Bernie Sanders: We Will Raise Taxes On Anyone Making Over $29,000 To Fund Government Health Care

[Rigby5]

Most people can wait 19 months for a pacemaker.
The waiting time in the US is about the same in countries with public health care, but they pay less than half as much.

Even Leftard Fact-check says Canadian wait times are twice as long as Americans wait times.

Comparing Health Care in Canada to the U.S.

Incomplete answer is misleading.

{...
Q: Is health care better in Canada?

A: Wait times are longer in Canada, but health and doctor quality don’t seem to suffer.
...}

The reality is Canada is rated higher than the US for over all health care.
Things that can not wait are done faster and better in Canada.
Something should have a longer wait, so that more important things happen sooner.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-co...dians-increasingly-come-to-us-for-health-care

https://ctvnews.ca/mobile/health/63...reatment-last-year-fraser-institute-1.3486635

Why Canadians Are Increasingly Seeking Medical Treatment Abroad

Canadians Come to America for Better Care

We have some great care..........for those who can afford it.

Like the millions of illegals who get healthcare in America? They’re all RICH!

Illegals can only get ER care, which is terrible.
No ER will do any preventive health care or any sort of corrective procedure.
All an ER will do is what is necessary to prevent imminent death.

 

[Flopper]

Medicare for All reminds me of the original Obamacare, "Health Care for America Plan" which contained a public option allowing people to transfer to a Medicare like system without age restriction. The public option was of course a major target of the insurance companies and was dropped almost immediately by congress.

I think there are some misconceptions about how the Medicare for All proposals would be implemented. Once congress gets hold of any of the current proposals, they would change radically.

• First, it would not be Medicare. It would be a healthcare plan similar to Medicare but would look more like an employer sponsored plan than Medicare.
• It would be phased in over many years opening up first to older Americans and gradually extended to all ages.
• Lastly, there would be supplemental insurance just as there is with Medicare.

Any national healthcare plan would be a series of compromises. We have to remember this is not 1965 when Medicare was passed where deals were made between democrats and republicans to pass major legislation and the influence of lobbyists was far less than today.

Maybe so. All depends on how loud and united we can get. With Bernie as POTUS things could be radically different as Congress has also ceded much of its former responsibility and control to the WH. Bernie can't be bought. Huge difference.

Even if Bernie is elected and democrats controlled congress, there would be major changes in his healthcare program. Transition from Obamacare to Medicare for All would result in major problems in healthcare system, probably greater than the transition to Obamacare because it would effectively eliminate most private insurance. A smooth transition would take may years but democrats would not have many years. Unless republicans supported the law which is extremely unlikely, they would be trying repeal or change the system as soon as they got control.

Yep. We can't make major changes to society without actual consensus. If we try to force it, it just creates wasteful thrashing.

For the most part that is true. We are going through a period of extreme polarization in which any idea, or proposal by the other side is automatically rejected. Both sides are guilty. Eventually one side will decide it has won and thus there is little need to expend so much effort trying destroy the other side. The voters also tire of listening to same promises over and over and the tide then changes.

This is what happened the 1930's when democrats exercised strong control of government in reaction to the republican control in the the 20's. Republicans were powerless to stop the democrats during most of the 30's. By the time the war had ended, democrats were less hostile toward republicans and republicans once again rose to power and for some years the two sides worked together on a number issues they agreed on.

Before the civil war the two sides agreed on nothing. The war settled the issue of control of government. After a period of adjustment the two sides began to work together much better than before the war.

In short, what goes around comes around. No party attains permanent control. One side will get the upper hand for a time and then the other get's control.

 

[Rigby5]

79. Higher than the United States.

Life Expectancy in United States

Thanks for making my point. Your rankings are BS, nobody goes to Cuba for healthcare.

BTW, 2 second search.

So These the "Bad Hombres" Trump Wants to Get Rid Of?

You can put the money in my PayPal.

No idea anyone claimed anyone does.

