We Need Government Healthcare Like Canada!

[Ray From Cleveland]

Gladly. The last healthcare salvation promised us a family would save $2,500 a year on healthcare insurance. It promised us no more garbage plans. All plans will provide quality care. The first word in the acronym stands for Affordable. If you like your doctor, you will keep your doctor.

All lies, every one of them. The plans are unaffordable, even the garbage plans. Insurance went up, not down. Some hospitals closed because of it, and others had to layoff a lot of people. Not everybody is insured.

Oh!!!! But this new government plan will save us all kinds of money!! Where did I hear that before???

Let me explain how some of this works: Government plans typically pay about 2/3 of the cost for services to providers. So providers increase their prices which the private insurance pays. This is why when you see hospitals or clinics close up, it's usually in poorer areas where almost everybody is on a government plan.

So what this estimate savings is not considering is what would facilities and doctors do when there is no private insurance to recoup government losses? The only way to keep these places open and people working is to force government to actually pay the full bill for everybody, and there goes all that savings. In the end, it would actually cost us more than it does now.

"All lies, every one of them" - spoken like a good cultist.

How about somebody that actually signed up for it?

How about a study backing your claim that it would actually cost us more than it does now? FYI, Hannity's Half-Minute isn't a study. Saying, "it's all lies" isn't an argument. It's not even a bad argument, it's just saying stuff.

What do you need a study about what's already been proven in recent past? These commies lie to us. Their main goal is to create as many government dependents as possible even if they have to lie to accomplish that. The more government dependents, the more likely Democrat voters.

Jesus H, man, you've got it bad. That's not anyone's goal, that's just something FOX or Rush pissed in your ear.

Of course that's their goal. Are you really that naive to believe some politician gives a shit if you're insured or not? Seriously.......

During the DumBama years, they bragged how they got 20 million more new government dependents thanks to Commie Care. He also created an additional 20 million more government dependents on food stamps. Between those two programs alone, he created 40 million more government dependents. Do you think that was an accident?

What are they talking about today? Free college, Medicare for all, African American reparations, paid leave. Now what do you think all these (and more) have in common?

 

[Markle]

How about a study backing your claim that it would actually cost us more than it does now? FYI, Hannity's Half-Minute isn't a study. Saying, "it's all lies" isn't an argument. It's not even a bad argument, it's just saying stuff.

Medicare for all?

There are many cost estimates. All are well over $30 TRILLION IN ADDITIONAL COSTS over 10 years.

Something to keep in mind, what cost estimate for any government project or program has been anywhere close ten years out? Is double or triple, even quadruple un-common?

 

[joaquinmiller]

How about a study backing your claim that it would actually cost us more than it does now? FYI, Hannity's Half-Minute isn't a study. Saying, "it's all lies" isn't an argument. It's not even a bad argument, it's just saying stuff.

Medicare for all?

There are many cost estimates. All are well over $30 TRILLION IN ADDITIONAL COSTS over 10 years.

Something to keep in mind, what cost estimate for any government project or program has been anywhere close ten years out? Is double or triple, even quadruple un-common?

$30T, not $30T in additional costs.

 

[blackhawk]

If you want healthcare like Canada there is really simple easy way to get it lets see how many can figure it out.

 

[joaquinmiller]

I suspect you meant increased federal spending, rather than "costs", but that has numerous offsets from states, corporations and individuals.

 

[joaquinmiller]

If you want healthcare like Canada there is really simple easy way to get it lets see how many can figure it out.

Nah, we want great healthcare, befitting the greatest nation.

 

[Markle]

That was a big reason UHC wasn't instituted then, and the disproportionate number of minorities in lower income brackets are a reason Americans reject UHC today. We hear absurd horror stories about Euro healthcare, but they all studiously avoid reporting those health systems have taken care of 100% of their citizenry for 70+ years.

"It will never work here!" Well, sure, if you're determined to make sure it won't work.

Your racist excuse won't work.

We simply did not want Socialist healthcare and far more people had a little thing called personal responsibility. Progressives kept forcing insurance companies to cover more and more things by mandate and the prices went crazy.

Horror stories are not absurd, they are accurate and causing painful problems in Europe.

