Universal Healthcare

Universal healthcare is cheaper. Those who argue that they refuse to pay for others, do not know they are. When poor people delay treatment until they are forced to go to emergency, it is the most expensive care in the world. Those costs are passed on to us in healthcare costs and taxes.
It also shows what kind of people we are when we allow people to go without healthcare.
 
Nordberg said:
Universal healthcare is cheaper. Those who argue that they refuse to pay for others, do not know they are. When poor people delay treatment until they are forced to go to emergency, it is the most expensive care in the world. Those costs are passed on to us in healthcare costs and taxes.
It also shows what kind of people we are when we allow people to go without healthcare.
Click to expand...


Absolutely.. It is cheaper.. The Insurance companies don't contribute a bloody thing to patient care.

"What kind of people we are"???

I have been thinking about that. Dubya was not terribly bright, but he was kind and loving.. likeable.. and he was patriotic.. Trump is none of those things.. He's just dumb and arrogant.
 
The quality of universal health care in any country that subscribes, is inversely proportional to the power of the political right in said country.

As a Canadian I like to encourage the naysayers by giving them an opening. Then it's always easy to snatch the opening away from them to embarrass them. So even though CFM was taking part on this thread, he quickly said that he didn't want a discussion. But he did until it became a lost cause for him.

The American political right have lost their energy to support 'for profit' health care but the big insurance companies haven't and now the political blackmail of the US congress will grow out of all proportion on the issue.

The political right will have to put up a good fight but they're going to be fighting against the will of the people. The right being forced into accepting the pre-existing issues argument of the ACA is the foot in the door now. Only a few racist ranting wankers like CFM are going to make a bit of noise barking about it.

Now the political right side of the US congress have to somehow be against the ACA while Trump is pretending to support it.For the needs of his base. What a contradiction of terms and a mix up of ideologies!

If the Dems weren't such elitist 1% supporting Nazis themselves, they could solve this problem overnight. With luck a few of the Dems' loose cannons like Booker will try!
 
montgomery said:
The quality of universal health care in any country that subscribes, is inversely proportional to the power of the political right in said country.

As a Canadian I like to encourage the naysayers by giving them an opening. Then it's always easy to snatch the opening away from them to embarrass them. So even though CFM was taking part on this thread, he quickly said that he didn't want a discussion. But he did until it became a lost cause for him.

The American political right have lost their energy to support 'for profit' health care but the big insurance companies haven't and now the political blackmail of the US congress will grow out of all proportion on the issue.

The political right will have to put up a good fight but they're going to be fighting against the will of the people. The right being forced into accepting the pre-existing issues argument of the ACA is the foot in the door now. Only a few racist ranting wankers like CFM are going to make a bit of noise barking about it.

Now the political right side of the US congress have to somehow be against the ACA while Trump is pretending to support it.For the needs of his base. What a contradiction of terms and a mix up of ideologies!

If the Dems weren't such elitist 1% supporting Nazis themselves, they could solve this problem overnight. With luck a few of the Dems' loose cannons like Booker will try!
Click to expand...

Seems you do not know the power of American lobbyists. Obama wanted universal but knew he could not take on hospitals, insurance companies and big PHARM at the same time. His concessions weakened coverage but he hoped the future politicains would make it better.Then the Repubs got power.
Trump could be our Tommy Douglas, but he really does not care about poor people getting healthcare.
 
montgomery said:
Glad you're back again! I have no problem with any free enterprise company making a profit. I just don't want to have to pay more for less in order to contribute to their profits. What's wrong with that? Aren't you the same?

I subscribe to capitalism and Canada is definitely a capitalist country. Are you interested in knowing and learning how our sort of capitalism differs from yours?

Neither system is pure capitalism and you will know of some of the reasons why yours isn't either. Ours is capitalism with a little more socialism in the mix and we want it that way because it works very well for the people.

It's not a stagnant thing because every 4 years, or less, we have an election that is closely fought by our two major political parties. Sometimes the Conseravites win and they swing the country a little more to the right. But they never get brave enough to touch our health care system because that would be suicidal.

You know what suicidal means with your own government. It's especially apparent in your government isn't it. Politicians on both sides only take an honest stand when they don't have to worry about re-election.

But I digress; let's stay with health care.
Click to expand...

I don't pay more. That's your claim you've yet to prove. Can you prove I pay more?

You subscribe to socialism. You've made that clear. Why do you lie about what you believe?

Some politicians make a grandstand (i.e. - John McCain) for whatever reason he chose to do it. Perhaps he realized that if he couldn't beat an unqualified black for President he may as well kiss his ass before he dies. Perhaps he's just a Liberal piece of shit that decided to finally admit it. Who knows?
 
Just think if vets who are far from a VA source could just go to most convenient doctors. Imagine people could switch jobs or quit and start a business, without the anxiety of no insurance or a lapse to qualify. Imagine Americans would not go bankrupt if they or a family member gets sick or in an accident.
There is no argument that makes sense against it.
It is simply a cheaper and better system which is also kinder and more civilized.
 
CFM said:
I don't pay more. That's your claim you've yet to prove. Can you prove I pay more?

You subscribe to socialism. You've made that clear. Why do you lie about what you believe?

Some politicians make a grandstand (i.e. - John McCain) for whatever reason he chose to do it. Perhaps he realized that if he couldn't beat an unqualified black for President he may as well kiss his ass before he dies. Perhaps he's just a Liberal piece of shit that decided to finally admit it. Who knows?
Click to expand...

