Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Here is the free market in action.Hey Duncecap, just to update you, we won and you lost. We're scrapping Obamacare and restoring free market based solutions.Lets replace the ACA with Universal healthcare! Everyone deserves never to have to suffer without healthcare and worry about having their lives destroyed by the debt.
It is the moral choice and it is right. Anyone that calls themselves christian should agree with me.
Universal Health Care: Cheaper and Better | The Agonist
First, public health is cheaper. The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development studied the health expenses of all member countries – 29 in all including the United States. The median amount of GDP spent on health care of 29 countries has fluctuated between 7.9 and 8.4 for 2000-2003. For 2000-2003, US health expense as a percentage of GDP was 13.1%, 13.8%, 14.6% and 15% respectively – by far the highest total of all countries. Germany was the next most expensive country and their totals for the same years (2000-2003) were 10.6%, 10.8%, 10.9%, 11.1%, respectively. So, as a percentage of GDP basis, the US spends between 34% and 75% more as a percentage of GDP than countries that rely primarily on public funds to provide health service.
The OECD also breaks health expenses down into amount spent per capita. For the last four years (2000-2003), the median per capital expense for 29 OECD countries ranged from $2010 to 2248. Over the same years, the US once again spent more than any other OECD country, with figures for 2000-2003 of $4539, $4888, $5287 and $5635. Over the same time, Switzerland ranked second in per capita expenditures and Germany third. It’s important to notice that the US’s private health care system routinely spends at least twice as much per person than other countries with public health systems.
The fastest way to fix our debt problem is to go from corporate healthcare to universal.
I've said from the get-go that ObamaCare would be such a catastrophic failure the people will cry out for UHC.Lets replace the ACA with Universal healthcare!
Lets replace the ACA with Universal healthcare! Everyone deserves never to have to suffer without healthcare and worry about having their lives destroyed by the debt.
It is the moral choice and it is right. Anyone that calls themselves christian should agree with me.
Universal Health Care: Cheaper and Better | The Agonist
First, public health is cheaper. The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development studied the health expenses of all member countries – 29 in all including the United States. The median amount of GDP spent on health care of 29 countries has fluctuated between 7.9 and 8.4 for 2000-2003. For 2000-2003, US health expense as a percentage of GDP was 13.1%, 13.8%, 14.6% and 15% respectively – by far the highest total of all countries. Germany was the next most expensive country and their totals for the same years (2000-2003) were 10.6%, 10.8%, 10.9%, 11.1%, respectively. So, as a percentage of GDP basis, the US spends between 34% and 75% more as a percentage of GDP than countries that rely primarily on public funds to provide health service.
The OECD also breaks health expenses down into amount spent per capita. For the last four years (2000-2003), the median per capital expense for 29 OECD countries ranged from $2010 to 2248. Over the same years, the US once again spent more than any other OECD country, with figures for 2000-2003 of $4539, $4888, $5287 and $5635. Over the same time, Switzerland ranked second in per capita expenditures and Germany third. It’s important to notice that the US’s private health care system routinely spends at least twice as much per person than other countries with public health systems.
The fastest way to fix our debt problem is to go from corporate healthcare to universal.
Poor little liberals. Crying and squalling after receiving the biggest electoral defeat in living memory.Lets replace the ACA with Universal healthcare! Everyone deserves never to have to suffer without healthcare and worry about having their lives destroyed by the debt.
It is the moral choice and it is right. Anyone that calls themselves christian should agree with me.
Universal Health Care: Cheaper and Better | The Agonist
First, public health is cheaper. The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development studied the health expenses of all member countries – 29 in all including the United States. The median amount of GDP spent on health care of 29 countries has fluctuated between 7.9 and 8.4 for 2000-2003. For 2000-2003, US health expense as a percentage of GDP was 13.1%, 13.8%, 14.6% and 15% respectively – by far the highest total of all countries. Germany was the next most expensive country and their totals for the same years (2000-2003) were 10.6%, 10.8%, 10.9%, 11.1%, respectively. So, as a percentage of GDP basis, the US spends between 34% and 75% more as a percentage of GDP than countries that rely primarily on public funds to provide health service.
