# Vermont Going To Single Payer By 2017. Kicking Health Insurance Companies Out



## DaGoose (Jun 2, 2014)

Is it only a matter of time before the nation follows suit?

*



			Vermont Wants Aetna, Cigna and Other Health Insurers Dead
		
Click to expand...

*


> Under a single-payer system, there is no role for health insurance companies such as Aetna and Cigna as the government pays all the medical bills. Many hope that the United States will implement a single-payer system.





> In Canada, the pay for medical doctors is about 50% lower. In Norway, it is nearly two-thirds lower.



Vermont Wants Aetna, Cigna and Other Health Insurers To Be History - TheStreet

.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jun 2, 2014)

And they will experience delays in treatment and more needless deaths, just like European countries and the VA.
Why anyone thinks this is an advance is beyond me.


----------



## Claudette (Jun 2, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> And they will experience delays in treatment and more needless deaths, just like European countries and the VA.
> Why anyone thinks this is an advance is beyond me.



I agree. 

Also when they have more people taking the "free" HC then they have paying for it and taxes go up to cover the costs you can bet your ass the taxpayers in Vt. will catch a clue. 

Single payer is not an advance. Its a way for those who have to pay for those who don't. Just like the ACA.


----------



## Darkwind (Jun 2, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> And they will experience delays in treatment and more needless deaths, just like European countries and the VA.
> Why anyone thinks this is an advance is beyond me.


The bordering states around Vermont are going to get an influx of medical professionals.

Single payer systems always pay below the market value for services.  What doctor, nurse, or other professional will willingly take a 50% or more cut in compensation?


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jun 2, 2014)

Yeah! Just like the ACA! 

I would have thought that the cons here would be supportive if this state initiative. Go figure.


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Jun 2, 2014)

Holy moley!

Socialists want to destroy business competition and enforce monopolies?

Who ever would have guessed that?


----------



## Sunni Man (Jun 2, 2014)

The Socialist State of Vermont (SSV) end goal is to become a communist workers paradise modeled after N. Korea.   ...


----------



## Anathema (Jun 2, 2014)

This shouldn't surprise any New Englander. Vermont is about as Leftist as you get on a large number of issues. This will be a massive failure, as employees and medical staff head for the borders like rats fleeing a sinking ship. They're trying to one-up those of us here in Massachusetts who have had to deal with the failed results of Romney-Care for a number of years now. Glad I don't live in Vermont and this will just further increase my resolve not to step foot in that state.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jun 2, 2014)

Anathema said:


> This shouldn't surprise any New Englander. Vermont is about as Leftist as you get on a large number of issues. This will be a massive failure, as employees and medical staff head for the borders like rats fleeing a sinking ship. They're trying to one-up those of us here in Massachusetts who have had to deal with the failed results of Romney-Care for a number of years now. Glad I don't live in Vermont and this will just further increase my resolve not to step foot in that state.



You have resolved to never step foot in Vermont?


----------



## Mac1958 (Jun 2, 2014)

Anathema said:


> ... as employees and medical staff head for the borders like rats fleeing a sinking ship.



Well, maybe the Central Authority can step in and forbid those people from working in other states.  Make it some kind of criminal act to ever practice medicine outside of state borders.  

*That'll* teach 'em to think for themselves.



.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 2, 2014)

Having a third party, an insurance company,  paying the health care bills of the consumers instead of the consumers paying for and being responsible for their own health care is about as inefficient system fullof waste and fraud as there could ever be.
Until government enters the picture and fully assumes that role. Single payer in America with plaintiffs lawyers running up the tab as high as they can telling their clients to go to the doctor non stop to raise the damages on their accident cases.
We have become a nation of village idiots. 
Health care costs will either skyrocket in Vermont or doctors will leave or not go there to practice when they first get their license. Or both.
Whatever happened to folks taking responsibility for their own health care? They have cash for their toys. Sell them and pay for your own damn health care.


----------



## zeke (Jun 2, 2014)

The fuck is wrong with you right wing nutters. If any state tries to provide for its citizens in a manner that you right wing whackos don't like, all you can do is root for failure. You people are fucked up.


----------



## Theowl32 (Jun 2, 2014)

Yeah, those of us that said Obamacare was the single payer trojan horse were right again. Leftists that denied it was and called us knuckle draggers were wrong. 


Liberals are such pieces of shit.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 2, 2014)

Results count. The Canadians and Europeans live longer than we do, have better overall health, and a far lower infant mortality. Yet we pay much more for our inadaquete healthcare than they do.


----------



## sameech (Jun 2, 2014)

The state of Vermont has fewer people in it than most of our Congressional Districts.   They are not putting any national company out of business.  If they can afford it, more power to them, but they are politically and economically insignificant in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## Anathema (Jun 2, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> You have resolved to never step foot in Vermont?



I have resolved that previously, and this only hardens my stance on the issue. Let them seceed and join Canada, where they belong.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jun 2, 2014)

Anathema said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > You have resolved to never step foot in Vermont?
> ...



My, my! You are quite the patriot! And you have an awesome command of the written word. A double threat!


----------



## Anathema (Jun 2, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Results count. The Canadians and Europeans live longer than we do, have better overall health, and a far lower infant mortality. Yet we pay much more for our inadaquete healthcare than they do.



They have a higher QUANTITY of life but a much lower QUALITY of life. I'll take the QUALITY, thank you very much.


----------



## Anathema (Jun 2, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> My, my! You are quite the patriot! And you have an awesome command of the written word. A double threat!



Not a Patriot, juat an idealist. A simply man who actually believes in walking the talk and living the things he believes in. Once this goes into effect, I would not be able to get medical care in Vermont, so there's no chance that I could ever go there.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jun 2, 2014)

Anathema said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Results count. The Canadians and Europeans live longer than we do, have better overall health, and a far lower infant mortality. Yet we pay much more for our inadaquete healthcare than they do.
> ...



I wonder what would happen if I asked you to prove that they have a lower quality of life?

And.....you might be the first person I have ever heard say that too much life isn't a good thing.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jun 2, 2014)

Anathema said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > My, my! You are quite the patriot! And you have an awesome command of the written word. A double threat!
> ...



I am afraid that you might be putting too much thought into my comments. I wouldn't want you to injure yourself.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 2, 2014)

zeke said:


> The fuck is wrong with you right wing nutters. If any state tries to provide for its citizens in a manner that you right wing whackos don't like, all you can do is root for failure. You people are fucked up.



Uh, I am not a right wing nutter.
Facts hurt ya?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 2, 2014)

Good luck to Vermont. 
Watch them dump as many citizens as they can on Medicaid and ACA to avoid paying themselves.
SUCKERS


----------



## healthmyths (Jun 2, 2014)

DaGoose said:


> Is it only a matter of time before the nation follows suit?
> 
> *
> 
> ...



So under single-payer can an individual SUE the doctor?

Also I just realized  lawyers will be AGAINST this movement...

Physicians estimate the cost of defensive medicine in US at $650 to $850 billion per year
Health News Observer ? Physicians Estimate The Cost Of Defensive Medicine In Us At 650 To 850 Bill Articles

--  Up to *92% of US physicians* practice defensive medicine.
--  76% of physicians report that defensive medicine decreases patient access to healthcare.
--  53% of physicians report delaying new techniques, procedures, and treatments due to fear of lawsuits.
--  Emergency medicine, primary care, and OB/GYN physicians are most likely to practice defensive medicine.
--  79 to 83% of surgeons and OB/GYNs have been named in lawsuits.

BUT...
*Physicians contracted by the federal government practice significantly  less defensive medicine as they are protected against lawsuits by the Federal Tort Claims Act. 
* Only 48% practice defensive medicine compared to 92% of non-government physicians.

--  89% of physicians support a patients right to be compensated fairly for true negligence.
SOURCE: Health News Observer ? Physicians Estimate The Cost Of Defensive Medicine In Us At 650 To 850 Bill Articles

If the same Federal Tort Claims Act. applied to NON-government physicians that apply to physicians under Federal contracts this $850 billion could drop by 30% or more! A savings of nearly $250 billion a year. (92% becomes 48% a drop of 44% of physicians wasting money due to defensive medicine practices.)


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 2, 2014)

Sunni Man said:


> The Socialist State of Vermont (SSV) end goal is to become a communist workers paradise modeled after N. Korea.   ...



looks like they're heading fast


----------



## Anathema (Jun 2, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> I wonder what would happen if I asked you to prove that they have a lower quality of life?
> 
> And.....you might be the first person I have ever heard say that too much life isn't a good thing.



Higher taxes, "free" education, socialized healthcare, mass transit, and no legal ability to carry firearms. There's a bunch of the issues that equate to a lower quality of life so far as I'm concerned.

Then I'm guessing that you don't believe in the concept of an after-life, and I will leave it at that.




LoneLaugher said:


> I am afraid that you might be putting too much thought into my comments. I wouldn't want you to injure yourself.



It requires absolutely no expenditure of mental resources to reply to a Liberal.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jun 2, 2014)

zeke said:


> The fuck is wrong with you right wing nutters. If any state tries to provide for its citizens in a manner that you right wing whackos don't like, all you can do is root for failure. You people are fucked up.



Its Zeke, toothless stumpbroke of USMB, weighing in from the single wide.
Hey Zeke, we aren't rooting for anything.  It is an easily foreseeable outcome, at least if you aren't consuming a sixer of Blatz with breakfast.
Lower the cost of anything to free and I guarantee you'll give more of it away than if you had charged for it.  Cap the compensation you can get for providing it to below market rates and you'll getmany fewer providers.  This leads to shortages and rationing. It is Econ 101, a subject they don't teach in 1st grade, which is why you dont know it.


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 2, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> > The fuck is wrong with you right wing nutters. If any state tries to provide for its citizens in a manner that you right wing whackos don't like, all you can do is root for failure. You people are fucked up.
> ...



that's way over their heads, all they see is FREE free free and that make everything all good


----------



## The Rabbi (Jun 2, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > zeke said:
> ...



It's not free.  The government pays for it.  THey get their money from a stash somewhere.  Right?


----------



## healthmyths (Jun 2, 2014)

Also will this mean ALL health care workers will be government workers?
Also will the government run health agency the VA be the model?
Finally if there is a single payer then who makes up the difference in the loss $100 billion a year in Federal/state/local tax revenue ?


