Being a Veterinarian Saved My Life: Sarah Boston: 9781770893511: Amazon.com: Books

The basic story is, a Dog in Canada has much much better care than humans do. Because a life threatening cancer, can take literally months to diagnose, and then months to get treatment, all during which a dog can get diagnosed, and treated in a few days.

In this case, the Veterinarian actually ended up diagnosing herself, using medical equipment for a horse. Of course the average people in the country without such access... simply wait... and die.

But yes, the hospitals look the same.

Your first post largely talked about the cost of care. I agree the cost of care is high, and I listed my reasons for it. What I contradict is the idea that moving more towards the very causes of the problems, is a solution. Socialized health care is the reason our health care is so expensive. So the solution given by many, is that we should socialize it more. As if that is going to reduce cost. It isn't.

We already have health care systems refusing to accept Medicare and Medicaid, because it doesn't pay enough. The only reasons Hospitals still accept Medicare and Medicaid, is because private patients are over charged to make up that loss. Well what do you think is going to happen if everyone is on Medicare and Medicaid? The hospitals will either go broke and close (which has already happened in California, or they will refuse to accept Medicare and Medicaid (and we already have a few hospitals that have done this), or Medicare and Medicaid will drastically have to increase their payouts.... which means you will not be reducing costs. Taxes in this country will have to increase by no less than 15% on nearly everyone, if not more.

Costs will go up, not down if you socialize the system even more.

Again no it's not

Every other developed nation does it for half what we do and gets the same results. Period

And still waiting for these terrible Canadian hospitals, lol. No pics?

You're fucking deluded. 99% of the market was single payer they wouldn't have a fucking choice. We'd just make them even if they all wanted to shut down.

We make truckers work why the fuck would you imagine doctors or nurses could just all strike and our state wouldn't' react?

Pull your head out of your ass, you reek of partisan bullshit. Fucking vile

edit - and singapore should be a model of public healthcare. It's not because their wealth gap is fucking insane there. Just like every CITY

you fuckwit

I just posted a book on Canadian health, from a Canadian who needed health care.

You can't "make them". You think you are going to force hospitals to stay open? How? This isn't communist China, or Soviet Russia. If I don't want to work, you can't force me to do jack.

My dentist that I have been going to for 10 years, quit the practice. Why? In his own words, ObamaCare. He's retired. You can't force him to do diddly jack.

Where do you get this idea you can force people to do anything?

More five-day doctor strikes announced - BBC News

"Simon Emmet has a kidney stone and is waiting for surgery. He is meant to have the operation in the next four weeks, but is certain the strikes will push it back."

This aspect of left-wing ideology is the most confusing to me. You think that you can force doctors to work for low wages, and give you everything they want? No.

Poll shows 60% of European doctors are considering leaving UK

60% of current UK foriegn doctors may leave. You can't force these people to anything.

A third of A&E doctors leaving NHS to work abroad

1/3rd of A&E doctors (that would be ER doctors in the US), are leaving the NHS.

Doctors in France go on strike.
French doctors have gone on strike this year, last year, and nearly every other year.

UK doctors go on strike all the time.
German doctors have gone on strike.

The NHS is in the middle of 'the biggest cash crisis in its 68-year history'

Yeah, they spend less money than the US, which exactly why the system is breaking down.

France's Health-Care System Is Going Broke

French health care is going broke.

And those are just the problems we in the US know about. Tons of stuff in other countries is almost un-noticed.

Take Swedish health care. A lot of people don't know, Swedish health care is in massive trouble.

'Unlike Sweden, when you call an ambulance in the US, it comes'

'Unlike Sweden, when you call an ambulance in the US, it comes'

On March 27, The Local reported that a young woman in Timrå died after being denied ambulance services even after her third call begging for help. And just two weeks earlier, on March 14th, The Local ran a story about a man in Stockholm for whom, after three calls and thirteen hours, the ambulance arrived too late. There are two similar articles from the month of February as well. And these are just the deaths.​

Now if you want to read the whole article, you can, but here's the basic premise. In order to reduce costs, operators will ask questions to determine if they should send an ambulance.

Why? Because it's government care, and the amount of money for ambulances is limited. So they have to limit ambulance services. In the US, the customer pays for the ambulance, thus as more people call, more money is available to provide more services.

How many more examples would you like? I can keep going.

Yes, it is cheaper elsewhere, and that's why elsewhere, people die. Something has to give. The bill has to be paid. THere is no free lunch. If you doubt that, look at the VA. The hospitals are open, and people are on massive waiting lists.

 

[Andylusion]

A) Don't ever use Singapore as an example of anything, they're not a nation. They're a city state, I am half South Asian, nothing pisses me off more than some dumbass from Singapore saying stupid shit like "racism" doesn't exist here. Or in any way implying we the United fucking States of America are analogous to the little pissant place.

B) There is a reason you didn't put any pictures of Canadian or German hospitals up, they look just like ours. And again get the same results unless you're going to a premier hospital in America. And most western nations have their own premier hospitals...In a single payer system

The only reason it makes more sense to have our system in America is because we are a much more rural nation than these other societies. It makes serving rural areas very difficult in a non profit system.

Otehr than that, there are no downsides for the vast majority of citizens. Again unless you need something cutting edge, but we will still have the best universities and hospitals in the world in a single payer system. All our competitors are in single payer systems

edit - i don't' see how you could acknowledge my first post as true then try to contradict me like this...Makes no sense

If you accept they're getting the same results for half the price, that should say it all shouldn't it? Pricing is fixed by single payer, it's the only way

A: I'll use Singapore as an example, when it is true and fits the discussion we're having, and it is, and does. What pisses you off doesn't matter to the rest of us. If you want to debate the facts I've presented by all means. But just yelling that you don't like it.... I don't care. Did I give you the impression I cared? Debate the topic, or move on. Either works for me. I'll talk to someone else. I'm already ignoring that other guy.

B: There is a reason I didn't put German and Canadian hospitals up there.... The German health care system is a lot like our own, in that that have private and public hospitals, and nearly everyone has private insurance, and it's expensive. While the quality of German health care isn't at our level, it is very good. But it is also very expensive. So... it's not all that different from ours, it isn't an example of anything but, pretty much what we already have.