Every Leftist, including you, claim Cuban healthcare is better.

Yet no one in the world goes there for treatment.

Quit saying that.
It is totally wrong.
Lots of people, including from the US, go to Cuba for medical care, every single year.

Medical Tourism in Cuba - Cuba Health Care System | myMEDholiday

{...
Cuba has catapulted into the public imagination since the beginning of the 21st century with its nascent, but rapidly developing medical tourism industry. The country has already established a reputation for medical treatments that include drug and alcohol rehabilitation, eye surgery, orthopedics, heart surgeries, dermatology, neurology and cosmetic surgeries. Medical institutions like Cira Garcia Clinic, Gonzalez Coro and Hermanos Ameijeiras in Cuba have the provision of separate rooms and facilities for medical tourists. The excellent quality of the doctors and the supporting staff in the country is a big advantage and is one of the most significant contributing factors to the growth of the economy through medical tourism. Medical services work out to be approximately 60 percent cheaper as compared to North American countries, without compromising on the quality and efficacy of the treatments involved.
...}

Slave labor for hard currency.

Gotta make money for the nomenklatura somehow.

Natives need not attempt to receive treatment at these clinics.

That is a silly and false claim.
Cuba has one of the highest rated state of health of all its citizens.
The health care system in Cuba is not centralized.
The medical teams travel constantly across the whole country, to ensure everyone is at top health.

 

[Rigby5]

Medicare for All reminds me of the original Obamacare, "Health Care for America Plan" which contained a public option allowing people to transfer to a Medicare like system without age restriction. The public option was of course a major target of the insurance companies and was dropped almost immediately by congress.

I think there are some misconceptions about how the Medicare for All proposals would be implemented. Once congress gets hold of any of the current proposals, they would change radically.

• First, it would not be Medicare. It would be a healthcare plan similar to Medicare but would look more like an employer sponsored plan than Medicare.
• It would be phased in over many years opening up first to older Americans and gradually extended to all ages.
• Lastly, there would be supplemental insurance just as there is with Medicare.

Any national healthcare plan would be a series of compromises. We have to remember this is not 1965 when Medicare was passed where deals were made between democrats and republicans to pass major legislation and the influence of lobbyists was far less than today.

Maybe so. All depends on how loud and united we can get. With Bernie as POTUS things could be radically different as Congress has also ceded much of its former responsibility and control to the WH. Bernie can't be bought. Huge difference.

Even if Bernie is elected and democrats controlled congress, there would be major changes in his healthcare program. Transition from Obamacare to Medicare for All would result in major problems in healthcare system, probably greater than the transition to Obamacare because it would effectively eliminate most private insurance. A smooth transition would take may years but democrats would not have many years. Unless republicans supported the law which is extremely unlikely, they would be trying repeal or change the system as soon as they got control.

Yep. We can't make major changes to society without actual consensus. If we try to force it, it just creates wasteful thrashing.

For the most part that is true. We are going through a period of extreme polarization in which any idea, or proposal by the other side is automatically rejected. Both sides are guilty. Eventually one side will decide it has won and thus there is little need to expend so much effort trying destroy the other side. The voters also tire of listening to same promises over and over and the tide then changes.

This is what happened the 1930's when democrats exercised strong control of government in reaction to the republican control in the the 20's. Republicans were powerless to stop the democrats during most of the 30's. By the time the war had ended, democrats were less hostile toward republicans and republicans once again rose to power and for some years the two sides worked together on a number issues they agreed on.

Before the civil war the two sides agreed on nothing. The war settled the issue of control of government. After a period of adjustment the two sides began to work together much better than before the war.

In short, what goes around comes around. No party attains permanent control. One side will get the upper hand for a time and then the other get's control.

One of the things Roosevelt did to ensure cooperation was to mix both parties in his cabinet.

 

[dblack]

Imagine if it were a real monopoly, if there was only one insurance company. And you couldn't even refuse to pay your "premiums", because it had merged with the government, and the premiums were your taxes. Wouldn't that be a nightmare scenario?

