Single-payer HC plan IS the answer......

[dblack]

If we put government in charge of health care via single-payer, the Donald Trump's of this world will be controlling it.

I would suggest that with all the current wrangling going on that is now the case anyway.

It's getting there. Do we want more, or less?

 

[dblack]

Why would you want an opt out?

I dont like paying for bombs. Why would you want an opt out from the NHS ?

Because I don't want Donald Trump calling the shots on my health care.

That's good because he doesn't either.

If we put government in charge of health care via single-payer, the Donald Trump's of this world will be controlling it.

Oh, the left wants that so bad.

They secretly love Trumpster.

It's hard not to see a true authoritarian vibe in their politics.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Because I don't want Donald Trump calling the shots on my health care.

The funny thing is that people like Donald Trump are the people who own insurance companies who are calling the shots on your healthcare.

The not so funny thing is, government can have you arrested or killed if you don't do what they say. A private company has no such power. If you don't like what they're selling, you can tell them fuck off.

This is something socialists can't bear to acknowledge, but it's the naked truth.

I'm not sure what this has to do with healthcare. A govt could bomb your house, is this reason to not have govt funded healthcare? It's like two very separate things.

Private companies can disappear and take all your money with them leaving you with nothing.

Victims of pension funds collapse win High Court battle

"Four people who lost their company pensions when their schemes collapsed won a landmark High Court case against the Government yesterday.'

"Campaigners for 125,000 people who lost their life savings in company pensions that failed during the last decade, said that the High Court ruling raised hopes that the Government would be forced to pay compensation."

I went hunting for health insurance recently, and what I found was that as you get older what you pay in increases simply because you're getting older. If you were born with a problem, you're fucked, they won't cover it, so you could literally end up without treatment simply because they don't care. You're there for profit, and that you can't take out new insurance once you're over like 60 years old, you're stuck with whatever it is you've got because no one else will take you, and over 75 they don't give a damn at all and you can't get insurance no matter what you want.

I've seen both sides of the system, and the insurance in the US makes me angry, and it makes me realize it's all a con.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

If we put government in charge of health care via single-payer, the Donald Trump's of this world will be controlling it.

I would suggest that with all the current wrangling going on that is now the case anyway.

It's getting there. Do we want more, or less?

More I would say. You pay over the odds for what you have now. Cut out all the parasites and have a proper health service that is open to all regardless of wealth. Its the Christian way to do it.

 

[dblack]

If we put government in charge of health care via single-payer, the Donald Trump's of this world will be controlling it.

I would suggest that with all the current wrangling going on that is now the case anyway.

It's getting there. Do we want more, or less?

More I would say. You pay over the odds for what you have now. Cut out all the parasites and have a proper health service that is open to all regardless of wealth. Its the Christian way to do it.

Well, if Trump so wills it.

 

[dblack]

Because I don't want Donald Trump calling the shots on my health care.

The funny thing is that people like Donald Trump are the people who own insurance companies who are calling the shots on your healthcare.

The not so funny thing is, government can have you arrested or killed if you don't do what they say. A private company has no such power. If you don't like what they're selling, you can tell them fuck off.

This is something socialists can't bear to acknowledge, but it's the naked truth.

I'm not sure what this has to do with healthcare.

You're talking about socializing health care. I'm trying - with little hope of succeeding - to open your eyes as to why that's a dangerous idea.

Bill Gates can't have you arrested for running Linux. Mao can.

I've seen both sides of the system, and the insurance in the US makes me angry, and it makes me realize it's all a con.

I wholeheartedly agree. That's why I don't want to be forced to be a mark.

 

[dblack]

Seriously, if we get single-payer, every fucking election will be a public referendum on whether sick people live or die. I can't imagine why so many of you idiots welcome the idea.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Because I don't want Donald Trump calling the shots on my health care.

The funny thing is that people like Donald Trump are the people who own insurance companies who are calling the shots on your healthcare.

The not so funny thing is, government can have you arrested or killed if you don't do what they say. A private company has no such power. If you don't like what they're selling, you can tell them fuck off.

This is something socialists can't bear to acknowledge, but it's the naked truth.

I'm not sure what this has to do with healthcare.

You're talking about socializing health care. I'm trying - with little hope of succeeding - to open your eyes as to why that's a dangerous idea.

Bill Gates can't have you arrested for running Linux. Mao can.

I've seen both sides of the system, and the insurance in the US makes me angry, and it makes me realize it's all a con.

I wholeheartedly agree. That's why I don't want to be forced to be a mark.

Listen, govt can be dangerous. That's why it should be less dangerous if people are electing representatives who supposedly have the best interests of those who voted for them. However the US has decided it's better to vote for entertainment value than actually what is right.