Finland: Government Collapses Over Universal Health Care Costs
Posted by Fuzzy Slippers Sunday, March 10, 2019 at 7:30pm
“Similar problems are bedeviling Sweden and Denmark, two other countries frequently held up as models to follow on health care”
Finland: Government Collapses Over Universal Health Care Costs, #Bernie2020 Hardest Hit

###

It's not an excuse. It's one of a couple of possible explanations. You offered not one thing to counter it. Was there Jim Crow at the time? Were black people south of the Mason-Dixon allowed in the same hospital as white people?

Yes, you have horror stories - some absurd to the point of unbelievable. What you don't do is what every opponent of UHC doesn't do - you don't acknowledge that it has worked for millions of people in dozens of countries for over 70 years.

Today

• Saturday, February 22, 2020
  • (24 days from St. Patrick's Day)

And they are going broke and the systems are failing and have been for years,

We also are not going to stand for a seventy percent tax rate.+

At least you admit they've done it for 70 years. They aren't broke - their debt is 59% of their GDP, ours is more than 105% of our GDP. I'm not sure how you measure going broke. Are you?

I showed you one that has caved and others will follow. As you know too, the quality of their care deteriorates at about the same rate their waiting lists grow.

Finland: Government Collapses Over Universal Health Care Costs
Posted by Fuzzy Slippers Sunday, March 10, 2019 at 7:30pm
“Similar problems are bedeviling Sweden and Denmark, two other countries frequently held up as models to follow on health care”
Finland: Government Collapses Over Universal Health Care Costs, #Bernie2020 Hardest Hit

###

Have you figured a way to get American taxpayers to pay seventy percent of THEIR wages in taxes?

 

[Markle]

I suspect you meant increased federal spending, rather than "costs", but that has numerous offsets from states, corporations and individuals.

 

[joaquinmiller]

That was a big reason UHC wasn't instituted then, and the disproportionate number of minorities in lower income brackets are a reason Americans reject UHC today. We hear absurd horror stories about Euro healthcare, but they all studiously avoid reporting those health systems have taken care of 100% of their citizenry for 70+ years.

"It will never work here!" Well, sure, if you're determined to make sure it won't work.

Your racist excuse won't work.

We simply did not want Socialist healthcare and far more people had a little thing called personal responsibility. Progressives kept forcing insurance companies to cover more and more things by mandate and the prices went crazy.

Horror stories are not absurd, they are accurate and causing painful problems in Europe.

Finland: Government Collapses Over Universal Health Care Costs
Posted by Fuzzy Slippers Sunday, March 10, 2019 at 7:30pm
“Similar problems are bedeviling Sweden and Denmark, two other countries frequently held up as models to follow on health care”
Finland: Government Collapses Over Universal Health Care Costs, #Bernie2020 Hardest Hit

###

It's not an excuse. It's one of a couple of possible explanations. You offered not one thing to counter it. Was there Jim Crow at the time? Were black people south of the Mason-Dixon allowed in the same hospital as white people?

Yes, you have horror stories - some absurd to the point of unbelievable. What you don't do is what every opponent of UHC doesn't do - you don't acknowledge that it has worked for millions of people in dozens of countries for over 70 years.

Today

• Saturday, February 22, 2020
  • (24 days from St. Patrick's Day)

And they are going broke and the systems are failing and have been for years,

We also are not going to stand for a seventy percent tax rate.+

At least you admit they've done it for 70 years. They aren't broke - their debt is 59% of their GDP, ours is more than 105% of our GDP. I'm not sure how you measure going broke. Are you?

I showed you one that has caved and others will follow. As you know too, the quality of their care deteriorates at about the same rate their waiting lists grow.

Finland: Government Collapses Over Universal Health Care Costs
Posted by Fuzzy Slippers Sunday, March 10, 2019 at 7:30pm
“Similar problems are bedeviling Sweden and Denmark, two other countries frequently held up as models to follow on health care”
Finland: Government Collapses Over Universal Health Care Costs, #Bernie2020 Hardest Hit

###

Have you figured a way to get American taxpayers to pay seventy percent of THEIR wages in taxes?

'Government collapses', in a parliamentary system, doesn't mean they went broke. The gov't quit because it couldn't fulfill a deal it had promised. The country is still there, still has a government, and isn't broke. Read past the headline.

 

[joaquinmiller]

I suspect you meant increased federal spending, rather than "costs", but that has numerous offsets from states, corporations and individuals.

If there were Medicare for all, States wouldn't have to pay for Medicaid or cover unpaid ER bills, companies and individuals would save hundreds of billions by not having to pay insurance premiums, companies could realize those savings in competitive bids, every State's insurance Commission expenses would drop by billions. That's part of wut, but only part.

