Republicans can't deal with medical care:

Hello Supposn,

Republicans can't deal with medical care:

Republicans had, and many still believe the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is and will continue to be an issue to their political net advantage.
[The United States has begun to join all other of the world's industrial nation that had previously recognized their population's need for medical treatment as a human right and concern of their government]. Republican's dilemma is no nation's population obtaining such a government commitment, has ever wanted it rescinded.

Republicans have been unable to convince the majority of USA voters that access to medical treatment should not be considered as a necessary human right and concern of their government.

Respectfully, Supposn

Well the thing is this: You can hardly be a great country if you let people fall through the cracks and don't do anything to help them. Especially if the powerful in that country are so busy creating more and wider cracks.
 
Those evil insurance companies in America are looters.In Germany, you pay for health insurance. The cost is 7.3 percent of income. That covers everything minus some small copays.
I suggest you do more research as your figures are wrong.

"In the Public system the premium

is set by the*Federal Ministry of Health*based on a fixed set of covered services as described in the German Social Law (Sozialgesetzbuch – SGB), which limits those services to "economically viable, sufficient, necessary and meaningful services"is not dependent on an individual's health condition, but a percentage (currently 15.5%, 7.3% of which is covered by the employer) of salaried income under €54,450 per year (in 2019"
 
Mine dropped. My wife got leukemia when the ACA came out. We were lucky and it helped pay for her treatment. She is in remission. The cost of her treatment was enormous. That is the American way you defend.
The simple fact is every other industrialized country has universal coverage and they get full coverage. They pay half what we do for the medical system. It is not more costly and covers everyone. Why does that offend you? What is wrong is for-profit medicine. We are allowing corporations and greedy fucks to loot the ill.They will charge "all the traffic will bear".
I also wonder why they blame Obama for the faults of a plan that came out of a conservative think tank and think that Obamacare was responsible for their insurance company's decision to rip them off. Just normal capitalism.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
Glad to hear your wife is in remission. It is funny those that love Obamacare are those who's premiums dropped compared to those who's premiums increased. There are several reasons why universal health care would not work for us here. One of which is the size of our population. No industrialized nation with universal health care comes close to us in population. That said here is a site that gives an honest evaluation of Universal health care.


RNrLb24.png




"Advantages
Universal health care lowers health care costs for an economy. The government controls the price of medication and medical services through negotiation and regulation.

It eliminates the administrative costs of dealing with different private health insurers. Doctors only deal with one government agency. U.S. doctors must deal with many private insurance companies, Medicare, and Medicaid. It standardizes billing procedures and coverage rules. Companies don't have to hire staff to deal with different health insurance company rules.

It forces hospitals and doctors to provide the same standard of service at a low cost. In a competitive environment like the United States, health care providers focus on new technology. They offer expensive services and pay doctors more. They try to compete by targeting the wealthy. They charge more to get a higher profit. It leads to higher costs.

Universal health care creates a healthier workforce. Studies show that preventive care reduces the need for expensive emergency room usage. Before Obamacare, 46% of emergency room patients went because they had no other place to go. They used the emergency room as their primary care physician. This health care inequality is a big reason for the rising cost of medical care.

Early childhood care prevents future social costs. These include crime, welfare dependency, and health issues. Health education teaches families how to make healthy lifestyle choices, preventing chronic diseases.

Governments can impose regulations and taxes to guide the population toward healthier choices. Regulations make unhealthy choices, such as drugs, illegal. Sin taxes, such as those on cigarettes and alcohol, make them more expensive.

Disadvantages
Universal health care forces healthy people to pay for others' medical care. Chronic diseases, like diabetes and heart disease, make up 85% of health care costs. These diseases can often be prevented with lifestyle choices. The sickest 5% of the population consumes 50% of total health care costs. The healthiest 50% consume only 3% of the nation's health care costs.

With free universal health care, people may not be as careful with their health. They don't have the financial incentive to do so. Without a copay, people might overuse emergency rooms and doctors.

Most universal health systems report long wait times for elective procedures. The government focuses on providing basic and emergency health care.