----------



## zeke (Jun 2, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> > The fuck is wrong with you right wing nutters. If any state tries to provide for its citizens in a manner that you right wing whackos don't like, all you can do is root for failure. You people are fucked up.
> ...




Hey it is the rabid rabbit. Blatz? Really rabbit? Is that what you drink? I shoulda known. You are classless and have no taste in beer.

But anyway. Anything that you are sure of, I know the opposite will happen.

Vermont is on the right path. The rabid rabbit hates it.

You get a job yet rabbit. Or is 40k posts jobs one? But are you EVER going to post anything remotely intelligent? 40 thousand posts of lies and bullshit. Oh boy. What a rabbit.


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 2, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



magic money trees they go pluck the money from


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 2, 2014)

Folks have money for their $30,000 fancy motorcycles, boats, jet skis and big trucks but do not have money to pay their own damn health care bills.
Irresponsible. We have become a nation of milk weak sissies.


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 2, 2014)

We've become a nation of citizens who feel they are ENTITLED..but that is what one party (Democrats especially, but Republicans are well on their way) has sold and pushed on them for years so this is the end results

and believe me they weren't doing it for YOUR BENEFIT or because they care for YOU

they see you enslaved to a government and they are YOUR MASTERS

you bought it so now you will get to live that way...sounds wonderful eh?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 2, 2014)

Vermont?  With its 3.3% unemployment rate?  hmmm....

btw,

the great state of Texas has 10 times as many people without health insurance as Vermont has people.

So pick your model.


----------



## Sallow (Jun 2, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> And they will experience delays in treatment and more needless deaths, just like European countries and the VA.
> Why anyone thinks this is an advance is beyond me.



47,000 Americans were dying due to the health care system prior to ObamaCare and many more were going bankrupt.

No modern industrialized European country were or are seeing those kind of numbers.


----------



## kaz (Jun 2, 2014)

Claudette said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > And they will experience delays in treatment and more needless deaths, just like European countries and the VA.
> ...



You have different objectives than they do.  They believe fairness = sameness.  Single payer provides sameness.


----------



## Freewill (Jun 2, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Results count. The Canadians and Europeans live longer than we do, have better overall health, and a far lower infant mortality. Yet we pay much more for our inadaquete healthcare than they do.



All of this is twisted BS.  Canada does not have to deal with an open southern border or the ramifications of such.


----------



## boedicca (Jun 2, 2014)

Maybe they can hire some soon to be fired VA administrators to run their program.


----------



## kaz (Jun 2, 2014)

Sallow said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > And they will experience delays in treatment and more needless deaths, just like European countries and the VA.
> ...



Ignoring that you have no source for that, in Canada you are more likely to die of cancer or heart disease.  Good treatment is expensive.  And if you think it's expensive now, wait until it's free.  The same, crappy care for all!  What a mantra you have.


----------



## deltex1 (Jun 2, 2014)

Darkwind said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > And they will experience delays in treatment and more needless deaths, just like European countries and the VA.
> ...



Good point...but Obabble will probably promise to make up the difference....period.


----------



## Freewill (Jun 2, 2014)

Good for Vermont this was always a states rights issue.

It might be pointed out that the health insurance company's cut of the cost is somewhere around 5 percent, is there  anyone in their right mind that think the government's cut will be much less?  It isn't in anything else they stick their fingers so why would health care be different?  The only place they will make a difference is dictating the cost which in my opinion is one place health care has run amuck.


----------



## Freewill (Jun 2, 2014)

Sallow said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > And they will experience delays in treatment and more needless deaths, just like European countries and the VA.
> ...



Please prove that claim.  While one needless death is one too many it would seem that such a low percentage of the population, well under 1 percent could have been taken care of without effecting the 99.99 percent.

But I find it interesting that you care about 47000, if that is true but the millions killed through abortion, not so much.


----------



## Rocko (Jun 2, 2014)

I could care less about Vermont. If those people are stupid enough to want it let them have, but this is going to make everyone's insurance more expensive under Obamacare.


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 2, 2014)

47, 000 deaths huh?

so I suppose NO DEATHS have happened since the wonders of OScamCare came on line

this the dishonesty of the left/Progressives/commies

so we DESTROY our health care system to conform to 47. 000 deaths

that many has been destroyed TROUGHT ABORTIONS


----------



## Freewill (Jun 2, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Vermont?  With its 3.3% unemployment rate?  hmmm....
> 
> btw,
> 
> ...



How is the Cherry picking business these days?

Although the Vermont unemployment rate is low, we shouldnt be complacent about it, or its steady decline, or its low rate compared to the nation. Vermonts low unemployment rate?we have the fifth lowest rate in the nation?is not due to stellar economic performance. Rather, its low level is due to our population makeup and demographics.

Vermont does not have as many of the population subgroups that have high unemployment rates?especially young people and people of color?as most states do, or as many as the nation as a whole has.

Over the past twelve months the number of unemployed Vermonters has fallen by 2,400, a number consistent with a declining unemployment rate. But the number of Vermonters working or looking for work?the labor force?has declined by more than 5,000. The reduction in the number of unemployed is good news for the unemployment rate, but not when its due to Vermonters dropping out of the labor force. Indeed, 3,000 fewer Vermonters are working today than a year ago. That does not bode well for the future of the states economy or for those peoples future.

The story behind Vermont's low unemployment rate | Burlington Free Press | burlingtonfreepress.com


----------



## martybegan (Jun 2, 2014)

Sallow said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > And they will experience delays in treatment and more needless deaths, just like European countries and the VA.
> ...



Lol, when the governments control the health care, its easy for them to hide bad numbers. Just look at how long it took to get the VA information out.

Having a complicit press is just a bonus.


----------



## Freewill (Jun 2, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Folks have money for their $30,000 fancy motorcycles, boats, jet skis and big trucks but do not have money to pay their own damn health care bills.
> Irresponsible. We have become a nation of milk weak sissies.



May we have some insight on how you pay for your health care?  Are you using Obamacare and went through healthcare.gov?


----------



## jillian (Jun 2, 2014)

so "states' rights" only exists when you want to do LESS than the federal government, not more?



rightwingers are funny


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 2, 2014)

Darkwind said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > And they will experience delays in treatment and more needless deaths, just like European countries and the VA.
> ...



In single payer the government would get charged by the hospitals for the people the government is currently forcing the hospitals to give free or discounted health care to. Thus they would no longer have to artificially raise the price on the other folks that actually pay.

Further since medicare would be coming out of the general fund govco would be forced to increase payment amounts for medicare procedures up to the amount they are paying for everyone else.  Thus eliminating the offloading of medicare payment shortfalls on the rest of the population as they are currently doing.  

Still further, no one could sue the insurance companies any more and we could hold harmless government from being sued, or they won't hold government harmless and the lawyers will make triple what they are getting now for suing the government insurer when they don't approve a procedure and the patient dies.  

The only thing worse than single payer, is our current system that the government has thoroughly busted through it's regulations.

Or we could go back to the free market system that worked so well before government screwed it up.  Nah... we don't believe in free markets any more.  Better to just convert this country completely over to marxism and ride out the inevitable economic collapse vs. this current system of handouts for the majority at the expense of the few.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 2, 2014)

Freewill said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Vermont?  With its 3.3% unemployment rate?  hmmm....
> ...



Trying to shit on a 3/3% unemployment rate is trying way too hard.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jun 2, 2014)

DaGoose said:


> Is it only a matter of time before the nation follows suit?
> 
> *
> 
> ...



If this is what Vermont wants to do then that's fine.  This is the way it should be done.  One system for 310 million people isn't. 

By the way, Vermont as of now has no method in place to pay for this and moving to a socialist system doesn't eliminate insurance companies.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 2, 2014)

kaz said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



So does public education.  Should we take that away from the poor too?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jun 2, 2014)

zeke said:


> The fuck is wrong with you right wing nutters. If any state tries to provide for its citizens in a manner that you right wing whackos don't like, all you can do is root for failure. You people are fucked up.



Nobody is rooting for failure.  Unlike you, we just happen to learn from history and don't start salivating like Pavlov's dogs as soon as someone talks about "free" stuff.


----------



## jillian (Jun 2, 2014)

Claudette said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > And they will experience delays in treatment and more needless deaths, just like European countries and the VA.
> ...



single payor does not prohibit you from having your own insurance or having private doctors in any country that I know of.

where do you get this stuff?

and waiting for care is better than NOT HAVING CARE.

sheesh.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 2, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Yeah! Just like the ACA!
> 
> I would have thought that the cons here would be supportive if this state initiative. Go figure.



Why should conservatives be supportive of a state switching over to marxism?  They can eff up their state if they want to and it's none of my business here in TX. Just don't use my tax dollars to do it.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 2, 2014)

jillian said:


> so "states' rights" only exists when you want to do LESS than the federal government, not more?
> 
> 
> 
> rightwingers are funny



Who said states rights only when they do less than the federal government, not more?  You hearing voices again?


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 2, 2014)

jillian said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Single payer does not mean single payer?  huh?


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Jun 2, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Yeah! Just like the ACA!
> 
> I would have thought that the cons here would be supportive if this state initiative. Go figure.



I'm totally supportive of each states rights independent of the federal govt.


----------



## Erand7899 (Jun 2, 2014)

zeke said:


> The fuck is wrong with you right wing nutters. If any state tries to provide for its citizens in a manner that you right wing whackos don't like, all you can do is root for failure. You people are fucked up.



Recognizing the obvious is not rooting for failure.  One doesn't need to jump off a tall building to know that the results of doing so will most likely be fatal.  

The VA health care system is a one payer system run by government, and that ought to teach you everything you need to know about government run health care in America.  

But, you can always dream.


----------



## jillian (Jun 2, 2014)

LordBrownTrout said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah! Just like the ACA!
> ...



and yet you live under a centralized federal government.

I suspect you'd actually like a time machine to take you back to the articles of confederation because what you want is a fantasy.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jun 2, 2014)

jillian said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...


So first you criticize people because htey dont support states right, and then you criticise them because they do support states rights.

Poor thing.  Her posts went downhill with Wiener's political career. Here's a recap of the top moments.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bte7-DUPCMs]Anthony Weiner Gets In Heated Exchange With Jewish Man In Boro Park Weiss Kosher Bakery - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jun 2, 2014)

What's going to happen when this works in Vermont just like it has in many nations around the world? What will be the GOP supplied talking point then? 