The OECD also breaks health expenses down into amount spent per capita. For the last four years (2000-2003), the median per capital expense for 29 OECD countries ranged from $2010 to 2248. Over the same years, the US once again spent more than any other OECD country, with figures for 2000-2003 of $4539, $4888, $5287 and $5635. Over the same time, Switzerland ranked second in per capita expenditures and Germany third. It’s important to notice that the US’s private health care system routinely spends at least twice as much per person than other countries with public health systems.
The fastest way to fix our debt problem is to go from corporate healthcare to universal.
Lets replace the ACA with Universal healthcare! Everyone deserves never to have to suffer without healthcare and worry about having their lives destroyed by the debt.
It is the moral choice and it is right. Anyone that calls themselves christian should agree with me.
Universal Health Care: Cheaper and Better | The Agonist
First, public health is cheaper. The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development studied the health expenses of all member countries – 29 in all including the United States. The median amount of GDP spent on health care of 29 countries has fluctuated between 7.9 and 8.4 for 2000-2003. For 2000-2003, US health expense as a percentage of GDP was 13.1%, 13.8%, 14.6% and 15% respectively – by far the highest total of all countries. Germany was the next most expensive country and their totals for the same years (2000-2003) were 10.6%, 10.8%, 10.9%, 11.1%, respectively. So, as a percentage of GDP basis, the US spends between 34% and 75% more as a percentage of GDP than countries that rely primarily on public funds to provide health service.
The OECD also breaks health expenses down into amount spent per capita. For the last four years (2000-2003), the median per capital expense for 29 OECD countries ranged from $2010 to 2248. Over the same years, the US once again spent more than any other OECD country, with figures for 2000-2003 of $4539, $4888, $5287 and $5635. Over the same time, Switzerland ranked second in per capita expenditures and Germany third. It’s important to notice that the US’s private health care system routinely spends at least twice as much per person than other countries with public health systems.
The fastest way to fix our debt problem is to go from corporate healthcare to universal.
Lets replace the ACA with Universal healthcare! Everyone deserves never to have to suffer without healthcare and worry about having their lives destroyed by the debt.
It is the moral choice and it is right. Anyone that calls themselves christian should agree with me.
Universal Health Care: Cheaper and Better | The Agonist
The fastest way to fix our debt problem is to go from corporate healthcare to universal.
Colorado was given a choice to have in state universal health care, and they rejected it soundly.
Hardly surprising seeing as the people with the money, are the people who have the interest in keeping a system which keeps them rich, and they'll fight tooth and nail to keep it, and spread lies through advertising to keep themselves rich. Wasn't this what Trump supporters wanted to do away with only a week ago? Sure, not they don't care.
Actually the people were shown how much it would cost them, and they rejected it. All of these schemes require other people's money to work.
The $$ values needed to fund it were given to the people by ITS SUPPORTERS. Most people chocked at the idea of a 10% payroll tax.
Well, some systems work and others don't.
That one got rejected before it had a chance to fail.
People love getting "free" stuff, but when they see the actual bill, the rightly balk at it.
Lets replace the ACA with Universal healthcare! Everyone deserves never to have to suffer without healthcare and worry about having their lives destroyed by the debt.
It is the moral choice and it is right. Anyone that calls themselves christian should agree with me.
Universal Health Care: Cheaper and Better | The Agonist
First, public health is cheaper. The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development studied the health expenses of all member countries – 29 in all including the United States. The median amount of GDP spent on health care of 29 countries has fluctuated between 7.9 and 8.4 for 2000-2003. For 2000-2003, US health expense as a percentage of GDP was 13.1%, 13.8%, 14.6% and 15% respectively – by far the highest total of all countries. Germany was the next most expensive country and their totals for the same years (2000-2003) were 10.6%, 10.8%, 10.9%, 11.1%, respectively. So, as a percentage of GDP basis, the US spends between 34% and 75% more as a percentage of GDP than countries that rely primarily on public funds to provide health service.