Canadian hospital do look like ours, that's true. They have a different problem. When you socialize health care, you have to fit the health care to the amount of money the government has. In order to do this, you can reduce quality of the care, such as how Singapore has done, by stacking 10 people to a room, and giving them a fan.

There's another way. The other way is simply by rationing the care. You put people on a waiting list, and have them sit for 3 years to get surgery.

In that situation the hospital is going to look exactly like ours, with the same quality of care. It's just that people wait for years to get it.

I just bought a book by a Veterinarian in Canada, called "Lucky Dog".

Lucky Dog: How Being a Veterinarian Saved My Life: Sarah Boston: 9781770893511: Amazon.com: Books

The basic story is, a Dog in Canada has much much better care than humans do. Because a life threatening cancer, can take literally months to diagnose, and then months to get treatment, all during which a dog can get diagnosed, and treated in a few days.

In this case, the Veterinarian actually ended up diagnosing herself, using medical equipment for a horse. Of course the average people in the country without such access... simply wait... and die.

But yes, the hospitals look the same.

Your first post largely talked about the cost of care. I agree the cost of care is high, and I listed my reasons for it. What I contradict is the idea that moving more towards the very causes of the problems, is a solution. Socialized health care is the reason our health care is so expensive. So the solution given by many, is that we should socialize it more. As if that is going to reduce cost. It isn't.

We already have health care systems refusing to accept Medicare and Medicaid, because it doesn't pay enough. The only reasons Hospitals still accept Medicare and Medicaid, is because private patients are over charged to make up that loss. Well what do you think is going to happen if everyone is on Medicare and Medicaid? The hospitals will either go broke and close (which has already happened in California, or they will refuse to accept Medicare and Medicaid (and we already have a few hospitals that have done this), or Medicare and Medicaid will drastically have to increase their payouts.... which means you will not be reducing costs. Taxes in this country will have to increase by no less than 15% on nearly everyone, if not more.

Costs will go up, not down if you socialize the system even more.

Again no it's not

Every other developed nation does it for half what we do and gets the same results. Period

And still waiting for these terrible Canadian hospitals, lol. No pics?

You're fucking deluded. 99% of the market was single payer they wouldn't have a fucking choice. We'd just make them even if they all wanted to shut down.

We make truckers work why the fuck would you imagine doctors or nurses could just all strike and our state wouldn't' react?

Pull your head out of your ass, you reek of partisan bullshit. Fucking vile

edit - and singapore should be a model of public healthcare. It's not because their wealth gap is fucking insane there. Just like every CITY

you fuckwit

440,000 people die each year needlessly in the US healthcare system and Andy wants to ignore that. The fool has blinders and rose colored glasses on.

These are some of the things in "clean"
US hospitals pictures won't show!


Andy is good at cherrypicking the worst hospitals where socialized medicine reigns but he has been eerily silent on the worst US hospitals. Let's give him a reality check, shall we?
10 Cities Where You Don’t Want to Get Sick

Rural hospitals in critical condition

Our Unsanitary Hospitals

Poor Sanitation Found at Pharmacy Linked to Meningitis Outbreak
Video ad warns Prospect patients on catheterization overuse in ...

So lets take a look at some of your links.

First the Rural hospitals.... did you read the article you posted??

The Affordable Care Act was designed to improve access to health care for all Americans and will give them another chance at getting health insurance during open enrollment starting this Saturday. But critics say the ACA is also accelerating the demise of rural outposts that cater to many of society's most vulnerable. These hospitals treat some of the sickest and poorest patients — those least aware of how to stay healthy. Hospital officials contend that the law's penalties for having to re-admit patients soon after they're released are impossible to avoid and create a crushing burden.​

So your own article confirms my points. Government regulations and controls, is destroying health care.

Not only that, but it also points out the other aspect I was talking about, where people live poorly, and have health problems because of that, and the hospital has no control over the people. The hospital is saying, we treat these people, and they leave, and because of their life choices, then end up coming back, and we're penalized for it.

Exactly what I said before.

Now how about the worst cities to get sick.

The entire thing is pointless, because it doesn't separate gov-care from free-market Capitalist care.

Let me give you an example. If you look at health care statistics from India as a whole, their health care system is terrible. Just absolutely horrific.

Yet people fly to India all the time for care. So what gives? Well the difference is, people are not flying to India's government care hospitals that suck. They are flying to the private hospitals that are great.

Similarly, when you say X city has terrible care... that's because you are looking at all hospitals on average, not separating gov-care from private-care.

It is interesting though, that 4 of the top 10, are in the most highly regulated and socialized states in the Union, NY and CA.

The Unsanitary Hospitals article....

Same thing. It's a problem in NY, because NY has such a highly socialized and regulated system. When the government is paying most of the bill, and regulating how much hospitals can charge, then funds are limited.

When funds are limited, you have to cut something. What do you cut? Nurses and doctors? X-ray machines and MRIs?

Or cleaning? Cleaning is the best thing, out of a long list of bad options, to cut. The story in the article you posted, matches my experience perfectly. Private hospitals, clinics, and doctors offices, are all perfectly clean. The government run hospitals, clinics, and doctors offices, are all dirty, and disgusting. I've been to hundreds of them, because I worked for a pharmacy that delivered everywhere in Ohio.

By the way, the last thing you want to do is retire without any money, and end up on Medicaid. You will end up in the most horrific places when the government is paying for it.

Not sure what your point is about the pharmacy scandal.

It does not appear to be anything systemic to the system, but rather just a company that went bad.

Actelion’s key Drug linked to Deaths, prompting EMA Investigation
EU drug company linked to deaths, being investigated.



Here's a great story about the VA hospital.

Now, if you want to claim that if the system was socialized and government run, that magically everything would be clean and pure.... then explain that.

I don't have access to your last link, so I'm not going to comment. I wager you don't either, but have no problem posting the link under the assumption it supports your position. Kind of like that first one, which ended up (when you actually read the article) to support my position, not yours.

That's one of the many differences between the left and right. You just mindlessly post stuff, and assume it supports your claims. We on the right, actually read your links and find out the real story. In simpler terms, we're better thinkers than you.... by far.