A monopoly does not imply there is just one insurance company.
What it means is that you are unable to negotiate fairly because there is a monolithic control working against you.
That can be price fixing by many companies, or a government mandate.
It just means something is monopolizing your choices.
For example, a mafia protection racket is a monopoly by the threat of force if you do not comply.

But the government is not a monopoly because you get to vote and the people collectively control it.
It works for you instead of trying to gain profit out of you.
And public health care in no country has at all precluded private insurance or health care.
It just provides a minimal safety net as competition, in order to break the health insurance monopoly.

Yes, yes. It's all fine and dandy because we get to vote! What, once every four years, cast a vote for a representative and hope he or she votes the way you want on legislation??

You know how many votes it takes to fire a private insurance company if I don't like the way they do things? Just one. Mine. And there are other insurance companies. Granted, they operate in a rigged game propped up by ill-conceived regulation, but the obvious answer to that problem is to remove the legislation propping them up. Not to pass more.

You don't get to fire your insurance company.
Without it, you could die.
And about the only way to get access is through your employer, so you don't get any choice at all.
You get who your employer picks.

Yeah, yeah, and we here's where we start equivocating on what the terms "force" and "choice" really mean - yada yada - wash, rinse, repeat.... Let's not.

But I agree that ending the legislation that props up the insurance companies, which is the 1957 employer benefit tax exemption, likely would do it.
It would end the poor subsidizing the health care of the wealthy, and force everyone into the same position.
Then everyone would demand a real solution.

Agreed. We'd still have to find consensus on what a "real solution" would look like. But getting rid of the current bad policies is the first step.

 

[Rigby5]

Incomplete answer is misleading.

{...
Q: Is health care better in Canada?

A: Wait times are longer in Canada, but health and doctor quality don’t seem to suffer.
...}

The reality is Canada is rated higher than the US for over all health care.
Things that can not wait are done faster and better in Canada.
Something should have a longer wait, so that more important things happen sooner.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-co...dians-increasingly-come-to-us-for-health-care

https://ctvnews.ca/mobile/health/63...reatment-last-year-fraser-institute-1.3486635

Why Canadians Are Increasingly Seeking Medical Treatment Abroad

Canadians Come to America for Better Care

We have some great care..........for those who can afford it.

Like the millions of illegals who get healthcare in America? They’re all RICH!

They do not get healthcare. I do not know why you want to continue with something you know is false. They can access emergency care.

Illegals don’t get healthcare in America?

Youre a friggen troll

The ER is not at all sufficient health care.
It is just for stitches, setting fractures, etc.

 

[Flopper]

Nobody has better healthcare than the US when it comes to quality.

I'm a patient at the world famous Cleveland Clinic. In fact, was just there yesterday to get checked out. When you go to their downtown campus, you are the one who feels like a foreigner.

It's not just patients, it's doctors as well. They either come here from their socialized medical care countries to make some real money, or come here, get educated, and never return home. So because of our system, we draw the best talent from around the world.

My sister works there as well. She can testify to the amount of Canadian patients at the Clinic looking for some relief that they couldn't get in their socialized medical care country. In fact, all our northern hospitals have Canadian patients.

So you can't tell me of another country that's problem-less either. They all have either extremely slow services, low quality equipment, medications we quit using decades ago, or outright refuse to treat some people. Nobody has a perfect medial system, including ours.

Not at all true.
The US is ranked something like 29th in health care.
Medical tourism FROM the US is 100 times higher than people coming to the US for medical care.
The only people coming to the US for medical care are the very wealthy who want elite care.
That is not what most people in the US get.
The US has over 100,000 a year dying from medical malpractice, and is one of the worst in the world for health care quality.
The fact we pay physicians more does not mean we get better quality health care.

But they could not make the new ARM payments that as much as doubled.

If you can only afford the teaser rate.....chances are you got a bad mortgage.

There were no 1% interest mortgages.