"Well Vermont is mostly white people, and there is less violence so of course healthcare costs are easier to keep under control"


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 2, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> What's going to happen when this works in Vermont just like it has in many nations around the world? What will be the GOP supplied talking point then?
> 
> "Well Vermont is mostly white people, and there is less violence so of course healthcare costs are easier to keep under control"



How are they going to fund it?  Can I get it for free by buying a PO box in Vermont?


----------



## The Rabbi (Jun 2, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> What's going to happen when this works in Vermont just like it has in many nations around the world? What will be the GOP supplied talking point then?
> 
> "Well Vermont is mostly white people, and there is less violence so of course healthcare costs are easier to keep under control"



Is this like "What is the GOP going to find about Obamacare to complain about once they get teh websiite fixed"?


----------



## Erand7899 (Jun 2, 2014)

jillian said:


> so "states' rights" only exists when you want to do LESS than the federal government, not more?
> 
> 
> 
> rightwingers are funny



States' rights = good
State stupidity = bad

Being a proponent of states' rights does not mean one has to be a proponent of stupid public policy at any level.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jun 2, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > What's going to happen when this works in Vermont just like it has in many nations around the world? What will be the GOP supplied talking point then?
> ...



One of hte midwestern states, I forget which, had a program where they would take over the guardianship of any juvenile whose parents committed him to the state's care.  Parents drove from Florida just to drop their kids there, because it was the best, easiest, cheapest alternative to anything else.  VT better be prepared for an avalanche of sick, chronically ill people knocking their doors down demanding free healthcare.


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Jun 2, 2014)

jillian said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



I just said that I was for states rights and yes we all live under a massive centralized govt.  You love bigger govt even though it is mediocre and doesn't operate efficiently.....we get it.


----------



## hipeter924 (Jun 2, 2014)

zeke said:


> The fuck is wrong with you right wing nutters. If any state tries to provide for its citizens in a manner that you right wing whackos don't like, all you can do is root for failure. You people are fucked up.


This forum is a solid Republican state, you aren't going to get support for UHC or liberal policies on here. At best you might get a few right libertarians that are anti-war. Wasting your time here Zeke.


----------



## jillian (Jun 2, 2014)

LordBrownTrout said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > LordBrownTrout said:
> ...



I prefer a government that goes by the constitution, which gives federal law supremacy over state laws.... you are aware of that part of the constitution, right?

and you are aware that the constitution gives government the right to act for the general welfare of the populace, right?

did you think they were kidding when they wrote that?


----------



## Darkwind (Jun 2, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > What's going to happen when this works in Vermont just like it has in many nations around the world? What will be the GOP supplied talking point then?
> ...


This is another side effect.  I too was envisioning people living in Mass., NY, and New Hampshire for their wages and then sucking off the Vermont single payer to avoid having to pay for the new system.

Vermont, like any state, is free to do was they please as long as they do not violate the US Constitution.  

However, that does not mean that they are making good choices, or choices I can support.  In fact, if I ever have to go to New England and find Myself having to head east from New York to New Hampshire, I fully intend to gas up on the NY side of the border and drive full across without having to stop.  This way, I'll not drop a single dime into their economy.  I'll even bring a few spare gas cans in case I can't make it on one tank of gas.  Or I'll plan to drive the long way around.  I hear that the country north of Mass into N.H. is pretty.


----------



## Darkwind (Jun 2, 2014)

jillian said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


So, what do the people do when this massive, centralized federal government is actively destroying the welfare of the nation?


----------



## hipeter924 (Jun 2, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> What's going to happen when this works in Vermont just like it has in many nations around the world? What will be the GOP supplied talking point then?
> 
> "Well Vermont is mostly white people, and there is less violence so of course healthcare costs are easier to keep under control"


They don't understand that UHC doesn't remove private insurance companies. Any waiting lists can be avoided by taking out private insurance at low cost to cover complex operations. BTW, US private health insurance is crap compared to public healthcare in New Zealand (as I have tried both). 

The US only does well in complex or experimental treatment in private hospitals, but only if you have a half a million or above for the operation. But if right-wingers want the pre and post ACA status quo they are welcome to it, their states will not only go bankrupt from spiraling healthcare costs but will be a case study for how other countries should avoid running healthcare.


----------



## Darkwind (Jun 2, 2014)

hipeter924 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > What's going to happen when this works in Vermont just like it has in many nations around the world? What will be the GOP supplied talking point then?
> ...


So, you advocate paying for it twice.  You see, a single payer system is one in which every resident pays into the system in the form of higher taxes.  Crushing taxes in fact.  Then, those who are well off, can purchase additional insurance (Can we hear more cries about the elites in the future?) for more complicated systems.

The poor can just make do with the longer lines and inadequate service provided by healthcare workers who can't cut it in the rest of the nation and have to settle for the low-wage professionals in the government system.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jun 2, 2014)

jillian said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Poor little poseur.  Didnt they cover the COnstitution in law school where you went?  Oh yeah, you never went to law school.
If what you said were true then there would be absolutely no constraints on the federal government at all.  I know you believe that.  Because you're ill informed and stupid.  But the truth is otherwise.


----------



## kaz (Jun 2, 2014)

jillian said:


> I prefer a government that goes by the constitution, which gives federal law supremacy over state laws.... you are aware of that part of the constitution, right?
> 
> and you are aware that the constitution gives government the right to act for the general welfare of the populace, right?
> 
> did you think they were kidding when they wrote that?



So if "general welfare" means whatever the hell the Federal government wants to do, then why did they bother writing a document which stated they are restricted from doing anything that isn't enumerated?  What is the point in limiting power when one of the powers is all powers?

What do you suppose they were saying the government can't do?  Is there any limit?


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Jun 2, 2014)

jillian said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



No, you do not. You prefer a centrally planned fascist oligarchy.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 2, 2014)

All this is is an attempt by Vermont to expand their Medicaid and ACA coverage for their citizens and dump more of their costs on the Feds.
And watch them encourage their citizens to file for social security disability claims same as many other states.
Big Brother at work.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jun 2, 2014)

jillian said:


> and you are aware that the constitution gives government the right to act for the general welfare of the populace, right?
> 
> did you think they were kidding when they wrote that?



Pretty sure that doesn't mean what you think it does.


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Jun 2, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > and you are aware that the constitution gives government the right to act for the general welfare of the populace, right?
> ...


I am certain of it.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 2, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Results count. The Canadians and Europeans live longer than we do, have better overall health, and a far lower infant mortality. Yet we pay much more for our inadaquete healthcare than they do.



I have many Canadian friends and there are many great things about their health system.
But in many areas of Canada health care costs are the largest cost to government.
And Canadians do not have a large and growing moocher class. 
No such thing as food stamps in Canada. They rely on other forms of assistance and audit and monitor their programs unlike us. Their means testing does not allow the assets allowed here.
Apples and oranges.


----------



## GHook93 (Jun 2, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> And they will experience delays in treatment and more needless deaths, just like European countries and the VA.
> Why anyone thinks this is an advance is beyond me.



Just a comment: Comparing the problem with VA to problems with single payor are a little off. Not saying single payer doesn't have issues, but the comparison isn't apples to apples. The VA problem was with the way the government ran the hospitals. No privately run business in there. Single Payer just pays for the treatment at a private sector hospital. 

The doctors at the VA stated the best thing that could happen to a patient is that they needed a service not offered by the VA. Then the patient would be provided a voucher to go to a private sector hospital.


----------



## Meister (Jun 2, 2014)

DaGoose said:


> Is it only a matter of time before the nation follows suit?
> 
> *
> 
> ...



It wasn't all that long ago when I stated that it was the plan all along.  Nothing new here, except the lefties are now admitting it.


----------



## Meister (Jun 2, 2014)

jillian said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



The Founders clearly understood the general welfare to mean the good of all citizens, *not an open-ended mandate for Congress*. T*he only good that applies to all citizens is freedom, and governments proper role is the protection of that freedom.* That was the meaning intended by the Founders
The Founders and the ?general welfare? « IndividualRightsGovernmentWrongs.com

The preamble reads: WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution refers to the general welfare thus: The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. . .

The preamble clearly defines the two major functions of government: (1) ensuring justice, personal freedom, and a free society where individuals are protected from domestic lawbreakers and criminals, and; (2) protecting the people of the United States from foreign aggressors.

When the Founding Fathers said that WE THE PEOPLE established the Constitution to promote the general Welfare, they did not mean the federal government would have the power to aid education, build roads, and subsidize business. Likewise, Article 1, Section 8 did not give Congress the right to use tax money for whatever social and economic programs Congress might think would be good for the general welfare.

James Madison stated that the general welfare clause was not intended to give Congress an open hand  to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. If by the general welfare, the Founding Fathers had meant any and all social, economic, or educational programs Congress wanted to create, there would have been no reason to list specific powers of Congress such as establishing courts and maintaining the armed forces. Those powers would simply have been included in one all-encompassing phrase, to promote the general welfare.

John Quincy Adams, sixth President of the United States, once observed: Our Constitution professedly rests upon the good sense and attachment of the people. This basis, weak as it may appear, has not yet been found to fail.

*It is NOT the governments business (constitutionally) to help individuals in financial difficulty*.  Once they undertake to provide those kinds of services, they must do so with limited resources, meaning that some discriminating guidelines must be imposed. (so many who need that kind of help- so little resources to provide it.)