 

[Andylusion]

A) Don't ever use Singapore as an example of anything, they're not a nation. They're a city state, I am half South Asian, nothing pisses me off more than some dumbass from Singapore saying stupid shit like "racism" doesn't exist here. Or in any way implying we the United fucking States of America are analogous to the little pissant place.

B) There is a reason you didn't put any pictures of Canadian or German hospitals up, they look just like ours. And again get the same results unless you're going to a premier hospital in America. And most western nations have their own premier hospitals...In a single payer system

The only reason it makes more sense to have our system in America is because we are a much more rural nation than these other societies. It makes serving rural areas very difficult in a non profit system.

Otehr than that, there are no downsides for the vast majority of citizens. Again unless you need something cutting edge, but we will still have the best universities and hospitals in the world in a single payer system. All our competitors are in single payer systems

edit - i don't' see how you could acknowledge my first post as true then try to contradict me like this...Makes no sense

If you accept they're getting the same results for half the price, that should say it all shouldn't it? Pricing is fixed by single payer, it's the only way

A: I'll use Singapore as an example, when it is true and fits the discussion we're having, and it is, and does. What pisses you off doesn't matter to the rest of us. If you want to debate the facts I've presented by all means. But just yelling that you don't like it.... I don't care. Did I give you the impression I cared? Debate the topic, or move on. Either works for me. I'll talk to someone else. I'm already ignoring that other guy.

B: There is a reason I didn't put German and Canadian hospitals up there.... The German health care system is a lot like our own, in that that have private and public hospitals, and nearly everyone has private insurance, and it's expensive. While the quality of German health care isn't at our level, it is very good. But it is also very expensive. So... it's not all that different from ours, it isn't an example of anything but, pretty much what we already have.

Canadian hospital do look like ours, that's true. They have a different problem. When you socialize health care, you have to fit the health care to the amount of money the government has. In order to do this, you can reduce quality of the care, such as how Singapore has done, by stacking 10 people to a room, and giving them a fan.

There's another way. The other way is simply by rationing the care. You put people on a waiting list, and have them sit for 3 years to get surgery.

In that situation the hospital is going to look exactly like ours, with the same quality of care. It's just that people wait for years to get it.

I just bought a book by a Veterinarian in Canada, called "Lucky Dog".

Lucky Dog: How Being a Veterinarian Saved My Life: Sarah Boston: 9781770893511: Amazon.com: Books

The basic story is, a Dog in Canada has much much better care than humans do. Because a life threatening cancer, can take literally months to diagnose, and then months to get treatment, all during which a dog can get diagnosed, and treated in a few days.

In this case, the Veterinarian actually ended up diagnosing herself, using medical equipment for a horse. Of course the average people in the country without such access... simply wait... and die.

But yes, the hospitals look the same.

Your first post largely talked about the cost of care. I agree the cost of care is high, and I listed my reasons for it. What I contradict is the idea that moving more towards the very causes of the problems, is a solution. Socialized health care is the reason our health care is so expensive. So the solution given by many, is that we should socialize it more. As if that is going to reduce cost. It isn't.

We already have health care systems refusing to accept Medicare and Medicaid, because it doesn't pay enough. The only reasons Hospitals still accept Medicare and Medicaid, is because private patients are over charged to make up that loss. Well what do you think is going to happen if everyone is on Medicare and Medicaid? The hospitals will either go broke and close (which has already happened in California, or they will refuse to accept Medicare and Medicaid (and we already have a few hospitals that have done this), or Medicare and Medicaid will drastically have to increase their payouts.... which means you will not be reducing costs. Taxes in this country will have to increase by no less than 15% on nearly everyone, if not more.

Costs will go up, not down if you socialize the system even more.

If these corporations are so great, then why do they need to lobby congress so much? You'd think they could make it on their own merit. Fact is, corporate america gets lots of help from uncle sam in subsidies and technology that was funded by the taxpayers.

Let me ask you something....

Alternate reality situation. Let us say that your local town decided that they were going to regulate *YOU*.... You personally and maybe a few others in the town. So that now if you want a promotion, or to earn more money, or get a pay raise, you have to have your local town government pass a regulation to allow you to do that.

So you reach your pay cap, and you can't do anything more in life, until someone on the town committee says you can.

Hey you think you might go have a chit chat with the town mayor? Or the city counsel members?

And then especially if you found out that your competitor was able to get a pay raise by paying a few hundred dollars to take the Mayor out for a meal... you think you might pay a few hundred bucks to take the mayor out if it meant you could get a promotion?

Now maybe you, and you alone, would be that one guy who would be content to work the rest of his life for $50,000 a year with no hope of ever making anymore, or growing your business any larger.

The fact is, the vast majority of people if they knew that once they reached the maximum pay scale, and the only way to advance was to spend some money to talk to some politicians, they'd do it.

Everyone would.

All these businesses are just people. They want to be able to advance themselves, just like you would. So if government is controlling every aspect of their business, then government is who they are going to lobby to allow them to advance.

And by the way, the politicians that you elect into government, know this. You think they don't know that if they regulate companies, that companies will start spending money on them?

Take a look at Microsoft. Microsoft before the late 1990s, didn't spend almost anything at all, on lobbying government. Then government started making up all these bogus claims against the company, involved them in a 3 or 4 year investigation, and shockingly..... by the end of the 1990s, Microsoft was spending millions on lobbying, and magically the lawsuit was largely settled with no real penalties. (because there was no real violations to penalize).

See government knows that high taxes and massive regulations, is the key to getting corporations to pay them money. So they whip up people like you, to support massive regulations and taxes, so they can get money from the companies.

And of course the people who are hurt the most by taxes and regulations, is not the big companies. They have the money to lobby government. The people who are harmed are the small companies and businesses that don't have lobbying money.

Rich get richer. Poor get poorer.

Stop supporting regulations and taxes.

 

[JQPublic1]

So lets take a look at some of your links.

First the Rural hospitals.... did you read the article you posted??