But the problem here is that govt can control businesses anyway, they have laws that can do good or do bad to businesses. So either way, private healthcare insurance or not, you're still reliant on those who have been elected to do the right thing. So you should probably vote better.

Mao can't have anyone arrested, he's dead. But your point is there.
The problem is that the Koch brothers probably could have you arrested because they control enough people who could make it happen. Politicians shouldn't have the power to get people arrested full stop, they have the power to make laws and make sure those who should be carrying them out do. But money talks in the US, and money is making sure that man people support the idea of a healthcare system which makes some people very rich, at YOUR expense.

Again, I've lived under both types of healthcare, and I prefer the one where I know I'm not getting fucked over. Yes, I've seen the problems with single payer healthcare, and where I've seen it, it could certainly do with more safeguards.

But like I've said, safeguards are required for both single payer and private health insurance type systems. The govt has the power to do a lot of things, but private companies also have the power to leech off of you and give you nothing.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Seriously, if we get single-payer, every fucking election will be a public referendum on whether sick people live or die. I can't imagine why so many of you idiots welcome the idea.

Isn't it like that already? Seriously, Trump gets in and wants millions of people to die.

However look at the systems in Europe, like the French and Germans. They DON'T have a system like that. The system has been set up and legally they obliged to carry it out because they've made it WORK. Something US politicians seem incapable of making, something that actually functions.

 

[dblack]

You're talking about socializing health care. I'm trying - with little hope of succeeding - to open your eyes as to why that's a dangerous idea.

Bill Gates can't have you arrested for running Linux. Mao can.

I've seen both sides of the system, and the insurance in the US makes me angry, and it makes me realize it's all a con.

I wholeheartedly agree. That's why I don't want to be forced to be a mark.

Listen, govt can be dangerous. That's why it should be less dangerous if people are electing representatives who supposedly have the best interests of those who voted for them. However the US has decided it's better to vote for entertainment value than actually what is right.

But the problem here is that govt can control businesses anyway ...

To some degree, they can, which is the problem. The question is, should government have more power in that regard, or less.

Mao can't have anyone arrested, he's dead. But your point is there.
The problem is that the Koch brothers probably could have you arrested because they control enough people who could make it happen.

They don't have legal authority to do so. If they get caught doing that, they face prosecution.

Single payer will turn health care into a political football. It's far too important to let that happen.

 

[dblack]

Seriously, if we get single-payer, every fucking election will be a public referendum on whether sick people live or die. I can't imagine why so many of you idiots welcome the idea.

Isn't it like that already? Seriously, Trump gets in and wants millions of people to die.

Yes. It's that way BECAUSE the ACA gives him that power. That's my entire point.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You're talking about socializing health care. I'm trying - with little hope of succeeding - to open your eyes as to why that's a dangerous idea.

Bill Gates can't have you arrested for running Linux. Mao can.

I've seen both sides of the system, and the insurance in the US makes me angry, and it makes me realize it's all a con.

I wholeheartedly agree. That's why I don't want to be forced to be a mark.

Listen, govt can be dangerous. That's why it should be less dangerous if people are electing representatives who supposedly have the best interests of those who voted for them. However the US has decided it's better to vote for entertainment value than actually what is right.

But the problem here is that govt can control businesses anyway ...

To some degree, they can, which is the problem. The question is, should government have more power in that regard, or less.

Mao can't have anyone arrested, he's dead. But your point is there.
The problem is that the Koch brothers probably could have you arrested because they control enough people who could make it happen.

They don't have legal authority to do so. If they get caught do that, they face prosecution.

Single payer will turn health care into a political football. It's far too important to let that happen.

Should govt have power? Well they do. The problem isn't necessarily the power, it's how people vote. And right now the way people vote leads to too many problems where the voters don't trust the politicians.

However suggest change to many of the voters and they say no. Why? Because they're completely in the power of the politicians who are completely in the power of those with money.

So the US has problems, basically. Single payer would just be cheaper, with less risks.

No, the Koch brothers don't have legal authority. But they control the people who control the people who do have legal authority. You know it's true. If the Koch brothers wanted someone locked up, I'm sure it would happen.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Seriously, if we get single-payer, every fucking election will be a public referendum on whether sick people live or die. I can't imagine why so many of you idiots welcome the idea.

Isn't it like that already? Seriously, Trump gets in and wants millions of people to die.

Yes. It's that way BECAUSE the ACA gives him that power. That's my entire point.

Well, ACA isn't single payer, is it? It's a system which just carries on with the whole "throw money at insurance companies" thing.

 

[dblack]

Well, ACA isn't single payer, is it? It's a system which just carries on with the whole "throw money at insurance companies" thing.

And what makes you think "single-payer", in the US, would be any different?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, ACA isn't single payer, is it? It's a system which just carries on with the whole "throw money at insurance companies" thing.

And what makes you think "single-payer", in the US, would be any different?