 

[Markle]

How about a study backing your claim that it would actually cost us more than it does now? FYI, Hannity's Half-Minute isn't a study. Saying, "it's all lies" isn't an argument. It's not even a bad argument, it's just saying stuff.

Medicare for all?

There are many cost estimates. All are well over $30 TRILLION IN ADDITIONAL COSTS over 10 years.

Something to keep in mind, what cost estimate for any government project or program has been anywhere close ten years out? Is double or triple, even quadruple un-common?

$30T, not $30T in additional costs.

Do you always run around making ignorant statements in the hope you can bluff your way through?

The Eye-Popping Cost of Medicare for All
According to new figures: more than the federal government will spend over the coming decade on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid combined.

RONALD BROWNSTEIN OCTOBER 16, 2019

Senator Elizabeth Warren’s refusal to answer repeated questions at last night’s debate about how she would fund Medicare for All underscores the challenge she faces finding a politically acceptable means to meet the idea’s huge price tag—a challenge that only intensified today with the release of an eye-popping new study.

The Urban Institute, a center-left think tank highly respected among Democrats, is projecting that a plan similar to what Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders are pushing would require $34 trillion in additional federal spending over its first decade in operation. That’s more than the federal government’s total cost over the coming decade for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid combined, according to the most recent Congressional Budget Office projections.

The Eye-Popping Cost of Medicare for All

 

[joaquinmiller]

Bankruptcy Courts and bankruptcy lawyers would lose a big portion of their business, if medical bankruptcies were removed from the equation. Aw, man, that'd be too bad.

66.5% of all bankruptcies are related to medical expenses - 530,000 people per year. Ain't that something?

 

[joaquinmiller]

How about a study backing your claim that it would actually cost us more than it does now? FYI, Hannity's Half-Minute isn't a study. Saying, "it's all lies" isn't an argument. It's not even a bad argument, it's just saying stuff.

Medicare for all?

There are many cost estimates. All are well over $30 TRILLION IN ADDITIONAL COSTS over 10 years.

Something to keep in mind, what cost estimate for any government project or program has been anywhere close ten years out? Is double or triple, even quadruple un-common?

$30T, not $30T in additional costs.

Do you always run around making ignorant statements in the hope you can bluff your way through?

The Eye-Popping Cost of Medicare for All
According to new figures: more than the federal government will spend over the coming decade on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid combined.

RONALD BROWNSTEIN OCTOBER 16, 2019

Senator Elizabeth Warren’s refusal to answer repeated questions at last night’s debate about how she would fund Medicare for All underscores the challenge she faces finding a politically acceptable means to meet the idea’s huge price tag—a challenge that only intensified today with the release of an eye-popping new study.

The Urban Institute, a center-left think tank highly respected among Democrats, is projecting that a plan similar to what Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders are pushing would require $34 trillion in additional federal spending over its first decade in operation. That’s more than the federal government’s total cost over the coming decade for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid combined, according to the most recent Congressional Budget Office projections.

The Eye-Popping Cost of Medicare for All

Did you ignore my post 35 minutes ago (post 265), saying "increased federal spending"? Spending and costs are not the same word, and you were initially referring to costs. I tried to gently correct you, without making a deal of it. Stow your misplaced insult - I make mistakes, like everyone, but I don't have a need to lie or bluff.

 

[Markle]

How about a study backing your claim that it would actually cost us more than it does now? FYI, Hannity's Half-Minute isn't a study. Saying, "it's all lies" isn't an argument. It's not even a bad argument, it's just saying stuff.

Medicare for all?

There are many cost estimates. All are well over $30 TRILLION IN ADDITIONAL COSTS over 10 years.

Something to keep in mind, what cost estimate for any government project or program has been anywhere close ten years out? Is double or triple, even quadruple un-common?

$30T, not $30T in additional costs.

Do you always run around making ignorant statements in the hope you can bluff your way through?

The Eye-Popping Cost of Medicare for All
According to new figures: more than the federal government will spend over the coming decade on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid combined.

RONALD BROWNSTEIN OCTOBER 16, 2019

Senator Elizabeth Warren’s refusal to answer repeated questions at last night’s debate about how she would fund Medicare for All underscores the challenge she faces finding a politically acceptable means to meet the idea’s huge price tag—a challenge that only intensified today with the release of an eye-popping new study.