There were definitely mortgages with very low teaser rates as well as negative amortization mortgages.

They lowest mortgages during the bubble were around 8%,

If rates were 8% or higher, the bubble wouldn't have happened.

and the bust made them jump to over 15%.

You're lying.

It was their rates being jack up deceptively by ARM loans that forced them to default.

Deceptively? LOL!
When was the last time you took out a mortgage?
The pages and pages of rate disclosure documents are hard to miss.

Do you think they just wanted to throw away their down payment and years of monthly payments?

Many had very low or no down payment at all.

First of all, teaser rates most definitely ARE DECEPTIVE and not the fault of the borrower.
Second is that the loan paper work did NOT disclose that the loan was based on the British LIBOR instead of the US Prime, and that in a recession when the US Prime would go down, the LIBOR would greatly go UP!

The only reason we're ranked 29th is because not everybody has equal coverage.

According to the people who like the current system, less than 10% are without private coverage, and they get free ER care.
I think the reality is that more than 20% actually are without coverage, and the current system has very poor quality care.
I know people who went in for chest pains, were told it was indigestion, and they died a well later from a heart attack.
I know someone else who had a seizure, went in for MRI and xrays, were told nothing found, and a month later other doctors removed a golf ball sized tumor. But too late.
When I don't have insurance, no office will even take me, and I have to use ER or Urgent care.
ER wanted $2500 for a couple of stitches.

I have a lot of family that are healthcare providers and I have not seen or heard of most of the problems you listed.

My guess is that higher deductibles are keeping more people from going to the doctor with relatively minor problems because they are paying 100% of the cost while expanded Medicaid is encouraging people to seek medical help even for minor problems. For people with fairly serious problems such that they exceed their deductible or their yearly maximum, they are able to get the care they need without bankrupting the family, losing their home, etc.

Yes, by reducing the profit incentive, people would likely get more preventive medical access.

I think there is a point where the profit motive is destructive. However, the answer is not to destroy all competition. The nation has certainly done well with regulated capitalism but there is a point where big business will destroy both completion as well as our social conscience.

 

[Rigby5]

Incomplete answer is misleading.

{...
Q: Is health care better in Canada?

A: Wait times are longer in Canada, but health and doctor quality don’t seem to suffer.
...}

The reality is Canada is rated higher than the US for over all health care.
Things that can not wait are done faster and better in Canada.
Something should have a longer wait, so that more important things happen sooner.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-co...dians-increasingly-come-to-us-for-health-care

https://ctvnews.ca/mobile/health/63...reatment-last-year-fraser-institute-1.3486635

Why Canadians Are Increasingly Seeking Medical Treatment Abroad

Canadians Come to America for Better Care

We have some great care..........for those who can afford it.

Like the millions of illegals who get healthcare in America? They’re all RICH!

They do not get healthcare. I do not know why you want to continue with something you know is false. They can access emergency care.

Their kids get it through Medicaid. Those who have a job with healthcare benefits get it as well, as long as they have a stolen identification and SS number.

No, the kids of illegals do not get any more than the ER care any tourist gets.
And those using an illegal SS card to get a job with health insurance, can not get health care either.
First of all, the jobs illegals can get most likely do not come with health insurance, and no illegal could risk getting caught by getting into an health insurance database. For example, if the blood type did not match, it would throw a red flag. Insurance databases are far more detailed than the SS database.

 

[Rigby5]

Not at all true.
The US is ranked something like 29th in health care.
Medical tourism FROM the US is 100 times higher than people coming to the US for medical care.
The only people coming to the US for medical care are the very wealthy who want elite care.
That is not what most people in the US get.
The US has over 100,000 a year dying from medical malpractice, and is one of the worst in the world for health care quality.
The fact we pay physicians more does not mean we get better quality health care.
First of all, teaser rates most definitely ARE DECEPTIVE and not the fault of the borrower.
Second is that the loan paper work did NOT disclose that the loan was based on the British LIBOR instead of the US Prime, and that in a recession when the US Prime would go down, the LIBOR would greatly go UP!