The Affordable Care Act was designed to improve access to health care for all Americans and will give them another chance at getting health insurance during open enrollment starting this Saturday. But critics say the ACA is also accelerating the demise of rural outposts that cater to many of society's most vulnerable. These hospitals treat some of the sickest and poorest patients — those least aware of how to stay healthy. Hospital officials contend that the law's penalties for having to re-admit patients soon after they're released are impossible to avoid and create a crushing burden.

Yep, I read the entire link. That is why I can easily see how you cherry picked it, typically, and culled what you needed to bolster another argument. But my point in posting that link in conjunction with the others was to show that many hospitals in the USA were closed down because of unsanitary conditions and /or mismanagement. I knew you would deflect from that pertinent point and search around for anything that might support your desperate case.

Reference to unknown critics of ACA in the link got your attention when they blamed the closings of rural hospitals on
Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) - Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

So, discharging patients too early was addressed and that was the cause of hospitals closing????

A lot of hospitals were closing because their clientele couldn't afford insurance. Most rural hospitals are located in red states,, ,states having the option of rejecting Obamacare.

BTW did you miss this in the link:

" Some rural hospitals, even their advocates acknowledge, are in such bad shape and serve so few people that they probably don't deserve to stay open."

 

[Andylusion]

So lets take a look at some of your links.

First the Rural hospitals.... did you read the article you posted??


The Affordable Care Act was designed to improve access to health care for all Americans and will give them another chance at getting health insurance during open enrollment starting this Saturday. But critics say the ACA is also accelerating the demise of rural outposts that cater to many of society's most vulnerable. These hospitals treat some of the sickest and poorest patients — those least aware of how to stay healthy. Hospital officials contend that the law's penalties for having to re-admit patients soon after they're released are impossible to avoid and create a crushing burden.

Yep, I read the entire link. That is why I can easily see how you cherry picked it, typically, and culled what you needed to bolster another argument. But my point in posting that link in conjunction with the others was to show that many hospitals in the USA were closed down because of unsanitary conditions and /or mismanagement. I knew you would deflect from that pertinent point and search around for anything that might support your desperate case.

Reference to unknown critics of ACA in the link got your attention when they blamed the closings of rural hospitals on
Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) - Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

So, discharging patients too early was addressed and that was the cause of hospitals closing????

A lot of hospitals were closing because their clientele couldn't afford insurance. Most rural hospitals are located in red states,, ,states having the option of rejecting Obamacare.

BTW did you miss this in the link:

" Some rural hospitals, even their advocates acknowledge, are in such bad shape and serve so few people that they probably don't deserve to stay open."

Of course. You think all regulations didn't exist until Obama Care?

You say that they were closing because clientele couldn't afford insurance, and yet Obamacare supposedly fixed that... yet they are closing now more than ever? Your system still doesn't work, regardless of your claims.

Further, in a free-market system, the customer and the hospital will determine if the patient was discharged too early.

When you have government paying for it, and regulations controlling it, that's when hospitals discharge people too early, because the government puts limits on payment, and limits on hospital time.

Only in leftist land, do people think some politician knows better when people should be kept, or released, than the patient and the doctor.

 

[JQPublic1]

So lets take a look at some of your links.

First the Rural hospitals.... did you read the article you posted??


The Affordable Care Act was designed to improve access to health care for all Americans and will give them another chance at getting health insurance during open enrollment starting this Saturday. But critics say the ACA is also accelerating the demise of rural outposts that cater to many of society's most vulnerable. These hospitals treat some of the sickest and poorest patients — those least aware of how to stay healthy. Hospital officials contend that the law's penalties for having to re-admit patients soon after they're released are impossible to avoid and create a crushing burden.

Yep, I read the entire link. That is why I can easily see how you cherry picked it, typically, and culled what you needed to bolster another argument. But my point in posting that link in conjunction with the others was to show that many hospitals in the USA were closed down because of unsanitary conditions and /or mismanagement. I knew you would deflect from that pertinent point and search around for anything that might support your desperate case.

Reference to unknown critics of ACA in the link got your attention when they blamed the closings of rural hospitals on
Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) - Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

So, discharging patients too early was addressed and that was the cause of hospitals closing????

A lot of hospitals were closing because their clientele couldn't afford insurance. Most rural hospitals are located in red states,, ,states having the option of rejecting Obamacare.

BTW did you miss this in the link:

" Some rural hospitals, even their advocates acknowledge, are in such bad shape and serve so few people that they probably don't deserve to stay open."

Of course. You think all regulations didn't exist until Obama Care?

You say that they were closing because clientele couldn't afford insurance, and yet Obamacare supposedly fixed that... yet they are closing now more than ever? Your system still doesn't work, regardless of your claims.

Further, in a free-market system, the customer and the hospital will determine if the patient was discharged too early.

When you have government paying for it, and regulations controlling it, that's when hospitals discharge people too early, because the government puts limits on payment, and limits on hospital time.

Only in leftist land, do people think some politician knows better when people should be kept, or released, than the patient and the doctor.

Allow me to put things back into perspective. The PPACA was not designed specifically with rural hospitals in mind. Emergency room visits were common place for uninsured folks before the PPACA came along and the costs of treating the poor was passed on to the taxpayer. That makes the idea that rural hospitals are closing their doors because of (HRRP) suspect. Here is why:


In any given year, few people even went to rural hospitals, and those that did had limited funds. So how did they survive all this time? Evidently rural hospitals were being subsidized well before the PPACA came along. Further, I would not rule out fraud such as releasing patients early for the purpose of readmitting them several times in succession to double and triple the revenue at taxpayers expense. The HRRP clause in Obamacare put an end to that. So with those fraudulent funds drying up, subsidies based on number of admittances and emergencies weren't enough to keep the doors open.

I am not sure how primary care is addressed in the rural community right now,but I will find out. I suspect rural hospitals are involved in it somehow but private doctors may also be present for primary care. I will have to research that. However, I suspect that primary care, regardless of setting, may impact the revenue generated by hospitals through preventative medicine!

 

[Andylusion]

So lets take a look at some of your links.

First the Rural hospitals.... did you read the article you posted??


The Affordable Care Act was designed to improve access to health care for all Americans and will give them another chance at getting health insurance during open enrollment starting this Saturday. But critics say the ACA is also accelerating the demise of rural outposts that cater to many of society's most vulnerable. These hospitals treat some of the sickest and poorest patients — those least aware of how to stay healthy. Hospital officials contend that the law's penalties for having to re-admit patients soon after they're released are impossible to avoid and create a crushing burden.