The Urban Institute, a center-left think tank highly respected among Democrats, is projecting that a plan similar to what Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders are pushing would require $34 trillion in additional federal spending over its first decade in operation. That’s more than the federal government’s total cost over the coming decade for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid combined, according to the most recent Congressional Budget Office projections.

The Eye-Popping Cost of Medicare for All

Did you ignore my post 35 minutes ago (post 265), saying "increased federal spending"? Spending and costs are not the same word, and you were initially referring to costs. I tried to gently correct you, without making a deal of it. Stow your misplaced insult - I make mistakes, like everyone, but I don't have a need to lie or bluff.

Was this NOT your four-word response?

"$30T, not $30T in additional costs."

 

[joaquinmiller]

How about a study backing your claim that it would actually cost us more than it does now? FYI, Hannity's Half-Minute isn't a study. Saying, "it's all lies" isn't an argument. It's not even a bad argument, it's just saying stuff.

Medicare for all?

There are many cost estimates. All are well over $30 TRILLION IN ADDITIONAL COSTS over 10 years.

Something to keep in mind, what cost estimate for any government project or program has been anywhere close ten years out? Is double or triple, even quadruple un-common?

$30T, not $30T in additional costs.

Do you always run around making ignorant statements in the hope you can bluff your way through?

The Eye-Popping Cost of Medicare for All
According to new figures: more than the federal government will spend over the coming decade on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid combined.

RONALD BROWNSTEIN OCTOBER 16, 2019

Senator Elizabeth Warren’s refusal to answer repeated questions at last night’s debate about how she would fund Medicare for All underscores the challenge she faces finding a politically acceptable means to meet the idea’s huge price tag—a challenge that only intensified today with the release of an eye-popping new study.

The Urban Institute, a center-left think tank highly respected among Democrats, is projecting that a plan similar to what Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders are pushing would require $34 trillion in additional federal spending over its first decade in operation. That’s more than the federal government’s total cost over the coming decade for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid combined, according to the most recent Congressional Budget Office projections.

The Eye-Popping Cost of Medicare for All

Did you ignore my post 35 minutes ago (post 265), saying "increased federal spending"? Spending and costs are not the same word, and you were initially referring to costs. I tried to gently correct you, without making a deal of it. Stow your misplaced insult - I make mistakes, like everyone, but I don't have a need to lie or bluff.

Was this NOT your four-word response?

"$30T, not $30T in additional costs."

Yes, because 'costs' and federal spending are not the same. When a State's share of Medicaid spending begins to be covered by Medicare for all, the cost doesn't change. The spending shifts - increasing at the federal level and dropping at the state level.

 

[Markle]

Medicare for all?

There are many cost estimates. All are well over $30 TRILLION IN ADDITIONAL COSTS over 10 years.

Something to keep in mind, what cost estimate for any government project or program has been anywhere close ten years out? Is double or triple, even quadruple un-common?

$30T, not $30T in additional costs.

Do you always run around making ignorant statements in the hope you can bluff your way through?

The Eye-Popping Cost of Medicare for All
According to new figures: more than the federal government will spend over the coming decade on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid combined.

RONALD BROWNSTEIN OCTOBER 16, 2019

Senator Elizabeth Warren’s refusal to answer repeated questions at last night’s debate about how she would fund Medicare for All underscores the challenge she faces finding a politically acceptable means to meet the idea’s huge price tag—a challenge that only intensified today with the release of an eye-popping new study.

The Urban Institute, a center-left think tank highly respected among Democrats, is projecting that a plan similar to what Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders are pushing would require $34 trillion in additional federal spending over its first decade in operation. That’s more than the federal government’s total cost over the coming decade for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid combined, according to the most recent Congressional Budget Office projections.

The Eye-Popping Cost of Medicare for All

Did you ignore my post 35 minutes ago (post 265), saying "increased federal spending"? Spending and costs are not the same word, and you were initially referring to costs. I tried to gently correct you, without making a deal of it. Stow your misplaced insult - I make mistakes, like everyone, but I don't have a need to lie or bluff.

Was this NOT your four-word response?

"$30T, not $30T in additional costs."

Yes, because 'costs' and federal spending are not the same. When a State's share of Medicaid spending begins to be covered by Medicare for all, the cost doesn't change. The spending shifts - increasing at the federal level and dropping at the state level.

Really? Now you're going to get into semantics?