The only reason we're ranked 29th is because not everybody has equal coverage.

According to the people who like the current system, less than 10% are without private coverage, and they get free ER care.
I think the reality is that more than 20% actually are without coverage, and the current system has very poor quality care.
I know people who went in for chest pains, were told it was indigestion, and they died a well later from a heart attack.
I know someone else who had a seizure, went in for MRI and xrays, were told nothing found, and a month later other doctors removed a golf ball sized tumor. But too late.
When I don't have insurance, no office will even take me, and I have to use ER or Urgent care.
ER wanted $2500 for a couple of stitches.

I have a lot of family that are healthcare providers and I have not seen or heard of most of the problems you listed.

My guess is that higher deductibles are keeping more people from going to the doctor with relatively minor problems because they are paying 100% of the cost while expanded Medicaid is encouraging people to seek medical help even for minor problems. For people with fairly serious problems such that they exceed their deductible or their yearly maximum, they are able to get the care they need without bankrupting the family, losing their home, etc.

Yes, by reducing the profit incentive, people would likely get more preventive medical access.

I think there is a point where the profit motive is destructive. However, the answer is not to destroy all competition. The nation has certainly done well with regulated capitalism but there is a point where big business will destroy both completion as well as our social conscience.

The goal is the opposite of destroying the competition, but finally providing a free public safety net of health care, so that the private monopoly is forced to reduce prices to more reasonable levels.

 

[dblack]

Medicare for All reminds me of the original Obamacare, "Health Care for America Plan" which contained a public option allowing people to transfer to a Medicare like system without age restriction. The public option was of course a major target of the insurance companies and was dropped almost immediately by congress.

I think there are some misconceptions about how the Medicare for All proposals would be implemented. Once congress gets hold of any of the current proposals, they would change radically.

• First, it would not be Medicare. It would be a healthcare plan similar to Medicare but would look more like an employer sponsored plan than Medicare.
• It would be phased in over many years opening up first to older Americans and gradually extended to all ages.
• Lastly, there would be supplemental insurance just as there is with Medicare.

Any national healthcare plan would be a series of compromises. We have to remember this is not 1965 when Medicare was passed where deals were made between democrats and republicans to pass major legislation and the influence of lobbyists was far less than today.

Maybe so. All depends on how loud and united we can get. With Bernie as POTUS things could be radically different as Congress has also ceded much of its former responsibility and control to the WH. Bernie can't be bought. Huge difference.

Even if Bernie is elected and democrats controlled congress, there would be major changes in his healthcare program. Transition from Obamacare to Medicare for All would result in major problems in healthcare system, probably greater than the transition to Obamacare because it would effectively eliminate most private insurance. A smooth transition would take may years but democrats would not have many years. Unless republicans supported the law which is extremely unlikely, they would be trying repeal or change the system as soon as they got control.

Yep. We can't make major changes to society without actual consensus. If we try to force it, it just creates wasteful thrashing.

For the most part that is true. We are going through a period of extreme polarization in which any idea, or proposal by the other side is automatically rejected. Both sides are guilty. Eventually one side will decide it has won and thus there is little need to expend so much effort trying destroy the other side. The voters also tire of listening to same promises over and over and the tide then changes.

This is what happened the 1930's when democrats exercised strong control of government in reaction to the republican control in the the 20's. Republicans were powerless to stop the democrats during most of the 30's. By the time the war had ended, democrats were less hostile toward republicans and republicans once again rose to power and for some years the two sides worked together on a number issues they agreed on.

Before the civil war the two sides agreed on nothing. The war settled the issue of control of government. After a period of adjustment the two sides began to work together much better than before the war.

In short, what goes around comes around. No party attains permanent control. One side will get the upper hand for a time and then the other get's control.

The thing is, there are some issues where we could find agreement, some solutions that would find broad consensus. But they aren't dramatic power grabs so neither side is interested in pursuing them.