Yep, I read the entire link. That is why I can easily see how you cherry picked it, typically, and culled what you needed to bolster another argument. But my point in posting that link in conjunction with the others was to show that many hospitals in the USA were closed down because of unsanitary conditions and /or mismanagement. I knew you would deflect from that pertinent point and search around for anything that might support your desperate case.

Reference to unknown critics of ACA in the link got your attention when they blamed the closings of rural hospitals on
Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) - Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

So, discharging patients too early was addressed and that was the cause of hospitals closing????

A lot of hospitals were closing because their clientele couldn't afford insurance. Most rural hospitals are located in red states,, ,states having the option of rejecting Obamacare.

BTW did you miss this in the link:

" Some rural hospitals, even their advocates acknowledge, are in such bad shape and serve so few people that they probably don't deserve to stay open."

Of course. You think all regulations didn't exist until Obama Care?

You say that they were closing because clientele couldn't afford insurance, and yet Obamacare supposedly fixed that... yet they are closing now more than ever? Your system still doesn't work, regardless of your claims.

Further, in a free-market system, the customer and the hospital will determine if the patient was discharged too early.

When you have government paying for it, and regulations controlling it, that's when hospitals discharge people too early, because the government puts limits on payment, and limits on hospital time.

Only in leftist land, do people think some politician knows better when people should be kept, or released, than the patient and the doctor.

Allow me to put things back into perspective. The PPACA was not designed specifically with rural hospitals in mind. Emergency room visits were common place for uninsured folks before the PPACA came along and the costs of treating the poor was passed on to the taxpayer. That makes the idea that rural hospitals are closing their doors because of (HRRP) suspect. Here is why:


In any given year, few people even went to rural hospitals, and those that did had limited funds. So how did they survive all this time? Evidently rural hospitals were being subsidized well before the PPACA came along. Further, I would not rule out fraud such as releasing patients early for the purpose of readmitting them several times in succession to double and triple the revenue at taxpayers expense. The HRRP clause in Obamacare put an end to that. So with those fraudulent funds drying up, subsidies based on number of admittances and emergencies weren't enough to keep the doors open.

I am not sure how primary care is addressed in the rural community right now,but I will find out. I suspect rural hospitals are involved in it somehow but private doctors may also be present for primary care. I will have to research that. However, I suspect that primary care, regardless of setting, may impact the revenue generated by hospitals through preventative medicine!

And that's MY point.

Emergency room visits were common place for uninsured folks before the PPACA came along and the costs of treating the poor was passed on to the taxpayer.

Is that Free-market Capitalism, or Socialized Gov-care at work? It's socialized gov-care. People would find cheaper alternatives if they had to pay something for the service. Because government both required hospitals to treat anyone regardless of pay, and because the government subsidized the hospital for ER visits, then you have this problem.

Which goes back to what I said before. When you have a socialized system, people find a way to exploit it. This right here is proof of my claim!

Further, I would not rule out fraud such as releasing patients early for the purpose of readmitting them several times in succession to double and triple the revenue at taxpayers expense

Is that free-market capitalist, or socialized gov-care? Socialized gov-care. Again, this wouldn't happen if it was a true free-market system.

And again, this is more proof of exactly what we said. People will find a way to exploit the system, when government is paying the bill.

 

[JQPublic1]

So lets take a look at some of your links.

First the Rural hospitals.... did you read the article you posted??


The Affordable Care Act was designed to improve access to health care for all Americans and will give them another chance at getting health insurance during open enrollment starting this Saturday. But critics say the ACA is also accelerating the demise of rural outposts that cater to many of society's most vulnerable. These hospitals treat some of the sickest and poorest patients — those least aware of how to stay healthy. Hospital officials contend that the law's penalties for having to re-admit patients soon after they're released are impossible to avoid and create a crushing burden.

Yep, I read the entire link. That is why I can easily see how you cherry picked it, typically, and culled what you needed to bolster another argument. But my point in posting that link in conjunction with the others was to show that many hospitals in the USA were closed down because of unsanitary conditions and /or mismanagement. I knew you would deflect from that pertinent point and search around for anything that might support your desperate case.

Reference to unknown critics of ACA in the link got your attention when they blamed the closings of rural hospitals on
Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) - Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

So, discharging patients too early was addressed and that was the cause of hospitals closing????

A lot of hospitals were closing because their clientele couldn't afford insurance. Most rural hospitals are located in red states,, ,states having the option of rejecting Obamacare.

BTW did you miss this in the link:

" Some rural hospitals, even their advocates acknowledge, are in such bad shape and serve so few people that they probably don't deserve to stay open."

Of course. You think all regulations didn't exist until Obama Care?

You say that they were closing because clientele couldn't afford insurance, and yet Obamacare supposedly fixed that... yet they are closing now more than ever? Your system still doesn't work, regardless of your claims.

Further, in a free-market system, the customer and the hospital will determine if the patient was discharged too early.

When you have government paying for it, and regulations controlling it, that's when hospitals discharge people too early, because the government puts limits on payment, and limits on hospital time.

Only in leftist land, do people think some politician knows better when people should be kept, or released, than the patient and the doctor.

Allow me to put things back into perspective. The PPACA was not designed specifically with rural hospitals in mind. Emergency room visits were common place for uninsured folks before the PPACA came along and the costs of treating the poor was passed on to the taxpayer. That makes the idea that rural hospitals are closing their doors because of (HRRP) suspect. Here is why:


In any given year, few people even went to rural hospitals, and those that did had limited funds. So how did they survive all this time? Evidently rural hospitals were being subsidized well before the PPACA came along. Further, I would not rule out fraud such as releasing patients early for the purpose of readmitting them several times in succession to double and triple the revenue at taxpayers expense. The HRRP clause in Obamacare put an end to that. So with those fraudulent funds drying up, subsidies based on number of admittances and emergencies weren't enough to keep the doors open.