The OECD also breaks health expenses down into amount spent per capita. For the last four years (2000-2003), the median per capital expense for 29 OECD countries ranged from $2010 to 2248. Over the same years, the US once again spent more than any other OECD country, with figures for 2000-2003 of $4539, $4888, $5287 and $5635. Over the same time, Switzerland ranked second in per capita expenditures and Germany third. It’s important to notice that the US’s private health care system routinely spends at least twice as much per person than other countries with public health systems.
The fastest way to fix our debt problem is to go from corporate healthcare to universal.
What an incredibly stupid proposal.
No thank you.
The tories have capped NHS spending fora few years and that has led to problems. The NHS needs to be taken out of the political orbit and given a status with agreed levels of funding.Colorado was given a choice to have in state universal health care, and they rejected it soundly.
Hardly surprising seeing as the people with the money, are the people who have the interest in keeping a system which keeps them rich, and they'll fight tooth and nail to keep it, and spread lies through advertising to keep themselves rich. Wasn't this what Trump supporters wanted to do away with only a week ago? Sure, not they don't care.
Actually the people were shown how much it would cost them, and they rejected it. All of these schemes require other people's money to work.
The $$ values needed to fund it were given to the people by ITS SUPPORTERS. Most people chocked at the idea of a 10% payroll tax.
Well, some systems work and others don't.
That one got rejected before it had a chance to fail.
People love getting "free" stuff, but when they see the actual bill, the rightly balk at it.
But then again, get this, "free stuff" NHS costs HALF what the US health system costs.
You want to know why? They don't pay insurers massive amounts of money to do something unnecessary and to squeeze out large profits from doing something unnecessary, they don't pay pharma companies way over the odds for drugs, the doctors aren't screwing the system by taking backhanders to give out more expensive drugs, hospitals aren't taking massive profits etc etc.
When people get given a choice of a system which is probably going to be set up wrong just so they can use it to show that people don't want this system, then you know something is wrong.
You progressives and keep Obama care/universal care if you like, just keep the rest of us out of it. That shit forced on everybody is un-American and uncivilized... very Orwellian. Fact LOLI've said from the get-go that ObamaCare would be such a catastrophic failure the people will cry out for UHC.Lets replace the ACA with Universal healthcare!
Donald Trump used to advocate for UHC before he pretended to be a Republican, so it could happen.
I've said only a Republican could get UHC enacted, just like only a Southern Democrat could get civil rights legislation passed 50 years ago.
Colorado was given a choice to have in state universal health care, and they rejected it soundly.
Hardly surprising seeing as the people with the money, are the people who have the interest in keeping a system which keeps them rich, and they'll fight tooth and nail to keep it, and spread lies through advertising to keep themselves rich. Wasn't this what Trump supporters wanted to do away with only a week ago? Sure, not they don't care.
Actually the people were shown how much it would cost them, and they rejected it. All of these schemes require other people's money to work.
The $$ values needed to fund it were given to the people by ITS SUPPORTERS. Most people chocked at the idea of a 10% payroll tax.
Well, some systems work and others don't.
That one got rejected before it had a chance to fail.
People love getting "free" stuff, but when they see the actual bill, the rightly balk at it.
But then again, get this, "free stuff" NHS costs HALF what the US health system costs.
You want to know why? They don't pay insurers massive amounts of money to do something unnecessary and to squeeze out large profits from doing something unnecessary, they don't pay pharma companies way over the odds for drugs, the doctors aren't screwing the system by taking backhanders to give out more expensive drugs, hospitals aren't taking massive profits etc etc.
When people get given a choice of a system which is probably going to be set up wrong just so they can use it to show that people don't want this system, then you know something is wrong.
The tories have capped NHS spending fora few years and that has led to problems. The NHS needs to be taken out of the political orbit and given a status with agreed levels of funding.Hardly surprising seeing as the people with the money, are the people who have the interest in keeping a system which keeps them rich, and they'll fight tooth and nail to keep it, and spread lies through advertising to keep themselves rich. Wasn't this what Trump supporters wanted to do away with only a week ago? Sure, not they don't care.
Actually the people were shown how much it would cost them, and they rejected it. All of these schemes require other people's money to work.