 

[Rigby5]

Medicare for All reminds me of the original Obamacare, "Health Care for America Plan" which contained a public option allowing people to transfer to a Medicare like system without age restriction. The public option was of course a major target of the insurance companies and was dropped almost immediately by congress.

I think there are some misconceptions about how the Medicare for All proposals would be implemented. Once congress gets hold of any of the current proposals, they would change radically.

• First, it would not be Medicare. It would be a healthcare plan similar to Medicare but would look more like an employer sponsored plan than Medicare.
• It would be phased in over many years opening up first to older Americans and gradually extended to all ages.
• Lastly, there would be supplemental insurance just as there is with Medicare.

Any national healthcare plan would be a series of compromises. We have to remember this is not 1965 when Medicare was passed where deals were made between democrats and republicans to pass major legislation and the influence of lobbyists was far less than today.

What would actually stand a chance at working is allow people with preexisting conditions to go on Medicare. That would remove all the high risk patients from private insurance, and that would cause a price decrease, or at the very least, a price freeze.

Next is Medicare and Medicaid needs to start paying the entire bill instead of only part of it.
In any case, nothing gets done the right way until we work on lowering the cost of medical care first. If we don't do that, we're just passing the buck around.

Putting people with serious pre-existing conditions on Medicare is a good idea but it needs to be serious prexisting conditions. Back before Obamacare when I applied for individual insurance, I had to complete a 26 page medical questions. I found I was ineligible for health insurance because I had asthma and hayfever. A goal of insurance companies was to eliminate anyone who might file a claim.

I think deductibles should be eliminated but not co-insurance and copays. People need to pay a small fee for services or they will over utilize the system.

I inquired about disability a few years back, and that's what they get after you are on the program for one year. And.....she stated the plans are more than reasonable; about 120 a month to 190, depending on what you can afford.

So if it's available to people on SS disability, why not make it available to others who are not on disability? The reason insurance companies don't want people like you or me is because we are high risk, just like an auto insurance company giving insurance to a documented drunk.

Remove those people from the private insurance rolls, and they can better manage prices. It would be a half-way point between what the Democrats want and what the Republicans want. And.....nobody can be accused of wanting to take healthcare away from people with preexisting conditions.

But if you remove all the patients who need medical care and only leave the insurance companies with the young and healthy who do not need any care, then why let the insurance companies have all that profit?
The whole point of insurance is supposed to be to pool risks so that the health help pay for the care needed by the few injured or sick. If the insurance does not do that, then it is worthless. The healthy do not need health care or insurance. It is only the sick or injured who do.

 

[Flopper]

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-co...dians-increasingly-come-to-us-for-health-care

https://ctvnews.ca/mobile/health/63...reatment-last-year-fraser-institute-1.3486635

Why Canadians Are Increasingly Seeking Medical Treatment Abroad

Canadians Come to America for Better Care

We have some great care..........for those who can afford it.

Like the millions of illegals who get healthcare in America? They’re all RICH!

They do not get healthcare. I do not know why you want to continue with something you know is false. They can access emergency care.

Illegals don’t get healthcare in America?

Youre a friggen troll

The ER is not at all sufficient health care.
It is just for stitches, setting fractures, etc.

From personal experience, I've found it's a lot more. The ER is often the fastest and surest way to get a diagnosis. Of course a lot depends on your health history and age.

Get an appointment with your GP and you get some pills, maybe a few tests and suggestions and if the pain isn't better in two weeks you come back. He goes over test results and if the pain is still there you see a specialist in a few weeks. The specialist then orders more blood tests an EKG, and an MRI which takes about two weeks more to get all the appointments and results back to your doctor. Hopefully then you will get a diagnosis and treatment plan.

In the ER, the blood tests, EKG, and MRI are all ordered and results are back in a few hours. Your attending physician discusses your case with a specialist and you have a diagnosis. A tentative treatment plan is created and you are sent home with medication or to the hospital. What took 6 weeks out of the ER is often accomplished in a few hour in the ER.