The Founding Fathers said in the preamble that one reason for establishing the Constitution was to *promote the general welfare. What they meant was that the Constitution and powers granted to the federal government were not to favor special interest groups or particular classes of people.* There were to be no privileged individuals or groups in society. Neither minorities nor the majority was to be favored.  Rather, t*he Constitution would promote the general welfare by ensuring a free society where free, self-responsible individuals - rich and poor, bankers and shopkeepers, employers and employees, farmers and blacksmiths - would enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, *rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
general welfare

The Constitution grants the Federal Government the power to forcibly confiscate wealth from one group of individuals and transfer the wealth to another group. The method authorized for this confiscation of wealth is taxation and the method for its distribution is welfare, Social Security, Medicare, and Obamacare. This transfer of wealth is authorized by the General Welfare clause of the Constitution. 
*The Truth*
The general welfare clause has absolutely nothing to do with the confiscation of wealth from one group of individuals and the transferring of it to another. Progressives have completely distorted the meaning of that clause.
 This clause only grants congress the power to collect taxes for the promotion of a general state of well-being for the country as a whole provided the money collected will only be spent by congress according to the powers granted to congress.
*The Facts*
 This clause authorizes congress to collect taxes from  various sources to pay off national debts, provide for common defense, and the general welfare.
This clause is the first in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. The section is titled the powers of congress. Nothing in this clause authorizes congress to spend any money. The rest of the section spells out the areas where congress has the power to spend the taxes whose collection is authorized in clause 1. These items spelled out in the remaining clauses of the section all pertain to paying off debts, providing common defense and general welfare of the nation.
Progressives have completely ignored the definition of the phrase general welfare that was universally accepted by the framers of the constitution. They have substituted the 18th century definition of  general welfare with a modern definition that is the polar opposite of the original.
What does the General Welfare Clause really mean? | Constitution Mythbuster

The limits on federal power to legislate for the "general welfare" remains, to this date, undefined and presumably, boundless The question that begs an answer is, *"if the framers of our Constitution, who labored so resolutely in Philadelphia that torridly hot summer in 1787 intended the powers of Congress to have no boundaries, why did they bother to enumerate seventeen?"* James Madison, when asked if the "general welfare" clause was a grant of power, replied in 1792, in a letter to Henry Lee,
The General Welfare Clause



There is plenty more out there for you to Google, Jillian.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jun 2, 2014)

GHook93 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > And they will experience delays in treatment and more needless deaths, just like European countries and the VA.
> ...



It's a distinction without a difference. As the single payor the gov't is effectively in charge of policies and procedures.


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 2, 2014)

Meister said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > LordBrownTrout said:
> ...



there is no way she is an attorney or she is a all out Socialist/commie


----------



## hipeter924 (Jun 2, 2014)

Darkwind said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...


 No, those that need extra cover can pay for it. Healthcare spending by GDP is lower in most OECD nations with UHC, in comparison to the US: Statistics:- Data visualisation for key OECD data - OECD


> 2011 OECD Total % of GDP (Private and Public): 9.3%
> 2011 US Total % of GDP (Private and Public): 17.7%
> 2011 NZ Total % of GDP (Private and Public): 10.3%


But I know how much you love blind nationalism and ignoring government and private waste in healthcare because of it, otherwise you wouldn't be spinning anti-UHC propaganda, which has no basis in fact. Also most nations in the OECD with UHC have the added benefit of living at least one or two years longer than Americans and paying much less for their healthcare (after you combine public and private healthcare costs). Even Russia has UHC.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 2, 2014)

Meister said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > LordBrownTrout said:
> ...



Rightwing nuts like you can think the Constitution means anything you want to think it means.

What it actually means is what it does.  The Founders are dead.  Get over it.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 2, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Having a third party, an insurance company,  paying the health care bills of the consumers instead of the consumers paying for and being responsible for their own health care is about as inefficient system fullof waste and fraud as there could ever be.
> Until government enters the picture and fully assumes that role. Single payer in America with plaintiffs lawyers running up the tab as high as they can telling their clients to go to the doctor non stop to raise the damages on their accident cases.
> We have become a nation of village idiots.
> Health care costs will either skyrocket in Vermont or doctors will leave or not go there to practice when they first get their license. Or both.
> Whatever happened to folks taking responsibility for their own health care? They have cash for their toys. Sell them and pay for your own damn health care.



you do realize that some people have health problems and cant afford to pay for everything that they need right?.....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 2, 2014)

sameech said:


> The state of Vermont has fewer people in it than most of our Congressional Districts.   They are not putting any national company out of business.  If they can afford it, more power to them, but they are politically and economically insignificant in the grand scheme of things.



i hear ya......they have 600,000+ in the State.....i live in a County with 3 million people....the city i live in has half their Population....


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 2, 2014)

The government can not even get a website right and folks want them running the health care market.
I need a bottle of whiskey.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 2, 2014)

Harry Dresden said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Having a third party, an insurance company,  paying the health care bills of the consumers instead of the consumers paying for and being responsible for their own health care is about as inefficient system fullof waste and fraud as there could ever be.
> ...



I do.
You do realize there are existing remedies in place and currently no one is denied treatment anywhere I know of. Do they get blank check health care right now? No, they shouldn't. But they get indigent care now through Medicaid. They now get care that is better than what everyone will soon get. 

You do realize that, don't you?


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 2, 2014)

DaGoose said:


> Is it only a matter of time before the nation follows suit?
> 
> *
> 
> ...


Yes, only a matter of time before the nation follows suit, as you said. It begins with one state. Look how fast they are coming on board with same sex marriage.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 2, 2014)

DaGoose said:


> Is it only a matter of time before the nation follows suit?
> 
> *
> 
> ...


This GOES NOWHERE...Vermonters seeking timely and quality medical care will go to bordering states. 
Let us not forget, Vermont save for tourism has a small economy. The wage structure is such that inbound revenues to Montpelier are limited. 
With the resulting possibility of medical professionals leaving the state to earn a living according to their level of skill, this will erode the state's already shaky tax base. 
The state government would be in no position to increase taxes which would surely be necessary with a state funded, state controlled system of medical care.
Three things will happen. Medical care will be rationed. Medical care will become very expensive( taxes). Quality of care will suffer.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 2, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> > This shouldn't surprise any New Englander. Vermont is about as Leftist as you get on a large number of issues. This will be a massive failure, as employees and medical staff head for the borders like rats fleeing a sinking ship. They're trying to one-up those of us here in Massachusetts who have had to deal with the failed results of Romney-Care for a number of years now. Glad I don't live in Vermont and this will just further increase my resolve not to step foot in that state.
> ...



Vermont is a beautiful place. Why not go?
Just would not live there. It's paradise for libs.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 2, 2014)

Mac1958 said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> > ... as employees and medical staff head for the borders like rats fleeing a sinking ship.
> ...


Maybe the Vermont State govt will forbid residents from leaving the state. Armed posts erected along the state line.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 2, 2014)

zeke said:


> The fuck is wrong with you right wing nutters. If any state tries to provide for its citizens in a manner that you right wing whackos don't like, all you can do is root for failure. You people are fucked up.



To expect government to "provide for the people" is ludicrous.
This leads to central planning and crushes freedom and liberty.
This type of program will set itself up for failure because those that are forced to fund it( row the boat) will quickly decide that such extreme measures of government over reach are too much to bear. They will leave the state.
With a population of just under 900,000, Vermont can ill afford to lose people to other places.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 2, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Results count. The Canadians and Europeans live longer than we do, have better overall health, and a far lower infant mortality. Yet we pay much more for our inadaquete healthcare than they do.



Oh bullshit.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 2, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Results count. The Canadians and Europeans live longer than we do, have better overall health, and a far lower infant mortality. Yet we pay much more for our inadaquete healthcare than they do.



Do you really think that health insurance is the key to good health and longevity?


----------



## Missouri_Mike (Jun 2, 2014)

jillian said:


> so "states' rights" only exists when you want to do LESS than the federal government, not more?
> 
> 
> 
> rightwingers are funny



Nobody has said they can't do it. We just recommend they don't since it won't work out well but they are free to try it.

I'm all for Vermont going single payer, the more models of failure we can get out there the better it is for the rest of us.

If they are going for single payer my only stipulation is they go all the way. No bailouts, no fed money, no pushing people off on obiecare. If they are going to do it then fucking do it all the way.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 2, 2014)

zeke said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > zeke said:
> ...



Vermont is on the right path? To what?
All you parasitic libs see in this is more free shit.
Tell me ,oh great one, who the fuck is going to pay the bills? And don't respond with the state government. Because as we the intelligent people know is that government pays for nothing. Government's largess comes from the pockets of the producers. 
Two cases in point. 
In the decade of the 2000's New York State lost over $100 bln in wealth. From 2004 thru 2009 New Jersey lost over $70 bln in wealth. 
In both cases high taxes were the main reason given.
Meanwhile tax havens such as Florida, Texas and Tennessee have seen jumps in population. 
What's that tell ya?


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 2, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



you said......Whatever happened to folks taking responsibility for their own health care? *They have cash for their toys. Sell them and pay for your own damn health care*

 in post 33 you said......*Folks have money for their $30,000 fancy motorcycles, boats, jet skis and big trucks but do not have money to pay their own damn health care bills.......*
i dont think everyone lives in your neighborhood were they have those kinda things to sell .....you do realize that right?.....or are you that out of touch with the general population?...


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 2, 2014)

jillian said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Oh yes it does..
Follow the logic. For any government program of the size and magnitude of a single payer system to work, it MUST be a captive program with NO opt out.


----------



## Freewill (Jun 2, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Outright lying is way too easy for you isn't it?  You once again implied something that wasn't true and when I once again called you out and you start lying again.  What is wrong with you?  Is it true that liberalism is a mental disorder so you can't help yourself?  I am starting to believe it is, cause you do it all the time.  Now don't get me wrong I like shoving it back at you but really what is wrong with you?


----------



## Pogo (Jun 2, 2014)

Actually Vermont passed this a few years ago.

It was _supposed_ to be a secret.  They'd like to keep it the most rural state in the country.


But now that the cat's out of the bag... I'm not supposed to tell you this but... they have public libraries too.  And freeways.  And public parks.  

You don't know where you heard this.  I was never here; we never had this conversation.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jun 2, 2014)

DaGoose said:


> Is it only a matter of time before the nation follows suit?
> 
> *
> 
> ...



I am in complete support of a single payer system, so long as it allows for private insurance for those who choose to pay extra for it.  The biggest fault of the Canadian system is that they do not allow for any private insurance.  On the other hand, the UK does.  They have the NHS which everyone can use, but you can also purchase supplemental insurance if you choose.  Doing so gets you a few perks such as jumping to the front of the line when needing to see a doctor for non-emergencies, along with having a wider choice of doctors.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jun 2, 2014)

Sunni Man said:


> The Socialist State of Vermont (SSV) end goal is to become a communist workers paradise modeled after N. Korea.   ...


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 2, 2014)

The Canadian Medicare System started with one province, too.


----------



## Freewill (Jun 2, 2014)

auditor0007 said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > Is it only a matter of time before the nation follows suit?
> ...