I am not sure how primary care is addressed in the rural community right now,but I will find out. I suspect rural hospitals are involved in it somehow but private doctors may also be present for primary care. I will have to research that. However, I suspect that primary care, regardless of setting, may impact the revenue generated by hospitals through preventative medicine!

And that's MY point.

Emergency room visits were common place for uninsured folks before the PPACA came along and the costs of treating the poor was passed on to the taxpayer.

Is that Free-market Capitalism, or Socialized Gov-care at work? It's socialized gov-care. People would find cheaper alternatives if they had to pay something for the service. Because government both required hospitals to treat anyone regardless of pay, and because the government subsidized the hospital for ER visits, then you have this problem.

Which goes back to what I said before. When you have a socialized system, people find a way to exploit it. This right here is proof of my claim!

Further, I would not rule out fraud such as releasing patients early for the purpose of readmitting them several times in succession to double and triple the revenue at taxpayers expense

Is that free-market capitalist, or socialized gov-care? Socialized gov-care. Again, this wouldn't happen if it was a true free-market system.

And again, this is more proof of exactly what we said. People will find a way to exploit the system, when government is paying the bill.

I see now that you have embraced the republican world view of healthcare. You, and they, would have us return to a time when midwives and Rasputin-like medicine men provided medical remedies passed down through the ages. If you are against socialized medicine in any form, even the kind paid for by payroll taxes, I have to wonder what kind of world you are envisioning. Oh, the rich and the middle class can pay for health insurance and enjoy the benefits of primary care for themselves and their families; but, what about the poor?

I will take pause for now to reflect on what you have said and to evaluate your premise with as much objectivity as I can. Rest assured, I will return with a well researched response!

 

[Andylusion]

So lets take a look at some of your links.

First the Rural hospitals.... did you read the article you posted??


The Affordable Care Act was designed to improve access to health care for all Americans and will give them another chance at getting health insurance during open enrollment starting this Saturday. But critics say the ACA is also accelerating the demise of rural outposts that cater to many of society's most vulnerable. These hospitals treat some of the sickest and poorest patients — those least aware of how to stay healthy. Hospital officials contend that the law's penalties for having to re-admit patients soon after they're released are impossible to avoid and create a crushing burden.

Yep, I read the entire link. That is why I can easily see how you cherry picked it, typically, and culled what you needed to bolster another argument. But my point in posting that link in conjunction with the others was to show that many hospitals in the USA were closed down because of unsanitary conditions and /or mismanagement. I knew you would deflect from that pertinent point and search around for anything that might support your desperate case.

Reference to unknown critics of ACA in the link got your attention when they blamed the closings of rural hospitals on
Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) - Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

So, discharging patients too early was addressed and that was the cause of hospitals closing????

A lot of hospitals were closing because their clientele couldn't afford insurance. Most rural hospitals are located in red states,, ,states having the option of rejecting Obamacare.

BTW did you miss this in the link:

" Some rural hospitals, even their advocates acknowledge, are in such bad shape and serve so few people that they probably don't deserve to stay open."

Of course. You think all regulations didn't exist until Obama Care?

You say that they were closing because clientele couldn't afford insurance, and yet Obamacare supposedly fixed that... yet they are closing now more than ever? Your system still doesn't work, regardless of your claims.

Further, in a free-market system, the customer and the hospital will determine if the patient was discharged too early.

When you have government paying for it, and regulations controlling it, that's when hospitals discharge people too early, because the government puts limits on payment, and limits on hospital time.

Only in leftist land, do people think some politician knows better when people should be kept, or released, than the patient and the doctor.

Allow me to put things back into perspective. The PPACA was not designed specifically with rural hospitals in mind. Emergency room visits were common place for uninsured folks before the PPACA came along and the costs of treating the poor was passed on to the taxpayer. That makes the idea that rural hospitals are closing their doors because of (HRRP) suspect. Here is why:


In any given year, few people even went to rural hospitals, and those that did had limited funds. So how did they survive all this time? Evidently rural hospitals were being subsidized well before the PPACA came along. Further, I would not rule out fraud such as releasing patients early for the purpose of readmitting them several times in succession to double and triple the revenue at taxpayers expense. The HRRP clause in Obamacare put an end to that. So with those fraudulent funds drying up, subsidies based on number of admittances and emergencies weren't enough to keep the doors open.

I am not sure how primary care is addressed in the rural community right now,but I will find out. I suspect rural hospitals are involved in it somehow but private doctors may also be present for primary care. I will have to research that. However, I suspect that primary care, regardless of setting, may impact the revenue generated by hospitals through preventative medicine!

And that's MY point.

Emergency room visits were common place for uninsured folks before the PPACA came along and the costs of treating the poor was passed on to the taxpayer.

Is that Free-market Capitalism, or Socialized Gov-care at work? It's socialized gov-care. People would find cheaper alternatives if they had to pay something for the service. Because government both required hospitals to treat anyone regardless of pay, and because the government subsidized the hospital for ER visits, then you have this problem.

Which goes back to what I said before. When you have a socialized system, people find a way to exploit it. This right here is proof of my claim!

Further, I would not rule out fraud such as releasing patients early for the purpose of readmitting them several times in succession to double and triple the revenue at taxpayers expense

Is that free-market capitalist, or socialized gov-care? Socialized gov-care. Again, this wouldn't happen if it was a true free-market system.

And again, this is more proof of exactly what we said. People will find a way to exploit the system, when government is paying the bill.

I see now that you have embraced the republican world view of healthcare. You, and they, would have us return to a time when midwives and Rasputin-like medicine men provided medical remedies passed down through the ages. If you are against socialized medicine in any form, even the kind paid for by payroll taxes, I have to wonder what kind of world you are envisioning. Oh, the rich and the middle class can pay for health insurance and enjoy the benefits of primary care for themselves and their families; but, what about the poor?

I will take pause for now to reflect on what you have said and to evaluate your premise with as much objectivity as I can. Rest assured, I will return with a well researched response!

I see now that you have embraced the Democrat world view of healthcare. You, and they, would have us move to a time when hospitals are closed and the economy is in a total colaspe. If you are for socialized medicine in any form, even the kind paid for by payroll taxes, I have to wonder what kind of Greek economy you are envisioning. Oh, the rich and the middle class can move to other countries and enjoy the benefits of paying for care for themselves and their families; but, what about the poor?