This is one of the reason we over utilize the ER.

 

[Rigby5]

The life expectancy on average in Canada is 82.8.

In the U.S. it's 78.5.

Eating clubbed baby seal is good for you.

All of the countries with the highest ratings have universal health care.

Because everybody gets healthcare, not because it's better.

But it also is better.
The US has over 100,000 needless deaths a year due to medical malpractice, so our quality standards can't be that good, even if we have the best medical technology.

You do know we are a country of 320 million people, don't you?

But most of those 320 million do not need or have had any contact with health care in any given year.
The yearly average for health care in the US is about 35 million a year.
So the medical malpractice rate is low, but still way too high.

 

[dblack]

But if you remove all the patients who need medical care and only leave the insurance companies with the young and healthy who do not need any care, then why let the insurance companies have all that profit?

The insurance lobby? duh.

The whole point of insurance is supposed to be to pool risks so that the health help pay for the care needed by the few injured or sick. If the insurance does not do that, then it is worthless. The healthy do not need health care or insurance. It is only the sick or injured who do.

You have it exactly backwards. Sick or injured people don't need insurance. They need health care. Insurance is for healthy people who want to offset the costs if they become sick or injured. It's not a club you join to score free health care.

 

[Rigby5]

We have some great care..........for those who can afford it.

Like the millions of illegals who get healthcare in America? They’re all RICH!

They do not get healthcare. I do not know why you want to continue with something you know is false. They can access emergency care.

Illegals don’t get healthcare in America?

Youre a friggen troll

The ER is not at all sufficient health care.
It is just for stitches, setting fractures, etc.

From personal experience, I've found it's lot more. The ER is often the fastest and surest way to get a diagnosis. Go to you your GP and you get some pills, maybe a few tests and suggestions and if the pain isn't better in two weeks you come back. He goes over test results and if the pain is still there you see a specialist in few weeks. The specialist then orders more blood tests an EKG, and an MRI which takes about two weeks get appointments and results back to your doctor. Hopefully then you will get a diagnosis and treatment plan.

In the ER, the blood tests, EKG, and MRI are all ordered and results are back in a few hours. Your attending physician discusses your case with a specialist and you have diagnosis. A treatment plan is created and you are sent home with medication or to the hospital. What took 6 weeks out of the ER is accomplished in few hour in the ER.

This is one of the reason we over utilize the ER.

My experience is that the ER will not perform tests like that, and will still just refer to you a specialist.
The ER staff does not have the training or the time.
But I suppose it would depend on things like the size of the hospital?

 

[Rigby5]

But if you remove all the patients who need medical care and only leave the insurance companies with the young and healthy who do not need any care, then why let the insurance companies have all that profit?

The insurance lobby? duh.

The whole point of insurance is supposed to be to pool risks so that the health help pay for the care needed by the few injured or sick. If the insurance does not do that, then it is worthless. The healthy do not need health care or insurance. It is only the sick or injured who do.

You have it exactly backwards. Sick or injured people don't need insurance. They need health care. Insurance is for healthy people who want to offset the costs if they become sick or injured. It's not a club you join to score free health care.

Since you can not access health care without having insurance, then the sick need insurance.
Healthy people do not necessarily need insurance or health care.
You have to convince them about the future risk.
And if insurance rates are too high, they won't do it.
It is not an investment for future services because if you get fired, move, retire, or otherwise lose your current coverage, then all you paid in as premiums is lost to you.
I know because I paid in over half a million in premiums, and never got a cent back.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

But if you remove all the patients who need medical care and only leave the insurance companies with the young and healthy who do not need any care, then why let the insurance companies have all that profit?

The insurance lobby? duh.

The whole point of insurance is supposed to be to pool risks so that the health help pay for the care needed by the few injured or sick. If the insurance does not do that, then it is worthless. The healthy do not need health care or insurance. It is only the sick or injured who do.