The British system seems unfair to the poor and grants the 1 percenters another luxury at the expense of the working man, or at least that is how it would be sold in the states.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jun 2, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Having a third party, an insurance company,  paying the health care bills of the consumers instead of the consumers paying for and being responsible for their own health care is about as inefficient system fullof waste and fraud as there could ever be.
> Until government enters the picture and fully assumes that role. Single payer in America with plaintiffs lawyers running up the tab as high as they can telling their clients to go to the doctor non stop to raise the damages on their accident cases.
> We have become a nation of village idiots.
> Health care costs will either skyrocket in Vermont or doctors will leave or not go there to practice when they first get their license. Or both.
> Whatever happened to folks taking responsibility for their own health care? They have cash for their toys. Sell them and pay for your own damn health care.



Most people cannot afford $1 or $2 million to treat their cancer.  While I do believe that we would be better off paying out of pocket for routine medical care, insurance is necessary for the big bills if/or when we get sick to the point that it requires a significant hospital stay.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jun 2, 2014)

Freewill said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...



As the British would say, rubbish.


----------



## Freewill (Jun 2, 2014)

Comparing Vermont to most anywhere else is just plain BS.  Their population is about 627,000 mostly white.

NYC is over 8 million, one city alone.  Vermont is about the same population as Boston.


----------



## Freewill (Jun 2, 2014)

auditor0007 said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...



Well it was sarcasm.  But I can see that those who can't buy the supplement bitchin' cause the rich can.  Much like when the government gave out refunds on taxes, those who never paid and even got money back they never paid in complained because they too didn't get a refund on nothing.  This would be no different.

BTW do you know how much a Brit pays for NHS coverage? Alone?


----------



## Freewill (Jun 2, 2014)

auditor0007 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Having a third party, an insurance company,  paying the health care bills of the consumers instead of the consumers paying for and being responsible for their own health care is about as inefficient system fullof waste and fraud as there could ever be.
> ...



I assume you do not get coverage under Obamacare.  The co pay now is 6000 dollars for most plans.  All the plans are actually the same the co pay the difference is if someone put out the money upfront more maybe be covered.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 2, 2014)

Freewill said:


> Comparing Vermont to most anywhere else is just plain BS.  Their population is about 627,000 mostly white.
> 
> NYC is over 8 million, one city alone.  Vermont is about the same population as Boston.


The Right uses the population for any argument. Single payer is based on many things but not population.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jun 2, 2014)

Freewill said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Freewill said:
> ...



The NHS is paid for through taxes, so it is income based.  Some pay more than others.  As a country, Brits only pay about half of what we do in the US.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jun 2, 2014)

Freewill said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



I do have a plan through the ACA.  While the deductible is high, unless I get really sick, I will never come close to paying that much.  What most people do not understand about these plans is that a lot of things are covered 100% before the deductible.  Two doctor's visits per year are covered, any preventative care is covered, including things like mammograms and colonoscopies.  For me it works quite well, but I do realize that for those who are not so healthy, the high deductible is not all that workable.  The other option of taking a low deductible plan just transfers most of the cost to the policy itself as the premiums skyrocket.  The real problem with healthcare costs in the US is that they cost to much.  This is what needs to be addressed.  Why can a person get a hip replacement in Belgium for around $15,000 when it costs around $100,000 in the US.  Something is drastically wrong with that.  It's not because of the insurance companies.


----------



## Erand7899 (Jun 2, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> What's going to happen when this works in Vermont just like it has in many nations around the world? What will be the GOP supplied talking point then?
> 
> "Well Vermont is mostly white people, and there is less violence so of course healthcare costs are easier to keep under control"



If it works in Vermont, other states will take a look at their system and see if it will work in their state.  That is the way the soverign state system is designed to work.  Fifty separate experiments in government, with the best solutions to problems being picked up by the other experimenters.


----------



## Pogo (Jun 2, 2014)

Erand7899 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > What's going to happen when this works in Vermont just like it has in many nations around the world? What will be the GOP supplied talking point then?
> ...



Yeah uh... can someone point me to the thread where the right is whining about Romneycare in Massachusetts?  I just can't find it.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 2, 2014)

Pogo said:


> Erand7899 said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



The only experiment I want to try is cutting off all tax payments and letting the libtards starve to death.


----------



## Pogo (Jun 3, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Erand7899 said:
> ...



-- "and furthermore if somebody makes things word for the people instead of Big Medicine I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll hold my breath 'til I turn blue, goddamit!"


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 3, 2014)

Political Junky said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > Comparing Vermont to most anywhere else is just plain BS.  Their population is about 627,000 mostly white.
> ...



its a lot easier to take care of 600 thousand in a small area as compared to 320 million in a Country the size of the US though isnt it?....


----------



## Freewill (Jun 3, 2014)

Political Junky said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > Comparing Vermont to most anywhere else is just plain BS.  Their population is about 627,000 mostly white.
> ...



What in the hell does that even mean?  I really think liberals just make crap up really quite amazing.

The left tells us 47000 died because of lack of health care, is that using population?

the left lied to us and told us 46 million didn't have health care, is that using population?

The left brought up the comparison of Vermont to the rest of the country, is that using population?  As I have shown the comparison of Vermont to anywhere is a false comparision.


----------



## Freewill (Jun 3, 2014)

Harry Dresden said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Freewill said:
> ...



What is so incredible about the liberal deniers is that I provided a news opinion piece from the liberal state of Vermont that told them EXACTLY why the comparison was false.  Their own kind is telling them they are full of crap yet they just go into denial mode and bring up BS like "uses the population."  There is something seriously wrong with liberals.  I guess credulity can only be stretched so far until the insane becomes reality.


----------



## Pogo (Jun 3, 2014)

Freewill said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Freewill said:
> ...



Why?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 4, 2014)

How about we have a single payer for home owners and car insurance?
You have a wreck and the state buys you a new car.
You need new tires state buys them for you.
House burns down they buy you a new one or rebuild the old one.
Need new carpet and appliances in the home, state buys it for you.

Why should anyone have to responsible for their own health insurance, their car insurance or their homeowners insurance? 

Government is always the answer.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 4, 2014)

Most people do not have health insurance because they spent their $$$ on something else and expect someone else to pay for their health insurance.

Friend of mine just bought a new Ford truck and a new GMC Acadia. $72,000 CASH.
He and his wife have NO health insurance. .


----------



## Pogo (Jun 4, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Most people do not have health insurance because they spent their $$$ on something else and expect someone else to pay for their health insurance.
> 
> Friend of mine just bought a new Ford truck and a new GMC Acadia. $72,000 CASH.
> He and his wife have NO health insurance. .



"Friend of mine" in no way equates to "most people".  That's a blatant fallacy right there.

"Most people" who don't have HI it's fair to say don't have it because they can't afford it.  In this country it's been priced out of reach for a disintegrating middle class.  And then along come the apologists for the disintegrative forces to keep them down... which frankly is a sycophancy that gives me the urge to 

Related:

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TWuO5dBYjo"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TWuO5dBYjo[/ame]


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 4, 2014)

Pogo said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Most people do not have health insurance because they spent their $$$ on something else and expect someone else to pay for their health insurance.
> ...



And the reason it's not affordable are the democrat ambulance chasing lobby, and the democrat law that forces hospitals to provide free health care, and the democrat's refusal to pay fair prices for medicare enrolled citizens, and the democrat and republican refusal to break up drug company monopolies.  IOW our government, mostly the fault of democrats, is forcing the prices for health care to skyrocket.


----------



## Pogo (Jun 4, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Umm... skyrocketing HC costs aren't exactly _*new*_ Junior, unless you're about 14 years old...

I agree about Big Pharma; the rest is kind of an aimless scattershot.  Do feel free to expound on this "ambulance chasing lobby".  For a start.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jun 4, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Most people do not have health insurance because they spent their $$$ on something else and expect someone else to pay for their health insurance.
> 
> Friend of mine just bought a new Ford truck and a new GMC Acadia. $72,000 CASH.
> He and his wife have NO health insurance. .



Idiots often associate with each other.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 4, 2014)

Pogo said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Never heard about Democrats refusing to support tort reform?  Really?

Howard Dean admitting it:
Video: Dean says no tort reform because trial lawyers too intimidating « Hot Air

Philip K. Howard: Why Medical Malpractice Reform Is Off Limits - WSJ
Tort reform key to cutting soaring healthcare costs | TheHill
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20131008112847AAOVw1e

The reason HC costs skyrocketed over the last decades is directly attributable to state and federal management.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jun 4, 2014)

DiabloBlanco said:


> Leave it to a republican to take it overboard. I do agree though every couple for a wedding present should be given a interest free loan for a new home.



That's just as idiotic as most of your ideas.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jun 4, 2014)

Pogo said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > And the reason it's not affordable are the democrat ambulance chasing lobby, and the democrat law that forces hospitals to provide free health care, and the democrat's refusal to pay fair prices for medicare enrolled citizens, and the democrat and republican refusal to break up drug company monopolies.  IOW our government, mostly the fault of democrats, is forcing the prices for health care to skyrocket.
> ...



By and large, he's correct.  The government created this mess.  It's origins can be traced all the way back to FDR.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jun 4, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Never heard about Democrats refusing to support tort reform?  Really?



Everyone is for tort reform until the wrong limb gets amputated.  There are larger factors contributing to the increased cost of health care in this country than lawsuits.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 4, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Never heard about Democrats refusing to support tort reform?  Really?
> ...



Yes there are larger issues, I was just listing one of many.  Loosing a limb to an accident is a shame, not an excuse to bilk American citizens that had nothing to do with it. Doctors at risk of being sued merely pass the cost of loosing a suit on to their customers through higher costs for health care.


----------



## Lovebears65 (Jun 4, 2014)

zeke said:


> The fuck is wrong with you right wing nutters. If any state tries to provide for its citizens in a manner that you right wing whackos don't like, all you can do is root for failure. You people are fucked up.



what about the people who do not want this system. This is  monopoly


----------



## JWBooth (Jun 4, 2014)

DiabloBlanco said:


> Leave it to a republican to take it overboard. I do agree though every couple for a wedding present should be given a interest free loan for a new home.



There is not enough ridicule in the world to give justice to the shit you come up with.


----------



## JWBooth (Jun 4, 2014)

DiabloBlanco said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > DiabloBlanco said:
> ...