The $$ values needed to fund it were given to the people by ITS SUPPORTERS. Most people chocked at the idea of a 10% payroll tax.
Well, some systems work and others don't.
That one got rejected before it had a chance to fail.
People love getting "free" stuff, but when they see the actual bill, the rightly balk at it.
But then again, get this, "free stuff" NHS costs HALF what the US health system costs.
You want to know why? They don't pay insurers massive amounts of money to do something unnecessary and to squeeze out large profits from doing something unnecessary, they don't pay pharma companies way over the odds for drugs, the doctors aren't screwing the system by taking backhanders to give out more expensive drugs, hospitals aren't taking massive profits etc etc.
When people get given a choice of a system which is probably going to be set up wrong just so they can use it to show that people don't want this system, then you know something is wrong.
It shocked me to hear how Americans are being stiffed on drugs charges. They are an oppressed people.
Hardly surprising seeing as the people with the money, are the people who have the interest in keeping a system which keeps them rich, and they'll fight tooth and nail to keep it, and spread lies through advertising to keep themselves rich. Wasn't this what Trump supporters wanted to do away with only a week ago? Sure, not they don't care.
Actually the people were shown how much it would cost them, and they rejected it. All of these schemes require other people's money to work.
The $$ values needed to fund it were given to the people by ITS SUPPORTERS. Most people chocked at the idea of a 10% payroll tax.
Well, some systems work and others don't.
That one got rejected before it had a chance to fail.
People love getting "free" stuff, but when they see the actual bill, the rightly balk at it.
But then again, get this, "free stuff" NHS costs HALF what the US health system costs.
You want to know why? They don't pay insurers massive amounts of money to do something unnecessary and to squeeze out large profits from doing something unnecessary, they don't pay pharma companies way over the odds for drugs, the doctors aren't screwing the system by taking backhanders to give out more expensive drugs, hospitals aren't taking massive profits etc etc.
When people get given a choice of a system which is probably going to be set up wrong just so they can use it to show that people don't want this system, then you know something is wrong.
Is that per capita? and right now the NHS is having serious financial issues on its own.
So they would replace the large profits of private insurance with the massive bloated buracracy of some government insurer. Some savings.
So lets stop having drug companies research new drugs. That will teach them, (and us). How many drugs come out of England vs. come out of the US?
No, NHS just keeps shortchanging doctors so basically they get paid and treated like high skilled factory workers.
People in Colorado WERE given a choice, and the complaining is just to cover the fact that they had to actually show people how much they would have to spend and give up to insure "everyone".
The tories have capped NHS spending fora few years and that has led to problems. The NHS needs to be taken out of the political orbit and given a status with agreed levels of funding.Actually the people were shown how much it would cost them, and they rejected it. All of these schemes require other people's money to work.
The $$ values needed to fund it were given to the people by ITS SUPPORTERS. Most people chocked at the idea of a 10% payroll tax.
Well, some systems work and others don't.
That one got rejected before it had a chance to fail.
People love getting "free" stuff, but when they see the actual bill, the rightly balk at it.
But then again, get this, "free stuff" NHS costs HALF what the US health system costs.
You want to know why? They don't pay insurers massive amounts of money to do something unnecessary and to squeeze out large profits from doing something unnecessary, they don't pay pharma companies way over the odds for drugs, the doctors aren't screwing the system by taking backhanders to give out more expensive drugs, hospitals aren't taking massive profits etc etc.
When people get given a choice of a system which is probably going to be set up wrong just so they can use it to show that people don't want this system, then you know something is wrong.
It shocked me to hear how Americans are being stiffed on drugs charges. They are an oppressed people.
So it's costing more than people thought, so the best solution is to throw more money at it?
Progressive stupidity at its finest.
The tories have capped NHS spending fora few years and that has led to problems. The NHS needs to be taken out of the political orbit and given a status with agreed levels of funding.Well, some systems work and others don't.
That one got rejected before it had a chance to fail.
People love getting "free" stuff, but when they see the actual bill, the rightly balk at it.
But then again, get this, "free stuff" NHS costs HALF what the US health system costs.