Do you think I lied about something?
 
Oh ffs, 11 pages of total horseshit. I want the last two minutes of my life back. Out of all of you here only one of you got it right, Twitler.

For the sake of argument assume Medicaid is expanded to cover everyone. This would eliminate the need for Medicare and Medicaid because at that point we'd have a single-payer system. Taxes are collected (and yes, they would have to go up), services are rendered and doctors invoice the government who then pay the doctors. Do not assume anything other than that is happening. Is that socialist?

If yes, why?

If no, why not?
 
Deplorable said:
Oh ffs, 11 pages of total horseshit. I want the last two minutes of my life back. Out of all of you here only one of you got it right, Twitler.

For the sake of argument assume Medicaid is expanded to cover everyone. This would eliminate the need for Medicare and Medicaid because at that point we'd have a single-payer system. Taxes are collected (and yes, they would have to go up), services are rendered and doctors invoice the government who then pay the doctors. Do not assume anything other than that is happening. Is that socialist?

If yes, why?

If no, why not?
Click to expand...


You could also raise the cap on Payroll Taxes to $150K..

In any event Medicare for all would immediately be 30% cheaper.
 
kudzu said:
You could also raise the cap on Payroll Taxes to $150K..

In any event Medicare for all would immediately be 30% cheaper.
Click to expand...

I ran some numbers through the Social Security calculator using the same date of birth and same retirement date. Both sample people were 65 years old. The only difference was the amount entered in the "Earnings in the current year" box. Sample Person 1 had $100,000 and Sample Person 2 had $33,333 or 1/3 of Person 1. What I found was that Person 1 would not receive 3x the distribution as Person 2 despite the contributions, based on income, being 3x more from Person 2. Person 1 would get $2,007/month. Person 2 would get $985/month.

Why shouldn't Person 1 get $2955, 3x that of Person 2 when the contributions each put in were a 3:1 ratio?

If the cap to contribute goes up, does that distribution amount go up proportionally or is that just a way for those on the upper end to continue to support those on the lower end?

Medicare for all would result in 100% cheaper quality care.
 
Deplorable said:
For the sake of argument assume Medicaid is expanded to cover everyone. This would eliminate the need for Medicare and Medicaid because at that point we'd have a single-payer system.
Click to expand...

Expanding Medicaid eliminates the need for Medicaid??? Explain how that works, I'm curious.

Taxes are collected (and yes, they would have to go up), services are rendered and doctors invoice the government who then pay the doctors. Do not assume anything other than that is happening. Is that socialist?

If yes, why?

If no, why not?
Click to expand...

A Resounding YES!!!!! It's government ownership and control over the means of healthcare production and distribution. That's the definition of "SOCIALISM!!!"
 
Robo said:
Expanding Medicaid eliminates the need for Medicaid??? Explain how that works, I'm curious.



A Resounding YES!!!!! It's government ownership and control over the means of healthcare production and distribution. That's the definition of "SOCIALISM!!!"
Click to expand...

No. Its not socialism.. The government does not employ the doctors or own the facilities.
 
Robo said:
Expanding Medicaid eliminates the need for Medicaid??? Explain how that works, I'm curious.



A Resounding YES!!!!! It's government ownership and control over the means of healthcare production and distribution. That's the definition of "SOCIALISM!!!"
Click to expand...

1. Expansion of Medicaid is a euphemism for single-payer, once everyone is on the same program you don't need separate programs. We could still call it Medicaid of course but it would cease to exist as it does now.

2. Remember I said do not assume anything else is happening. Collecting taxes and spending is not socialism, if it were every government ever all throughout history would be socialist.
 
kudzu said:
You could also raise the cap on Payroll Taxes to $150K..

In any event Medicare for all would immediately be 30% cheaper.
Click to expand...

It will be interesting to watch y'all neo-communist try to defend single payer when your ass is waiting months for healthcare services and condemned to having to go to Mexico for a critical operation to save your life. Not just that, but watching y'all explain to those socialist European so-called "allies" why America isn't able to protect their asses anymore because we're bankrupted. Sure as hell y'all ain't about to give up your "Single Payer" garbage healthcare to defend the western world, huh? 21 trillion in debt now and y'all assholes think you can have healthcare free. You have NO clue what it's gonna cost you!!!

"If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait till it's free!" (P.J. O'Roarke)
 
kudzu said:
No. Its not socialism.. The government does not employ the doctors or own the facilities.
Click to expand...

They don't have to for it to be socialism. You and your degenerate kind are the reason why socialism has been able to take such a hold. You idiots refuse to call it what it is.
 
Robo said:
It will be interesting to watch y'all neo-communist try to defend single payer when your ass is waiting months for healthcare services and condemned to having to go to Mexico for a critical operation to save your life. Not just that, but watching y'all explain to those socialist European so-called "allies" why America isn't able to protect their asses anymore because we're bankrupted. Sure as hell y'all ain't about to give up your "Single Payer" garbage healthcare to defend the western world, huh? 21 trillion in debt now and y'all assholes think you can have healthcare free. You have NO clue what it's gonna cost you!!!

"If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait till it's free!" (P.J. O'Roarke)
Click to expand...

Their answer is to constantly raise taxes on someone else. I don't recall ever hearing one of them that claimed they care about those without coverage volunteering to pay the premiums on someone else's behalf. Have you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top