Gonna let that slide noob. Suffice to say, you don't know your ass from an excavation.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 4, 2014)

DiabloBlanco said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > DiabloBlanco said:
> ...



J.W. and Taz.....are you 2 guys Republicans now?....its funny....disagree with a righty and you are a lefty....disagree with a lefty and you are a righty....this is how those party people who cant think for themselves react to different opinions....


----------



## hazlnut (Jun 4, 2014)

Darkwind said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > And they will experience delays in treatment and more needless deaths, just like European countries and the VA.
> ...




The market value?

Dr. and hospitals have systematically overpriced their services and products.

Dr. in France and England don't feel entitled to work 3 days and play golf.


----------



## JWBooth (Jun 4, 2014)

Harry Dresden said:


> DiabloBlanco said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...


Somebody once suggested that to be successful in politics you had to be all things to all people.


Somehow I don't think this is what they had in mind...


----------



## Pogo (Jun 4, 2014)

Harry Dresden said:


> DiabloBlanco said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



I get that a _lot_.  I bet you do too Harry.  It's an inability to think in Nuance.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Jun 4, 2014)

JWBooth said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > DiabloBlanco said:
> ...



I think Mitt Romney tried that approach and look what it got him!


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 4, 2014)

Funny how you celebrate all those people losing their jobs.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 4, 2014)

Pogo said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > DiabloBlanco said:
> ...



i sure do....Dean once called me a "Right Wing Wacko"....i disagreed with i believe it was Rottweiler and was called a "LibTurd"...i notice that the majority of the posters that do that here are the more farther Left and Right...the ones who just cant believe you do not follow one of the big 2 parties...its like....how can that be?....


----------



## Pogo (Jun 4, 2014)

Harry Dresden said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



It's the same simplistic black-or-white dichotomy that brought them to where they are today --- on the one-yard-line of reality, unable to figure out why everybody else is somewhere around midfield.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jun 4, 2014)

DiabloBlanco said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > DiabloBlanco said:
> ...



No, I'm not.  What Ad Hominem are you going to use now to excuse your ignorance and stupidity?



> Unless the person is rich white and male it really just don't matter to you.



You've admitted to hating brown people.


----------



## Meister (Jun 4, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> DiabloBlanco said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...


He's also admitted to hating Jews.
He is quite the hater.

The Vermont debacle is falling in line with Obama's vision of government control.
It's a cornerstone to socialism.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 4, 2014)

*Vermont Going To Single Payer By 2017. Kicking Health Insurance Companies Out * because the industry brought it on by its corruption and greed.


----------



## JWBooth (Jun 4, 2014)

DiabloBlanco said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > DiabloBlanco said:
> ...


National Socialist recruitment?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 4, 2014)

The cornerstone to the Vermont system was industry greed and corruption.

Tough that.


----------



## Meister (Jun 4, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> The cornerstone to the Vermont system was industry greed and corruption.
> 
> Tough that.



Now it's socialism.
They really will have to depend on the government, now.
Not like there is no greed and corruption in our government, huh Jake?

Tough that


----------



## The T (Jun 4, 2014)

Vermont is run by Communists...(Bernie Sanders anyone)? And I'm not surprised either by this. The might as well secede.


----------



## Pogo (Jun 4, 2014)

"Communists"


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 4, 2014)

Meister said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The cornerstone to the Vermont system was industry greed and corruption.
> ...



 Meister, the health industry has already proven to be  failure, due to its own corruption and greed.

We will see if the state can do better.  Lucky that.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 4, 2014)

Pogo said:


> "Communists"



sushishillists


----------



## Meister (Jun 4, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Seriously??????   Health industry hasn't proved to be a failure, where did you come up with that one.
You have to take the gullible award for the week, Jake....or you like socialized medicine....that's so conservative of you.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 4, 2014)

Meister said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Of course it is.  It has created a system that is not affordable and accessible with quality care for all Americans.  It has created its own death panels.  Western nations live longer, cheaper, and more healthily than we do.

This has nothing to do with "socialized" medicine, it has to do with the American health care's failure to take care of Americans while getting rich by denying health care.


----------



## Meister (Jun 4, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Why don't you get the debt totals from socialized healthcare, Jake of those other western nations.  It's crushing them.  Canada is allowing private clinics again because they can't handle the wait times.
I believe it's Germany who's doctors offices have to close until they get their government allocation to open up again.
They aren't living longer because of their healthcare, Jake.  True story
Probably cheaper because the debt keeps rising because of their healthcare....even with the high taxes they have.  I don't think you're gullible, I just think you are ready to embrace socialism.


----------



## Fishlore (Jun 4, 2014)

In its original form, ACA provided for a government operated insurance company whose policies were to be sold on the exchanges. Congress mandated that the corporation must run on premiums only with no taxpayer subsidy of any kind. It was also required to operate under exactly the same mandates and regulations as every other company selling policies under ACA. The idea behind the plan was to ensure market competition in the many areas where only one or two companies were writing policies. A number of conservative politicians crowed about how the efficiency of private sector competition would allow for-profit companies to easily defeat the bloated, incompetent and wasteful federal bureaucracy in its attempt to sell insurance in the private market.

So, what happened? The lobbyists for the insurance industry who were writing large parts of ACA for the GOP took one look at the idea and shouted "Whoa!" They knew that a government program playing under the same rules but without the million dollar salaries and shareholder profits would easily out-compete the for-profit companies.

The Vermont program had its genesis at that moment. Eventually, as the costs of private insurance under ACA rise high enough, the nation will again turn to the government option as the way to transition to single payer. This will come on the national agenda in ten years or so.


----------



## Pogo (Jun 4, 2014)

Fishlore said:


> In its original form, ACA provided for a government operated insurance company whose policies were to be sold on the exchanges. Congress mandated that the corporation must run on premiums only with no taxpayer subsidy of any kind. It was also required to operate under exactly the same mandates and regulations as every other company selling policies under ACA. The idea behind the plan was to ensure market competition in the many areas where only one or two companies were writing policies. A number of conservative politicians crowed about how the efficiency of private sector competition would allow for-profit companies to easily defeat the bloated, incompetent and wasteful federal bureaucracy in its attempt to sell insurance in the private market.
> 
> So, what happened? The lobbyists for the insurance industry who were writing large parts of ACA for the GOP took one look at the idea and shouted "Whoa!" They knew that a government program playing under the same rules but without the million dollar salaries and shareholder profits would easily out-compete the for-profit companies.
> 
> The Vermont program had its genesis at that moment. Eventually, as the costs of private insurance under ACA rise high enough, the nation will again turn to the government option as the way to transition to single payer. This will come on the national agenda in ten years or so.



Yup, Joe Lie-berman, nose-deep in Big Pharma/Big Insurance money, hacking the public option to death.  Thanks a lot, Joe.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 4, 2014)

Meister said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Why don't you get the debt totals, because it is your propaganda that you are preaching.

Your ignorance of Western national health care is appalling.

And your deflection from our health care industry's problem here is noted.

Vermont is doing what it is doing because of the failures of our private health care system.

We had from 1994 to 2006 to fix it, and we didn't.

Tough that.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 4, 2014)

Fishlore said:


> In its original form, ACA provided for a government operated insurance company whose policies were to be sold on the exchanges. Congress mandated that the corporation must run on premiums only with no taxpayer subsidy of any kind. It was also required to operate under exactly the same mandates and regulations as every other company selling policies under ACA. The idea behind the plan was to ensure market competition in the many areas where only one or two companies were writing policies. A number of conservative politicians crowed about how the efficiency of private sector competition would allow for-profit companies to easily defeat the bloated, incompetent and wasteful federal bureaucracy in its attempt to sell insurance in the private market.
> 
> So, what happened? The lobbyists for the insurance industry who were writing large parts of ACA for the GOP took one look at the idea and shouted "Whoa!" They knew that a government program playing under the same rules but without the million dollar salaries and shareholder profits would easily out-compete the for-profit companies.
> 
> The Vermont program had its genesis at that moment. Eventually, as the costs of private insurance under ACA rise high enough, the nation will again turn to the government option as the way to transition to single payer. This will come on the national agenda in ten years or so.



And the private sector greed will be the reason for it.  Tough that.


----------



## hipeter924 (Jun 4, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Yep, if I was a foreign investor I would be laughing at 'stupid Americans' all the way to the bank, while taking full advantage of UHC back home.


----------



## Meister (Jun 4, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



I'm on a tablet this evening, can't do the linking, but did a Google on the subject, and there is serious problems in Europe, so I can only assume that you're too fragile to look up the truth, jake.
 As for your premise with Western Healthcare....you are the ignorant one.
I never said our healthcare before obummercare was perfect, but it could have been tweeked for those without, not overhauled for the sake of government control.
You really are a socialist....at the very least with healthcare....probably just scratching the surface with you.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 4, 2014)

Pogo said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Most people do not have health insurance because they spent their $$$ on something else and expect someone else to pay for their health insurance.
> ...



OK, if they can not afford it then they need to get an extra job.
Called responsibility.


----------



## Pogo (Jun 4, 2014)

Meister said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



I'm still not sure what Meister's point is here; it seems to keep landing on "you're a socialist".

-- And?

Some things are socialized in _any_ government structure, even ours.  Public libraries are socialism.  Public parks and the Smithsonian are socialism.  National highways are socialism.  NOAA and NIH and the CDC and the FDA.  And of course Social Security and Medicare.  All established by We the People to promote the general welfare.  Ya gotta come up with a little better argument than an unexplained insinuation or the same tired old "that'll never work".


----------



## Pogo (Jun 4, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



^^ Sociopath.

Had you watched the video you would have seen the issue is expense, not "getting another job" for medication that costs sixty thousand fucking dollars for a single dose.  And you would have further seen that while supplemental assistance is available, that woman showing in the link makes *too much* money to qualify.  So the one solution that would work for her is for one or both of them to *quit* working.