Admit it you had no clue and thought you'd score some points?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

If you want healthcare like Canada there is really simple easy way to get it lets see how many can figure it out.

The problem is that they regulate immigrants very tightly.

I'd like to see their system at work if Mexico were their southern border.

New Zeland once denied immigration to a woman because she was overweight....didn't want to invite something that would eventually be a burden on their health care system.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Medicare for all?

There are many cost estimates. All are well over $30 TRILLION IN ADDITIONAL COSTS over 10 years.

Something to keep in mind, what cost estimate for any government project or program has been anywhere close ten years out? Is double or triple, even quadruple un-common?

$30T, not $30T in additional costs.

Do you always run around making ignorant statements in the hope you can bluff your way through?

The Eye-Popping Cost of Medicare for All
According to new figures: more than the federal government will spend over the coming decade on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid combined.

RONALD BROWNSTEIN OCTOBER 16, 2019

Senator Elizabeth Warren’s refusal to answer repeated questions at last night’s debate about how she would fund Medicare for All underscores the challenge she faces finding a politically acceptable means to meet the idea’s huge price tag—a challenge that only intensified today with the release of an eye-popping new study.

The Urban Institute, a center-left think tank highly respected among Democrats, is projecting that a plan similar to what Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders are pushing would require $34 trillion in additional federal spending over its first decade in operation. That’s more than the federal government’s total cost over the coming decade for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid combined, according to the most recent Congressional Budget Office projections.

The Eye-Popping Cost of Medicare for All

Did you ignore my post 35 minutes ago (post 265), saying "increased federal spending"? Spending and costs are not the same word, and you were initially referring to costs. I tried to gently correct you, without making a deal of it. Stow your misplaced insult - I make mistakes, like everyone, but I don't have a need to lie or bluff.

Was this NOT your four-word response?

"$30T, not $30T in additional costs."

Yes, because 'costs' and federal spending are not the same. When a State's share of Medicaid spending begins to be covered by Medicare for all, the cost doesn't change. The spending shifts - increasing at the federal level and dropping at the state level.

So what is the advantage ?

 

[Cecilie1200]

As I said, every system has it's flaws. They are different from one another, but I've yet to read about a healthcare system that is perfect.

What I get perturbed by is when people come here and tell us how our system sucks so badly, and everyplace else around the world has such great government healthcare. The left tells us it's all the insurance companies fault, and not the government which is the real problem.

If we want to bring down the cost of our healthcare, get government out of it, not bring more government in.

The insurance companies are the reason you costs are so high, not the government. We pay administration of 7%, and some of the European companies pay even less - 5% of thereabouts. The US is around 35%. A big chunk of that is insurance company profit, "loss prevention", and administration, in other words, denying claims.

I've had private insurance for forty years and I've never had a claim denied for me, my wife, and my four children.

Helps a lot to actually learn the coverage offered instead of assuming, doesn't it?

It’s even better when there are no limitations or exclusions, everything is covered and nobody is ever denied.

Purge garbage.

There is as least one well publisized case where England would not approve an experimental drug and let a woman die (saying, in fact, she should shut up and and take it like a good Brit).

And how many children is it now that Great Britain decided should just die instead of letting their parents pay out-of-pocket for experimental treatments? Two? Three?

Yeah, that's totally the kind of healthcare we need: "We're the government, we're in charge of your life, we know better than you, no matter what."

 

[Cecilie1200]

You are either out of your mind, or the biggest bald-faced liar since Hillary Clinton . . . or both.

WOW!! Another Canadian?

But wait, there's more! If you have an HMO, you also have co-pays for being admitted to the emergency room and hospital. These typically run from $600.00 to $3000.00. Is it any wonder that consumer healthcare costs are the number one reason for bankruptcy?

Wow, you're just spewing random shit relating to not a damned thing.

At least you clarified for us all that you are, in fact, out of your mind.

I don't know if I mentioned it but depending on the product you also have a $3000.00 to $8000.00 yearly deductible. Is it any wonder that consumer healthcare costs are the number one reason for bankruptcy?

What I actually wonder about is why you think I'm going to accept that lie as fact just because you say it.

Because, even on my worst day, I'm smarter than you.

Yeah, so "smart" that you can't comprehend simple English sentences, or grasp the fact that you're viewed with mockery and disdain even when it's spelled out for you.

I'd believe my dog on political issues before I'd believe you. Same amount of intellectual acumen, but he's at least cute.