I will take pause for now to reflect on what you have said and to evaluate your premise with as much objectivity as I can. Rest assured, I will return with a well researched response!

(hey, if you are just going to make up crap I didn't say, I might as well throw that crap right back at you. Enjoy your poop)

 

[JQPublic1]

Yep, I read the entire link. That is why I can easily see how you cherry picked it, typically, and culled what you needed to bolster another argument. But my point in posting that link in conjunction with the others was to show that many hospitals in the USA were closed down because of unsanitary conditions and /or mismanagement. I knew you would deflect from that pertinent point and search around for anything that might support your desperate case.

Reference to unknown critics of ACA in the link got your attention when they blamed the closings of rural hospitals on
Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) - Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

So, discharging patients too early was addressed and that was the cause of hospitals closing????

A lot of hospitals were closing because their clientele couldn't afford insurance. Most rural hospitals are located in red states,, ,states having the option of rejecting Obamacare.

BTW did you miss this in the link:

" Some rural hospitals, even their advocates acknowledge, are in such bad shape and serve so few people that they probably don't deserve to stay open."

Of course. You think all regulations didn't exist until Obama Care?

You say that they were closing because clientele couldn't afford insurance, and yet Obamacare supposedly fixed that... yet they are closing now more than ever? Your system still doesn't work, regardless of your claims.

Further, in a free-market system, the customer and the hospital will determine if the patient was discharged too early.

When you have government paying for it, and regulations controlling it, that's when hospitals discharge people too early, because the government puts limits on payment, and limits on hospital time.

Only in leftist land, do people think some politician knows better when people should be kept, or released, than the patient and the doctor.

Allow me to put things back into perspective. The PPACA was not designed specifically with rural hospitals in mind. Emergency room visits were common place for uninsured folks before the PPACA came along and the costs of treating the poor was passed on to the taxpayer. That makes the idea that rural hospitals are closing their doors because of (HRRP) suspect. Here is why:


In any given year, few people even went to rural hospitals, and those that did had limited funds. So how did they survive all this time? Evidently rural hospitals were being subsidized well before the PPACA came along. Further, I would not rule out fraud such as releasing patients early for the purpose of readmitting them several times in succession to double and triple the revenue at taxpayers expense. The HRRP clause in Obamacare put an end to that. So with those fraudulent funds drying up, subsidies based on number of admittances and emergencies weren't enough to keep the doors open.

I am not sure how primary care is addressed in the rural community right now,but I will find out. I suspect rural hospitals are involved in it somehow but private doctors may also be present for primary care. I will have to research that. However, I suspect that primary care, regardless of setting, may impact the revenue generated by hospitals through preventative medicine!

And that's MY point.

Emergency room visits were common place for uninsured folks before the PPACA came along and the costs of treating the poor was passed on to the taxpayer.

Is that Free-market Capitalism, or Socialized Gov-care at work? It's socialized gov-care. People would find cheaper alternatives if they had to pay something for the service. Because government both required hospitals to treat anyone regardless of pay, and because the government subsidized the hospital for ER visits, then you have this problem.

Which goes back to what I said before. When you have a socialized system, people find a way to exploit it. This right here is proof of my claim!

Further, I would not rule out fraud such as releasing patients early for the purpose of readmitting them several times in succession to double and triple the revenue at taxpayers expense

Is that free-market capitalist, or socialized gov-care? Socialized gov-care. Again, this wouldn't happen if it was a true free-market system.

And again, this is more proof of exactly what we said. People will find a way to exploit the system, when government is paying the bill.

I see now that you have embraced the republican world view of healthcare. You, and they, would have us return to a time when midwives and Rasputin-like medicine men provided medical remedies passed down through the ages. If you are against socialized medicine in any form, even the kind paid for by payroll taxes, I have to wonder what kind of world you are envisioning. Oh, the rich and the middle class can pay for health insurance and enjoy the benefits of primary care for themselves and their families; but, what about the poor?

I will take pause for now to reflect on what you have said and to evaluate your premise with as much objectivity as I can. Rest assured, I will return with a well researched response!

I see now that you have embraced the Democrat world view of healthcare. You, and they, would have us move to a time when hospitals are closed and the economy is in a total colaspe. If you are for socialized medicine in any form, even the kind paid for by payroll taxes, I have to wonder what kind of Greek economy you are envisioning. Oh, the rich and the middle class can move to other countries and enjoy the benefits of paying for care for themselves and their families; but, what about the poor?

I will take pause for now to reflect on what you have said and to evaluate your premise with as much objectivity as I can. Rest assured, I will return with a well researched response!

(hey, if you are just going to make up crap I didn't say, I might as well throw that crap right back at you. Enjoy your poop)

What did I make up? All I was seeking from you was an honest appraisal of what you envision as the ideal for US healthcare in 2017 before I call it a night.
I wanted to review your response ,evaluate it and ponder the humanity of it. It is your stage and I am listening!

 

[AsherN]

I broke my ankle hiking in Nova Scotia a while ago.

Went to a hospital and got fixed up in under two hours. On the way out, they reluctantly gave me a bill for $125 because I was not a citizen.

I wonder what it would have cost here in the states.

You are not paying the taxes of Canada. If you lived in Canada you would be paying tens of thousands to pay for those hospitals.

You are comparing upfront cost, to a massive life long tax bill? Not comparable.

Just finished my 2016 tax return. Between my wife and me, we pull in just shy of 6 figures. we pay 19% tax. Yeah, crippling.

 

[NCC1701]

Whatever one wishes to call it, the system in France is working fine.

Commonwealth rated them last in quality and access

...and the last shall be first...

If France's system is poor, America can provide as much as the French State does to all its citizens even more economically. It just chooses not to.

medicare recipients do get more, as do the poor, which is why ours is broken, too many handouts

secondly only an idiot thinks the US could copy the Freanch exactly

third, it was a subjective study and they included non healthcare variables in their "Healthy Lives" metric. Why do you shallow thinking idiots think non healthcare variables should be used to measure health care systems?