So much for your "responsibility".  You guys who can't bend over far enough for the Corporatocracy at the expense of the common citizen put me in need of some medication myself.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 4, 2014)

Fishlore said:


> In its original form, ACA provided for a government operated insurance company whose policies were to be sold on the exchanges. Congress mandated that the corporation must run on premiums only with no taxpayer subsidy of any kind. It was also required to operate under exactly the same mandates and regulations as every other company selling policies under ACA. The idea behind the plan was to ensure market competition in the many areas where only one or two companies were writing policies. A number of conservative politicians crowed about how the efficiency of private sector competition would allow for-profit companies to easily defeat the bloated, incompetent and wasteful federal bureaucracy in its attempt to sell insurance in the private market.
> 
> So, what happened? The lobbyists for the insurance industry who were writing large parts of ACA for the GOP took one look at the idea and shouted "Whoa!" They knew that a government program playing under the same rules but without the million dollar salaries and shareholder profits would easily out-compete the for-profit companies.
> 
> The Vermont program had its genesis at that moment. Eventually, as the costs of private insurance under ACA rise high enough, the nation will again turn to the government option as the way to transition to single payer. This will come on the national agenda in ten years or so.



Who sold you that pile of bull shit?
ACA is government subsidizing private insurance companies only. There is no "government operated insurance".

*DUH*


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 4, 2014)

Pogo said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



$60,000 for one dose of a drug?

And you want taxpayers to fund that scam?
You believe everything you hear and read.
And claim I am the "sociopath".

As soon as we pay quack prices for drugs at 60K a dose the sooner this country is bankrupt.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 4, 2014)

Blank check health care has to end.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 4, 2014)

Been treated in the military, in Europe and in Canada.

Nothing to be afraid of, guys, except the truth.

Your problem, not mine, because this is happening and will continue to happen.

American private insurance industry made it happen.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 4, 2014)

Single payer has worked for the VA let's see if it works the same way for VT.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 4, 2014)

Single payer works in some countries.

I want a split system.
If you do not pay for your own health insurance then your company can opt to put you in single payer market.
Same with all government employees.

Or you can purchase your own private health insurance from a private health insurance company with your voucher from your company and/or your own cash.

That would solve the problem fast.
Everyone that rides on the back of someone else to pay for their health insurance takes what they get.
No cry babies.


----------



## Pogo (Jun 4, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Without knowing anything about the drug, I'm sure it IS a scam.  That's the *point* here.  This is the corporate puppeteer you and your ilk shill for at the expense of the common citizen with a dismissive "get another job".

Yeah well fuck that.  Get another _system_ and stop enabling the your masters the profiteers.


"Sociopath" has nothing to do with "what one hears and reads".  It mean you lack the capacity for empathy.  And if it's not obvious, no that's not a good thing.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 4, 2014)

Pogo said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



"you and your ilk"

Punk


----------



## HenryBHough (Jun 4, 2014)

Relatives living in Vermont say this was instituted by New Yorkers who have been buying up property in Vermont to escape the city on weekends and to have a place to vote for a second time.  Taxes in Vermont, especially on rural farm properties, have become so outrageous that real Vermonters are taking the money and leaving for Florida.  Property tax won't pay for the socialized medical system and New Yorkers will avoid income tax on money they earned in the city so will largely get a free ride if they can find a doctor or hospital still open in Vermont.


----------



## Pogo (Jun 4, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



It's Scots.  Look it up.


----------



## Pogo (Jun 4, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> Relatives living in Vermont say this was instituted by New Yorkers who have been buying up property in Vermont to escape the city on weekends and to have a place to vote for a second time.  Taxes in Vermont, especially on rural farm properties, have become so outrageous that real Vermonters are taking the money and leaving for Florida.  Property tax won't pay for the socialized medical system and New Yorkers will avoid income tax on money they earned in the city so will largely get a free ride if they can find a doctor or hospital still open in Vermont.



Hardly -- if you had property in Vermont, why on earth would you want to go to Florida, let alone live there?

No, this is home grown.  I've still got close friends with rural farm property and they told me about this years ago.  Nor do they have tax issues; they're actually expanding their property.  FWIW.

But there's always a member of the Ilks Club willing to step up to the plate and bellow "it'll never work".  Whether it's a health care system, a green energy project, any kind of social advancement at all, neither snow nor rain nor gloom of night will stay the naysayers from their self-appointed rounds...


----------



## Papageorgio (Jun 4, 2014)

Vermont is correct it is a state issue, not a federal issue. The Feds have no business dictating our insurance decisions. 

If the taxpayers of Vermont dislike it, they can vote the people out.

I find it amusing how liberals cry states rights over this but think nothing of the heavy foot of the government to insert its will of ACA. 

Now, do I think Vermont's single payer system will work? I think the quality will go down and the middle class will pick up most of the expense, just as it is with the ACA.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 4, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Jake we are a Western nation.....and living healthily is a life style decision....not a medical decision....


----------



## Meister (Jun 4, 2014)

Pogo said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



We're talking about the government taking over an industry, Pogo.
"That'll never work"because we see other countries economies in stress because of the healthcare costs.  Long lines fewer doctors and fewer state of the art technology. They have had enough time to work at the kinks....and haven't.  So the uber lefties want to follow suit?
Your "promote the general welfare" has been debunked so many times on this board you should be embarrassed to even bring it up.

I hope that you now understand better where Meister is coming from.


----------



## Pogo (Jun 5, 2014)

Meister said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



I don't know that that's true; I only know I've _heard_ it's true, as have you, which again comes from the übernaysayers, so that's when my native state becomes Missouri.  In the real world the Canadians and Europeans I know just don't corroborate those wacky sinister stories.  I'm not buying.



Meister said:


> Your "promote the general welfare" has been debunked so many times on this board you should be embarrassed to even bring it up.



No, actually I'm never embarrassed to bring up the Constitution of the United States of America, nor am I aware it was "debunked", even once.  *Do* tell.  



Meister said:


> I hope that you now understand better where Meister is coming from.



I understand that you abandoned your choice of pseudo-slur, since you never even addressed it here... which is where this question started.

But you did leave me one clue that is very telling, not counting the debunked Constitution: characterizing health care as an "industry".  Perhaps you told me more than you meant to, because that says a lot.


----------



## Meister (Jun 5, 2014)

Pogo said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Try googling what other countries are enduring with the costs of their healthcare....I had no problem finding it, but...if you don't want the answer, I can see why you made your statement.

Let me help you with the "promote general welfare"

It is NOT the governments business (constitutionally) to help individuals in financial difficulty.  Once they undertake to provide those kinds of services, they must do so with limited resources, meaning that some discriminating guidelines must be imposed. (so many who need that kind of help- so little resources to provide it.)

The Founding Fathers said in the preamble that one reason for establishing the Constitution was to promote the general welfare. *What they meant was that the Constitution and powers granted to the federal government were not to favor special interest groups or particular classes of people. There were to be no privileged individuals or groups in society. Neither minorities nor the majority was to be favored.*  Rather, the *Constitution would promote the general welfare by ensuring a free society where free, self-responsible individuals - rich and poor, bankers and shopkeepers, employers and employees, farmers and blacksmiths - would enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,* rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
Once the government opens its arms (and bank accounts), it divides the citizens into two groups:  those who receive direct (personal, individual) benefit from the government, and those who do not.  That is why the founders designed a FEDERAL system of government that provided only for the* GENERAL (meaning- non-specific) WELFARE of the people by confining its services to things like* *national defense and interstate commerce*.  It leaves to the states the issues of HOW or WHEN other services are provided to specific sub-groups. HOWEVER (This is critical) the new government* must represent the BEST INTERESTS of all the people*
general welfare

The Constitution grants the Federal Government the power to forcibly confiscate wealth from one group of individuals and transfer the wealth to another group. The method authorized for this confiscation of wealth is taxation and the method for its distribution is welfare, Social Security, Medicare, and Obamacare. This transfer of wealth is authorized by the General Welfare clause of the Constitution. 
*The Truth*
The general welfare clause has absolutely nothing to do with the confiscation of wealth from one group of individuals and the transferring of it to another. Progressives have completely distorted the meaning of that clause.
 This clause only grants congress the power to collect taxes for the promotion of a general state of well-being for the country as a whole provided the money collected will only be spent by congress according to the powers granted to congress.
*The Facts*
 This clause authorizes congress to collect taxes from  various sources to pay off national debts, provide for common defense, and the general welfare.
This clause is the first in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. The section is titled the powers of congress. Nothing in this clause authorizes congress to spend any money. The rest of the section spells out the areas where congress has the power to spend the taxes whose collection is authorized in clause 1. These items spelled out in the remaining clauses of the section all pertain to paying off debts, providing common defense and general welfare of the nation.
Progressives have completely ignored the definition of the phrase general welfare that was universally accepted by the framers of the constitution. They have substituted the 18th century definition of  general welfare with a modern definition that is the polar opposite of the original.
What does the General Welfare Clause really mean? | Constitution Mythbuster



When I said the healthcare industry.....I meant the healthcare industry.  It's a business, it's a whole sector of business.  You act like that's a bad thing......really?????


Having said that.....you would allow your government to run the healthcare.  Set the prices on you through taxes, you have no say.....you have no say on your coverage, or lack of coverage, because you have no competition.
That very telling on you.  I don't trust my government.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 5, 2014)

Papageorgio said:


> Vermont is correct it is a state issue, not a federal issue. The Feds have no business dictating our insurance decisions.
> 
> If the taxpayers of Vermont dislike it, they can vote the people out.
> 
> ...



"The Feds have no business dictating our insurance decisions"

Your team ignored that when we have been saying exactly that fighting against the ACA.

ACA is THE FEDS DICTATING OUR INSURANCE DECISIONS.

Damn son.


----------



## LogikAndReazon (Jun 5, 2014)

Ah....vermont bureaucrats and civil servants will certainly deliver better and more affordable care....lol


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 5, 2014)

Listen to Duane, he is slick on slide, knows his stuff.
Don't let him ride bikes though.


----------



## Pogo (Jun 5, 2014)

Meister said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



OMFG how dense can you be and still find the "Submit" button...

--- You don't think Big Pharma and Big Insurance are "special interest groups" or "particular classes of people??  _Really??_ 

This has ZERO to do with "confiscating wealth".  Way to miss the point COMPLETELY.  That is, unless you mean the gummint's complicity in the taking of that wealth by its arm (nay, its puppeteer) the Corporatocracy.  Turning the spotlight off of that and onto your fellow citizens is exactly what they want.  You're a good drone.



> When I said the healthcare industry.....I meant the healthcare industry.  It's a business, it's a whole sector of business.  You act like that's a bad thing......really?????