You have it exactly backwards. Sick or injured people don't need insurance. They need health care. Insurance is for healthy people who want to offset the costs if they become sick or injured. It's not a club you join to score free health care.

Since you can not access health care without having insurance, then the sick need insurance.
Healthy people do not necessarily need insurance or health care.
You have to convince them about the future risk.
And if insurance rates are too high, they won't do it.
It is not an investment for future services because if you get fired, move, retire, or otherwise lose your current coverage, then all you paid in as premiums is lost to you.
I know because I paid in over half a million in premiums, and never got a cent back.

It's that way with all insurance. You have to insure your home if you have a mortgage. You pay for years and years for protection against fire, robbery, and damage that can be done to your home by water or a malfunctioning part of the structure. You don't make any claims, but does that mean you wasted your money?

Auto insurance the same way. I had only one accident in my life about ten years ago. I'm still paying for it today. But at the age of 59, and a professional driver, I think my record far surpasses most drivers. Was it a waste of money?

The only insurance you always get back is life insurance, and you don't see a dime of it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Like the millions of illegals who get healthcare in America? They’re all RICH!

They do not get healthcare. I do not know why you want to continue with something you know is false. They can access emergency care.

Illegals don’t get healthcare in America?

Youre a friggen troll

The ER is not at all sufficient health care.
It is just for stitches, setting fractures, etc.

From personal experience, I've found it's lot more. The ER is often the fastest and surest way to get a diagnosis. Go to you your GP and you get some pills, maybe a few tests and suggestions and if the pain isn't better in two weeks you come back. He goes over test results and if the pain is still there you see a specialist in few weeks. The specialist then orders more blood tests an EKG, and an MRI which takes about two weeks get appointments and results back to your doctor. Hopefully then you will get a diagnosis and treatment plan.

In the ER, the blood tests, EKG, and MRI are all ordered and results are back in a few hours. Your attending physician discusses your case with a specialist and you have diagnosis. A treatment plan is created and you are sent home with medication or to the hospital. What took 6 weeks out of the ER is accomplished in few hour in the ER.

This is one of the reason we over utilize the ER.

My experience is that the ER will not perform tests like that, and will still just refer to you a specialist.
The ER staff does not have the training or the time.
But I suppose it would depend on things like the size of the hospital?

Actually they do, because they face the same liability as your family doctor. They make sure all their bases are covered in the event of a lawsuit.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Eating clubbed baby seal is good for you.

All of the countries with the highest ratings have universal health care.

Because everybody gets healthcare, not because it's better.

But it also is better.
The US has over 100,000 needless deaths a year due to medical malpractice, so our quality standards can't be that good, even if we have the best medical technology.

You do know we are a country of 320 million people, don't you?

But most of those 320 million do not need or have had any contact with health care in any given year.
The yearly average for health care in the US is about 35 million a year.
So the medical malpractice rate is low, but still way too high.

It would be high in a country of 24 million people, but not 320. We are talking about a fraction of 1%. Tell me of one profession where nobody ever makes a mistake.

 

[dblack]

Since you can not access health care without having insurance, then the sick need insurance.

This isn't true. You can "access" health care just fine with money. If you don't have money to pay for your health care then you are poor, and what you need is money, not insurance.

Healthy people do not necessarily need insurance or health care.

Again, I think you misunderstand what insurance is. It's a tool to guard against financial risk. It's for healthy people with money.

It is not an investment for future services because if you get fired, move, retire, or otherwise lose your current coverage, then all you paid in as premiums is lost to you.
I know because I paid in over half a million in premiums, and never got a cent back.

Agreed. Too many people think they are "paying in" to an insurance plan as though it's some kind of investment. It's not. It's more of a wager.

All that said, people desperately want insurance to be something else, something it's not. We want it to be a club we can join for a nominal fee, and then have all (or most) of our health care needs paid for. That's why we've foolishly pursued the employer-provided "group insurance" nonsense. The idea being that if you can get a job with "benefits" all your financial problems related to health care will magically go away.