Governments limit payment amounts to keep costs low. Doctors have less incentive to provide quality care if they aren't well paid. They might spend less time per patient to keep their costs down. They have less funding for new life-saving technologies.

Health care costs overwhelm government budgets. For example, some Canadian provinces spend 40% of their budget on health care. That reduces funding for other programs like education and infrastructure.

To cut costs, the government may limit services with a low probability of success. It may not cover drugs for rare conditions. It may prefer palliative care over expensive end-of-life care. On the other hand, the U.S. medical system does a heroic job of saving lives, but at a cost. Care for patients in the last six years of life makes up one-fourth of the Medicare budget. In their last month of life, half go to the emergency room. One-third wind up in the intensive care unit and one-fifth undergo surgery."
https://www.thebalance.com/universal-health-care-4156211

universal health care does not force you to pay for others. You pay for your own. If you are lucky, you will not need it, but it is there. My last medical procedure was a hernia operation about 40years ago. I paid and paid, but I do not feel cheated.
Are you suggesting Soylent Green? America has no respect for its elders.
 
universal health care does not force you to pay for others. You pay for your own. If you are lucky, you will not need it, but it is there. My last medical procedure was a hernia operation about 40years ago. I paid and paid, but I do not feel cheated.
Are you suggesting Soylent Green? America has no respect for its elders.

You really live in a fanatsy world. Who do you think covered your lower Obamacare premimums? Do you believe my $100 a month medicare premimum pays for the system? Every working person pays into the system. God if all liberals are as ignorant as you when it comes to health care systems this country is in big trouble.
 
Flash, due to federal statutes, the federal government pays for many instances of medical care. Those payments are the recipients' entitlements. It's not a matter determined by public opinion polls.

If and when the U.S. Congress determines that are current national health policy does not provide comprehensive adequate medical insurance coverage for our nation, and is comparatively much more expensive that those of all other industrial nations while consequentially providing poorer public heath outcomes than those achieved by many other nations, the U.S. Congress may pass a superior plan for basic comprehensive medical insurance covering all U.S. legal residents.

If the new act becomes enacted to be federal laws and regulations, the payments due to the new act will be made to those who are entitled to receive them.

Respectfully, Supposn

I understand. But as of now Congress has not decided to do that. People will not be entitled to receive those benefits unless and until Congress decides to make big tax increases and/or borrow more money and increase the debt. Americans are not that anxious to pay higher taxes or increase the federal debt and deficit. People entitled to collect those benefits cannot do so until we determine where the money will come from.
 
The taxes to pay for single payer health insurance would be cheaper than the health insurance premiums that you and your employer are paying now.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Maybe, but when we add all those people who do not have insurance paid by themselves/employer it results in big spending increases. Sander's plan was estimated to cost $10 trillion.
 
Our system sucks. Your reaction.I will not pay for others getting ill, fuck them. If they are poor, then let them die.
We are happy to have our taxes take the stress and financial problems out of illnesses and accidents. We want you to not worry about losing your home due to an accident.

That was not my reaction at all. I questioned whether something could be considered a "human right" when somebody else was obligated to pay for it. If we all agree to pay more in taxes to cover the health care for all Americans, then I accept that. It is a political decision Americans have to make.

But they should be informed of how much more in taxes they will have to pay to provide that care and what it will cover. For example, Obamacare provided health insurance for many more Americans but when they discovered they had a $6,000 deductible many found they were not really covered for most routine care.

How much more are you willing to pay in taxes to provide this health care. For example, are you willing to pay $5,000 more annually? If not, how much?
 
You clearly don't understand the concept of insurance.

If I buy insurance I am voluntarily agreeing to participate in that system that pays for others and so does everybody else who buys that insurance. That is different from a system in which a person does not purchase insurance but is still getting the benefits. If your system covers those people, anyway, don't pretend it is like insurance.
 