Well the first problem, main problem, problem that needs to be sorted before all else, is the problem of how people vote. Sort that out and maybe there would be a system that isn't.

In the UK you don't need insurance companies. In Germany and France and other places these insurance companies are non-profit companies, and they have to do certain things, like no getting out of pre-existing conditions, no dropping old people etc etc. It's doable, but you need a govt that actually serves the people first.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Not all people. If that were the case, there be no need for it to be "mandatory".

Which taxes are optional ? My tax money goes towards the NHS which I am happy about. They also go to build nulear bombs which I am not happy about. Where is my trident opt out ?

Why would you want an opt out?

I dont like paying for bombs. Why would you want an opt out from the NHS ?

Because I don't want Donald Trump calling the shots on my health care.

The funny thing is that people like Donald Trump are the people who own insurance companies who are calling the shots on your healthcare.

Instead of having lots of Congressmen who you get to vote for, you end up with an insurance dude, anonymous.

Not only that the US federal govt spends MORE per capita on healthcare than the UK govt which has single pay, and that gets you NOTHING.

Not only that, in the UK you get the healthcare you pay for, with insurance companies they're like "you're getting older, you have to pay more" or "You have a preexisting condition, we don't like you, fuck off" or "You're too old, we won't bother with you any more".

Yes, you can wake up one day, after paying in loads for healthcare, and get NOTHING. Doesn't happen in the UK.

Numbers in the U.S. can vary widely between counties (side by side) in a single state.

Using bulk numbers to describe the U.S. is stupid.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Well, ACA isn't single payer, is it? It's a system which just carries on with the whole "throw money at insurance companies" thing.

And what makes you think "single-payer", in the US, would be any different?

Well the first problem, main problem, problem that needs to be sorted before all else, is the problem of how people vote. Sort that out and maybe there would be a system that isn't.

In the UK you don't need insurance companies. In Germany and France and other places these insurance companies are non-profit companies, and they have to do certain things, like no getting out of pre-existing conditions, no dropping old people etc etc. It's doable, but you need a govt that actually serves the people first.

You are saying there is no private insurance in the U.K. ?

 

[dblack]

Well, ACA isn't single payer, is it? It's a system which just carries on with the whole "throw money at insurance companies" thing.

And what makes you think "single-payer", in the US, would be any different?

Well the first problem, main problem, problem that needs to be sorted before all else, is the problem of how people vote. Sort that out and maybe there would be a system that isn't.

Unlikely. Medicare is the go-to model for how to do single payer in the US, right? Do you think it's free of for-profit insurance companies? Think again.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Well, ACA isn't single payer, is it? It's a system which just carries on with the whole "throw money at insurance companies" thing.

And what makes you think "single-payer", in the US, would be any different?

Well the first problem, main problem, problem that needs to be sorted before all else, is the problem of how people vote. Sort that out and maybe there would be a system that isn't.

In the UK you don't need insurance companies. In Germany and France and other places these insurance companies are non-profit companies, and they have to do certain things, like no getting out of pre-existing conditions, no dropping old people etc etc. It's doable, but you need a govt that actually serves the people first.

You are saying there is no private insurance in the U.K. ?

Nope, there is private insurance. But it only covers you for limited things. Anything difficult or long term and they dont want to know.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

You're talking about socializing health care. I'm trying - with little hope of succeeding - to open your eyes as to why that's a dangerous idea.

Bill Gates can't have you arrested for running Linux. Mao can.

I've seen both sides of the system, and the insurance in the US makes me angry, and it makes me realize it's all a con.

I wholeheartedly agree. That's why I don't want to be forced to be a mark.

Listen, govt can be dangerous. That's why it should be less dangerous if people are electing representatives who supposedly have the best interests of those who voted for them. However the US has decided it's better to vote for entertainment value than actually what is right.

But the problem here is that govt can control businesses anyway ...

To some degree, they can, which is the problem. The question is, should government have more power in that regard, or less.

Mao can't have anyone arrested, he's dead. But your point is there.
The problem is that the Koch brothers probably could have you arrested because they control enough people who could make it happen.

They don't have legal authority to do so. If they get caught do that, they face prosecution.

Single payer will turn health care into a political football. It's far too important to let that happen.

Should govt have power? Well they do. The problem isn't necessarily the power, it's how people vote. And right now the way people vote leads to too many problems where the voters don't trust the politicians.

However suggest change to many of the voters and they say no. Why? Because they're completely in the power of the politicians who are completely in the power of those with money.

So the US has problems, basically. Single payer would just be cheaper, with less risks.

No, the Koch brothers don't have legal authority. But they control the people who control the people who do have legal authority. You know it's true. If the Koch brothers wanted someone locked up, I'm sure it would happen.

You can put this one in the conspriracy theories forum.