 

[NCC1701]

You again are either dishonest or stupid. Reposting what i originally said either shows that you are incapable of following along the train of thought (most likely), or are trying evasion in some sort of dishonest way.

Probably a mixture of both, as your socialist repugnant morals are something lower intellects are attracted to.

HAHAHAHA you are such a damn idiot, further conversation with you is foolhardy. Outbursts like this one will get no response. If you say something worthwhile I will reply!

Beacause i nailed you again, whenever i catch your lies and deflection, then you pretend to be above the crap you posted.

All you are catching here is egg on your face.

So sayeth the dumb liar

I'm done with you... You have run out of gas and all you have left is crude ad hominem attacks, I have no time for such puerile nonsense. g'day,

what a dipshit, he hurls a one liner at me, so I hurl one back then he pretends to be 'above it all'

You have to be really stupid to be a socialist, then be a liar to defend it. JQ epitomizes the way of the socilaitst

 

[NCC1701]

I broke my ankle hiking in Nova Scotia a while ago.

Went to a hospital and got fixed up in under two hours. On the way out, they reluctantly gave me a bill for $125 because I was not a citizen.

I wonder what it would have cost here in the states.

You are not paying the taxes of Canada. If you lived in Canada you would be paying tens of thousands to pay for those hospitals.

You are comparing upfront cost, to a massive life long tax bill? Not comparable.

Just finished my 2016 tax return. Between my wife and me, we pull in just shy of 6 figures. we pay 19% tax. Yeah, crippling.

add in province taxes you fucking liar, that is who pays for healthcare in Canada. Also add in your private insurance if you have it as many Canadians do.

 

[Andylusion]

HAHAHAHA you are such a damn idiot, further conversation with you is foolhardy. Outbursts like this one will get no response. If you say something worthwhile I will reply!

Beacause i nailed you again, whenever i catch your lies and deflection, then you pretend to be above the crap you posted.

All you are catching here is egg on your face.

So sayeth the dumb liar

I'm done with you... You have run out of gas and all you have left is crude ad hominem attacks, I have no time for such puerile nonsense. g'day,

what a dipshit, he hurls a one liner at me, so I hurl one back then he pretends to be 'above it all'

You have to be really stupid to be a socialist, then be a liar to defend it. JQ epitomizes the way of the socilaitst

Exactly. He did the same to me, multiple times. He'll scream endless insults, and then the moment you throw one of his own insults, back at him.... his panties get all bunched up, and he starts clutching his purse and moaning about how he's better than insults.

Hypocrisy: Hallmark of the left wing.

 

[NCC1701]

Beacause i nailed you again, whenever i catch your lies and deflection, then you pretend to be above the crap you posted.

All you are catching here is egg on your face.

So sayeth the dumb liar

I'm done with you... You have run out of gas and all you have left is crude ad hominem attacks, I have no time for such puerile nonsense. g'day,

what a dipshit, he hurls a one liner at me, so I hurl one back then he pretends to be 'above it all'

You have to be really stupid to be a socialist, then be a liar to defend it. JQ epitomizes the way of the socilaitst

Exactly. He did the same to me, multiple times. He'll scream endless insults, and then the moment you throw one of his own insults, back at him.... his panties get all bunched up, and he starts clutching his purse and moaning about how he's better than insults.

Hypocrisy: Hallmark of the left wing.

You did a beautiful job and have way more patience than I do. The second I detect dishonesty then real discussion is impossible, a detailed logical argument backed up by real data is useless when the other guy is intellectually dishonest.

Think about it, there are actually people like JQ who think Cuba is something to follow. A place where doctors are paid shit and at government gunpoint produce a few 'outcomes' so socialists can say 'see, it works'. We are still having this discussion in 2017, people really are scary.

 

[Andylusion]

All you are catching here is egg on your face.

So sayeth the dumb liar

I'm done with you... You have run out of gas and all you have left is crude ad hominem attacks, I have no time for such puerile nonsense. g'day,

what a dipshit, he hurls a one liner at me, so I hurl one back then he pretends to be 'above it all'

You have to be really stupid to be a socialist, then be a liar to defend it. JQ epitomizes the way of the socilaitst

Exactly. He did the same to me, multiple times. He'll scream endless insults, and then the moment you throw one of his own insults, back at him.... his panties get all bunched up, and he starts clutching his purse and moaning about how he's better than insults.

Hypocrisy: Hallmark of the left wing.

You did a beautiful job and have way more patience than I do. The second I detect dishonesty then real discussion is impossible, a detailed logical argument backed up by real data is useless when the other guy is intellectually dishonest.

Think about it, there are actually people like JQ who think Cuba is something to follow. A place where doctors are paid shit and at government gunpoint produce a few 'outcomes' so socialists can say 'see, it works'. We are still having this discussion in 2017, people really are scary.

Well it has to do with "feeling" your way through life like a child, rather than "thinking" your way through life like an adult.

Many people are completely duped and indoctrinated by left-wing propaganda, because it 'feels' good. Michael Morons Sicko movie, felt right. If there was any truth to the film whatsoever, then Cuban exiles that still to this day, could easily be interviewed by Michael Moron, to determine how amazing the health care is.

But of course that requires thinking your way through an issue, rather than 'feeling' your way.

That left-wing is an entire ideology of a 5-year-old.

 

[GHook93]

If you are talking about Doctors, Hospitals, Drug development, Treatments etc, the US is second to none!




Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[NCC1701]

Uhhh health care is the one area Americans are not best at

We pay double for the same care canadians get. Same with the French, Brits, and Germans. We spend just under 20% of GDP on healthcare when the treatment we receive* is not substantively different than societies who spend half that.

The only time you'd want to be in America is for some experimental procedure only an obscene amount of money can buy or luck can get you into the program.

Healthcare is so fucking out of whack here people go to fucking Tijuana to get medical procedures. Pretty much says it all right there, Americans going to fucking mexico for healthcare

17 of the top 20 hospitals on the planet were rated here in the states, that commonwealth survey found US care better than Sweden and France, so they invented a dishonest 'healthy lives' metric to make France and Sweden better


I would not call it equal at all, US is probably better. The reason we pay so much is that you libs demand that everyone gets that superior care, and you seem to like scumbag trial attorneys.