You want to know why? They don't pay insurers massive amounts of money to do something unnecessary and to squeeze out large profits from doing something unnecessary, they don't pay pharma companies way over the odds for drugs, the doctors aren't screwing the system by taking backhanders to give out more expensive drugs, hospitals aren't taking massive profits etc etc.
When people get given a choice of a system which is probably going to be set up wrong just so they can use it to show that people don't want this system, then you know something is wrong.
It shocked me to hear how Americans are being stiffed on drugs charges. They are an oppressed people.
So it's costing more than people thought, so the best solution is to throw more money at it?
Progressive stupidity at its finest.
No. Inflation increases, if you cap funding at a level, you're reducing funding. That's what the Tories have done. It's not costing more than people thought. However services are being affected. It took Labour 13 years to recover the NHS and teaching from the Tory decimation under Major, and then as soon as they've done it, the Tories come back in and decimate it again, while living on the good times before it gets really bad.
Another 1997 will happen again, with a Labour massive majority because people are fed up of the NHS and schools being so bad. Just hope to God it isn't Corbyn who gets the benefit of that.
ummmm..... you realize Bernie was for that you hiLIARy drone right?Lets replace the ACA with Universal healthcare! Everyone deserves never to have to suffer without healthcare and worry about having their lives destroyed by the debt.
It is the moral choice and it is right. Anyone that calls themselves christian should agree with me.
Universal Health Care: Cheaper and Better | The Agonist
First, public health is cheaper. The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development studied the health expenses of all member countries – 29 in all including the United States. The median amount of GDP spent on health care of 29 countries has fluctuated between 7.9 and 8.4 for 2000-2003. For 2000-2003, US health expense as a percentage of GDP was 13.1%, 13.8%, 14.6% and 15% respectively – by far the highest total of all countries. Germany was the next most expensive country and their totals for the same years (2000-2003) were 10.6%, 10.8%, 10.9%, 11.1%, respectively. So, as a percentage of GDP basis, the US spends between 34% and 75% more as a percentage of GDP than countries that rely primarily on public funds to provide health service.
The OECD also breaks health expenses down into amount spent per capita. For the last four years (2000-2003), the median per capital expense for 29 OECD countries ranged from $2010 to 2248. Over the same years, the US once again spent more than any other OECD country, with figures for 2000-2003 of $4539, $4888, $5287 and $5635. Over the same time, Switzerland ranked second in per capita expenditures and Germany third. It’s important to notice that the US’s private health care system routinely spends at least twice as much per person than other countries with public health systems.
The fastest way to fix our debt problem is to go from corporate healthcare to universal.
AND that he had a better chance of beating Donnie because of his message to the disenfranchised?
Lets replace the ACA with Universal healthcare! Everyone deserves never to have to suffer without healthcare and worry about having their lives destroyed by the debt.
It is the moral choice and it is right. Anyone that calls themselves christian should agree with me.
Universal Health Care: Cheaper and Better | The Agonist
First, public health is cheaper. The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development studied the health expenses of all member countries – 29 in all including the United States. The median amount of GDP spent on health care of 29 countries has fluctuated between 7.9 and 8.4 for 2000-2003. For 2000-2003, US health expense as a percentage of GDP was 13.1%, 13.8%, 14.6% and 15% respectively – by far the highest total of all countries. Germany was the next most expensive country and their totals for the same years (2000-2003) were 10.6%, 10.8%, 10.9%, 11.1%, respectively. So, as a percentage of GDP basis, the US spends between 34% and 75% more as a percentage of GDP than countries that rely primarily on public funds to provide health service.
The OECD also breaks health expenses down into amount spent per capita. For the last four years (2000-2003), the median per capital expense for 29 OECD countries ranged from $2010 to 2248. Over the same years, the US once again spent more than any other OECD country, with figures for 2000-2003 of $4539, $4888, $5287 and $5635. Over the same time, Switzerland ranked second in per capita expenditures and Germany third. It’s important to notice that the US’s private health care system routinely spends at least twice as much per person than other countries with public health systems.
The fastest way to fix our debt problem is to go from corporate healthcare to universal.