Mine dropped. My wife got leukemia when the ACA came out. We were lucky and it helped pay for her treatment. She is in remission. The cost of her treatment was enormous. That is the American way you defend.
The simple fact is every other industrialized country has universal coverage and they get full coverage. They pay half what we do for the medical system. It is not more costly and covers everyone. Why does that offend you? What is wrong is for-profit medicine. We are allowing corporations and greedy fucks to loot the ill.They will charge "all the traffic will bear".

Those countries pay much higher taxes than the U. S. Some of those lower costs is due to benefiting from medical equipment and methods researched and developed in the U. S. Those nations also have private health care systems in which the doctors, hospitals, etc. make a profit (except for the government run program in the UK).

Those "better outcomes" in Europe cannot be attributed entirely to access to health care. A recent study found even upper income Americans have lower life expectancy and other outcomes. These are people with access to good medical care but still have poorer results suggesting American lifestyles and high obesity rates has more to do with health care outcomes than access.
 
If I buy insurance I am voluntarily agreeing to participate in that system that pays for others and so does everybody else who buys that insurance. That is different from a system in which a person does not purchase insurance but is still getting the benefits. If your system covers those people, anyway, don't pretend it is like insurance.
In the system we're talking about, the premiums are paid through taxes and everyone except the superrich pays taxes.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
Granule, are you ambidextrous or schizophrenic? The left side of your brain doesn't know what the right side is writing or thinking?

First. within post #7 you accused me of being appreciative of the Constitution's "Bill of Rights", (which is true, but I had not explicitly stated so within this thread).
Then within post #20, you accuse me of claiming to be "the bill of rights"?

Respectfully, Supposn
There's no need to play it innocent, you little egomaniac. You speak of rights as if you penned the Bill of Rights yourself. lol

Show me anywhere in this country's founding documents where it states that I have to pay for someone else's healthcare, welfare or any other care that gives you degenerates a reason to breathe.
 
In the system we're talking about, the premiums are paid through taxes and everyone except the superrich pays taxes.

You got it backwards. The bottom 50% pay 4% of federal income taxes. The top 50% pay 96%. The top 1% pay 37.3%, more than the bottom 90% combined.

So to make everyone pay taxes to cover health insurance for all Americans requires a large tax increase on the bottom 50% of the earners. Plus, what do you do for those who do not work and pay taxes?
 
You got it backwards. The bottom 50% pay 4% of federal income taxes. The top 50% pay 96%. The top 1% pay 37.3%, more than the bottom 90% combined.

So to make everyone pay taxes to cover health insurance for all Americans requires a large tax increase on the bottom 50% of the earners. Plus, what do you do for those who do not work and pay taxes?
The top 1% also take a lion's share of the income.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
The top 1% also take a lion's share of the income.

Correct. That is the way a progressive income tax is supposed to work. Those who make more pay more.

But that is very different from your claim that "the premiums are paid through taxes and everyone except the superrich pays taxes."
 
Correct. That is the way a progressive income tax is supposed to work. Those who make more pay more.

But that is very different from your claim that "the premiums are paid through taxes and everyone except the superrich pays taxes."

The superrich were the main beneficiaries of the Trump tax scam.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
Yes, but they still pay more than the bottom 90% combined.
If we would raise the rates on the top 1% a bit, we could balance the budget and they'd still have more than they know what to do with.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
If we would raise the rates on the top 1% a bit, we could balance the budget and they'd still have more than they know what to do with.

It would have to be more than "a bit." All Americans earn about $10 trillion annually and the top 1% earns about $2 trillion and they paid $567 billion in federal income taxes. That leaves them $1.32 trillion and we would have to take $1 trillion of that to balance the budget. That means taxing them $1.567 of $2 trillion to balance the budget. Government has no business taking 72% of anybody's income.
 
It would have to be more than "a bit." All Americans earn about $10 trillion annually and the top 1% earns about $2 trillion and they paid $567 billion in federal income taxes. That leaves them $1.32 trillion and we would have to take $1 trillion of that to balance the budget. That means taxing them $1.567 of $2 trillion to balance the budget. Government has no business taking 72% of anybody's income.
Of course, your figures are the result of Trump's tax cuts and his massive spending.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top