Universal Healthcare question for everyone

Yes, I would like universal healthcare
We have no patient charges for hospital treatment. Funded from the general account.

Accidental injury treatment is also covered for everyone, including visitors, funded by worker levy, you're welcome.

I believe the explanation for the American system not being reformed given to me by a poster a while back. They didn't want Blacks getting free stuff.
 
We have no patient charges for hospital treatment. Funded from the general account.

Accidental injury treatment is also covered for everyone, including visitors, funded by worker levy, you're welcome.

I believe the explanation for the American system not being reformed given to me by a poster a while back. They didn't want Blacks getting free stuff.
Except we have a Welfare system that provides "free"* medical care.
* Taxpayer provided, along with guv'mint debt.
 
Oh ffs.

Another ignorant douche has to display their ignorance.
Check the numbers at the link I provided, show the debt comparison.

You could check Jane's to get number's on military decline in UK from WWII to present.

We watch a lot of Britbox and gain a lot about Brit culture, etc. ;)
 
So we punish those who didn’t take on debt or chose to repay it? Hard pass. You’re always looking for freebies. And what then? Free education? You’re such a socialist

I got a "free" education by joining the Army... something you'd never have the backbone to do.

If, according to you, Medical Professionals are a necessity, then we should be paying for their schooling.

Sometimes you don't see the illogic of your own position.

They lose what $6bn a year? You truly are ignorant when it comes to basic Econ and finance.

They are only "losing" money because Repukes have required them to cover pension costs for the next 50 years.


But, according to James O’Rourke, professor of management at the University of Notre Dame’s Mendoza College of Business, the postal service’s money troubles have little to do with low prices and much more to do with a stifling congressional mandate.

“The Trump administration is mistaken about its claim that the postal service is losing money ‘every time they hand out a package for Amazon and other Internet companies,’” O’Rourke said. “The current agreement with Amazon, and presumably other online merchants, is, at the very least, a break-even arrangement. The reason the postal service is losing money is because of a congressionally mandated retirement healthcare funding program that no other government agency is required to observe. This creates a $6.5 billion annual shortfall that could easily be avoided.”
 
Good to be rich I guess. Working Americans can't do that shit.
Sure we can....I've been paying cash for procedures at hospitals and clinics all my life.

It's your attitude, that everyone who comes into contact with anyone in a pair of scrubs and a lab coat means that a 3rd party should take care of the bill, that has made things more expensive than it should be.
 
They lose what $6bn a year? You truly are ignorant when it comes to basic Econ and finance.

Just fine lol

You have to forgive him he only knows what his party tells him.
If they told him that the U.S. had no debt he would repeat it over and over and anything you showed him would just be rwnj.
 
I got a "free" education by joining the Army... something you'd never have the backbone to do.

If, according to you, Medical Professionals are a necessity, then we should be paying for their schooling.

Sometimes you don't see the illogic of your own position.



They are only "losing" money because Repukes have required them to cover pension costs for the next 50 years.


But, according to James O’Rourke, professor of management at the University of Notre Dame’s Mendoza College of Business, the postal service’s money troubles have little to do with low prices and much more to do with a stifling congressional mandate.

“The Trump administration is mistaken about its claim that the postal service is losing money ‘every time they hand out a package for Amazon and other Internet companies,’” O’Rourke said. “The current agreement with Amazon, and presumably other online merchants, is, at the very least, a break-even arrangement. The reason the postal service is losing money is because of a congressionally mandated retirement healthcare funding program that no other government agency is required to observe. This creates a $6.5 billion annual shortfall that could easily be avoided.”
You Marxist chumps always have an excuse why gubmint fails at everything it does, yet can't point to a single ringing success.
 
You have to forgive him he only knows what his party tells him.
If they told him that the U.S. had no debt he would repeat it over and over and anything you showed him would just be rwnj.

See the post above, stupid.

The post office would be profitable if it weren't for a Republican Mandate to fund their pension and health care for the next 50 years.
 
I got a "free" education by joining the Army... something you'd never have the backbone to do.

If, according to you, Medical Professionals are a necessity, then we should be paying for their schooling.

Sometimes you don't see the illogic of your own position.



They are only "losing" money because Repukes have required them to cover pension costs for the next 50 years.


But, according to James O’Rourke, professor of management at the University of Notre Dame’s Mendoza College of Business, the postal service’s money troubles have little to do with low prices and much more to do with a stifling congressional mandate.

“The Trump administration is mistaken about its claim that the postal service is losing money ‘every time they hand out a package for Amazon and other Internet companies,’” O’Rourke said. “The current agreement with Amazon, and presumably other online merchants, is, at the very least, a break-even arrangement. The reason the postal service is losing money is because of a congressionally mandated retirement healthcare funding program that no other government agency is required to observe. This creates a $6.5 billion annual shortfall that could easily be avoided.”
First off the postal service agreed to that retirement health care setup. Then when they realized what it would cost they wanted to kick everyone off. The government only made them cover what they agreed to until those that were covered under that agreement are no longer covered. They were stupid to set it up and then turn around and want to end it when they realized how expensive it was.
Breaking even on a package is not a good business model. Only the government can afford to do that because it is on our dime.
 
I got a "free" education by joining the Army... something you'd never have the backbone to do.

If, according to you, Medical Professionals are a necessity, then we should be paying for their schooling.

Sometimes you don't see the illogic of your own position.



They are only "losing" money because Repukes have required them to cover pension costs for the next 50 years.


But, according to James O’Rourke, professor of management at the University of Notre Dame’s Mendoza College of Business, the postal service’s money troubles have little to do with low prices and much more to do with a stifling congressional mandate.

“The Trump administration is mistaken about its claim that the postal service is losing money ‘every time they hand out a package for Amazon and other Internet companies,’” O’Rourke said. “The current agreement with Amazon, and presumably other online merchants, is, at the very least, a break-even arrangement. The reason the postal service is losing money is because of a congressionally mandated retirement healthcare funding program that no other government agency is required to observe. This creates a $6.5 billion annual shortfall that could easily be avoided.”
You don’t know shit about me, fatty. And you moved the goal posts. You want debt forgiveness. Non starter
 
See the post above, stupid.

The post office would be profitable if it weren't for a Republican Mandate to fund their pension and health care for the next 50 years.
So let’s cancel the pension and healthcare
 
15th post
UMass is $37k per yr for MA residents

Ridiculous

I agree, it is.

Now, WHY is it 37K.

I can't speak for MA, but I can speak for IL.

When I went to UIC back in the day (which was the 80's, not the 70s) tuition was only about $1500 a year. Or about $7000 in today's money.

The rest of the U of I system was supported by the state. So tuition was relatively low.

Those state subsidies have largely disappeared, and the burden has been shifted onto the students. So today's tuition and fees at UIC are $18,000 a year for in-state students.

Further, all the universities are engaged in kind of an arms race with amenities and infrastructure, to make them more attractive.
 
Back
Top Bottom