An "industry" is an entrepreneur making Barbie dolls and selling them for a profit.  The customer understands that he/she doesn't _need_ a Barbie doll but chooses to buy one.  Health care is not a Barbie doll.  It's a social necessity just like clean water, just like safe food, just like having a federal agency coordinate air traffic so planes don't fly into each other.

Let me guess -- you see nothing wrong with the idea of a for-profit hospital making profits off the sick and infirm ... amirite?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 5, 2014)

Pogo said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Health care is a personal decision.
My mother died at age 91, never went to doctors after the age of 56, never took prescription dope.
She took care of herself, walked 4 miles a day and swam 2 when she could as she lived in Ft. Myers, Fla.
Health care is a responsibility of each citizen.
Now I agree we need a national health CARE policy as the focus now is on disease care.
But folks are fat and unhealthy because of the BAD decisions THEY MAKE.
And I should not have to pay for their bad decisions.


----------



## Claudette (Jun 5, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



No it means that taxes will be paying for HC. If you don't pay taxes because your poor then somebody elses money will bankroll your HC and your HC will cost you nothing. 

Loads of folks moved to VT because its an easy State to get Welfare in. I know this because I lived in NH for twenty plus years and new loads of folks who moved to Vt for just that reason. 

I doubt the taxpaying folks in Vt are gonna think single payer is so great when they are stuck paying for those who can't pay for themselves.

Oh and I could give fuck one about the poor. Its not my duty to bankroll their lives for em.


----------



## Pogo (Jun 5, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Bullshit.  Health care is a universal _necessity_, the only alternative to it being death.  *Religion *is a personal decision.  _How you vote_ is a personal decision.  _Career path_ is a personal decision.  Health care is a _necessity_.  One doesn't get a "choice" of whether or not to treat one's maladies.  One treats them, or one dies.



Gadawg73 said:


> My mother died at age 91, never went to doctors after the age of 56, never took prescription dope.
> She took care of herself, walked 4 miles a day and swam 2 when she could as she lived in Ft. Myers, Fla.
> Health care is a responsibility of each citizen.
> Now I agree we need a national health CARE policy as the focus now is on disease care.
> ...



Actually that's by and large not the case at all.  We're really (as a population) not eating differently now than we were before obesity became rampant.  Here's very good illustration of that:

Wassup wit Wheat -- it's not what it used to be

Couple of documentaries about changes in the food supply that have themselves also contributed to the epidemic of obesity, diabetes and the like:

"Stuffed" (down the page, in two parts)

We're being _*poisoned*_.  Not by toxins (well not entirely) but by food industry (for this time unlike hospitals we can safely use the word _industry_) bent on profits at the expense of public health.

RE wheat above -- I know from direct personal experience that when I stopped eating bread and continued on eating everything else, no other changes, I lost 40 pounds.  That was in no way MY decision to put on those 40 pounds.  That's just wheat alone, never mind the sugars pumped into everything, again for the sake of naked profits, let alone the corn syrup that dominates that sugar infusion, completely corrupted by Monsanto monopolistic profiteering....

So no, you don't get to blame We the People for the actions of the puppeteers whose boots you blithely lick.  And btw with condolences for the loss of your mother, using her to float an "I got mine so you can go fuck yourself" philosophy gives me the urge to regurge.


----------



## Pogo (Jun 5, 2014)

Claudette said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...




That's curious because I actually lived *in* Vermont and I found the opposite to be the case.  In fact that's why I had to move *out*.


----------



## Meister (Jun 5, 2014)

Pogo said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



I stand behind everything I said to you and your "for the general welfare" crap you spewed.
You touted the constitution to back up your flawed premise.  General Welfare meant something entirely different to the FF's than what your trying to shovel.  It IS NOT up to the government to be in the business of healthcare.....it's a business...not government.  
Like I told Jake......there could have been tweaks in the healthcare system for a safety net that got coverage for those without and didn't have to go with a full blown mandate with an overhaul for everyone.  Even today we see that the system has failed and it will continue to fail with it's goal of coverage.  Yet....you won't address that.
You ignore the fact that socialized healthcare isn't working in countries with large populations, or anywhere other than low populated areas.


You're right, I don't have an issue with for profit healthcare.   I don't believe in socialized healthcare.....it isn't any revelation. I believe that a single man in his 70's doesn't want pregnancy insurance shouldn't have to buy it....on the other hand you think he should.
I don't think a couple in their 60's should have to buy insurance that includes birth control....you think they should.
  I find it offensive that you think that a government run healthcare with a one size fits all is perfectly fine.  You're ridiculous!
America being an exceptional nation is rapidly diminishing under the current administration and with the love and support of you and your ilk.

Now....have a good weekend, I'm heading out for the weekend for some fishing.


----------



## Pogo (Jun 5, 2014)

Meister said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



I too am piling up things to do so a last thought for now just on the main point ---

This isn't about government _"running" _ or "providing" health care.  That might be one approach for better or worse but that's not the point.  Let me illustrate what IS the point...

You want your government to protect you from aggression and terrorists -- right?

I'll assume you do, as do I.

-- So why expend all this energy resisting the kind of aggression that soaks a patient for a $60,000 dose of medication?  Aggression doesn't always mean bombs and bullets.  If you're being waterboarded, you have one guy pouring the water on your face and another guy holding you down; in this analogy government is the latter.  You seem to object to the idea that the government should NOT be holding you down so that the other guy can torture you.

OK one more sub-point:  a for-profit hospital (like a for-profit anything) means that business has incentive to create more business for itself.  If the "industry" it's in is healthcare, that means it's in that company's _*interest*_ to charge more for hospital stays; to keep you in there longer; to sell you more medication, and to order more tests using the new machine that goes *::bing::* to justify their buying it.

Can you not see where this leads?  Really?  Think "public utility commission".  Then connect the dots.  You're posturing against the evil wicked gummint while completely ignoring and giving a pass to the kleptocracy that _runs_ it.

The day I learned that there even WAS such a thing as a for-profit hospital, I fell down on the spot.  How the fuck did we let that through?  Ironically I remember exactly the spot where I was standing ---- in my living room in my house in Vermont.

Finally:


> You're ridiculous!
> America being an exceptional nation is rapidly diminishing under *the current administration and with the love and suppor*t of you and your ilk.



I don't see where you get that idea.  I've never supported the ACA.  I declared when it came out that I would have nothing to do with it and I've kept true to that.  Matter of fact I declared my flat rejection as an absurdity to the first version, which came out in a neighboring state to where I lived in Vermont.  You remember -- its governor ran for President two years ago.  It was a stupid idea then and it's a stupid idea now, so I'll thank you to base on what I write and not on words you stuff in my mouth.

You have a fine weekend Meister and thanks for the discussion.  And whatever you do, be safe.  There are sharks out there and I don't mean in the water.



Edited Jots and tittles:


> These items spelled out in the remaining clauses of the section all pertain to paying off debts, providing common defense and *general welfare of the nation*.



Uh, hello??  Then why did you call it "debunked"?  
You're still hung up on this idea of "spending", but even granting you that -- you just confirmed what I said.



> You ignore the fact that socialized healthcare isn't working in countries with large populations, or anywhere other than low populated areas.



Uh.... this thread is about _Vermont_.  And Vermont is the most rural state we have.  There's your "low populated area" -- again, hello?



> I believe that a single man in his 70's doesn't want pregnancy insurance shouldn't have to buy it....on the other hand you think he should.
> I don't think a couple in their 60's should have to buy insurance that includes birth control....you think they should.
> I find it offensive that you think that a government run healthcare with a one size fits all is perfectly fine.



^^ Three absurd claims that I've never made or intimated or hinted at in any way whatsoever, ever.  Pregnancy insurance?  Birth control?  I don't even know what the blue fuck you're talking about here.    Again, attributing your own wacko ideas to me -- ideas I've never even heard of, let alone endorsed -- isn't making a point, at all.



> When I said the healthcare industry.....I meant the healthcare industry.  It's a business, it's a whole sector of business.  You act like that's a bad thing......really?????



No, it is not.  A business is when I sell you a widget and make it better than my competitor, or when you hire my competitor's widget service because he does it better than I do.  That's a _choice_; health is an absolute public _necessity_.  There is by definition *no one* who can choose to go without it without the consequence of death.  The idea of one hospital _competing _with another should strike us all as absurd on its face -- because that's exactly what it is, shamless exploitation of the vulnerable.  It's no different than picking the pocket of a person because he's blind and can't see you.  No difference.  So the way we have (let it) set it(self) up, the word for our excuse for a healthcare system isn't "business" -- it's _racketeering_.  Of course when you're a mobster involved in a racket, you call it a "business".

You can no more sell health care to the highest bidder than you can sell a fire department that way.  It's absurd.  Health care is to help people i_n need_, not those in greed.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 5, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Listen to Duane, he is slick on slide, knows his stuff.
> *Don't let him ride bikes though*.



kinda late for that....


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jun 5, 2014)

good for them. Now the whole world can watch the failure that will occur and this nation will never go down that path.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 5, 2014)

Government now pays for 70%+ of ALL prescription DOPE now.
Thanks to Bush and the Republicans for pushing and obtaining the largest socialist program in 50 years, Gramps and Grannies' all you can eat DOPE plan.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 5, 2014)

Harry Dresden said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Listen to Duane, he is slick on slide, knows his stuff.
> ...



Was at his funeral.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 5, 2014)

Meister, of course there could have been *TWEAKS *to the system, for many years that could have happened, but the MOFOs controlling the health care system and their dogs in Congress and the legislatures said, no.

And you dare complain that the State of Vermont went in another direction?

The onus was on the health care system, and it failed.


----------



## LogikAndReazon (Jun 5, 2014)

Perhaps bernie sanders can run it like a commune.... Needs based of course.  Lol


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 5, 2014)

LogikAndReazon said:


> Perhaps bernie sanders can run it like a commune.... Needs based of course.  Lol



Commune chicks put out.
Far out.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 5, 2014)

Political Junky said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > Comparing Vermont to most anywhere else is just plain BS.  Their population is about 627,000 mostly white.
> ...



That is where you are wrong.
Case closed


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 5, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



No....You're wrong.. There are options to traditional public school. 
There are private schools, religion based schools, charter schools and the option for parents to home school.
In order to function, single payer MUST exist as a captive market. That means NO options.
This thing in Vermont is an idea. And idea for which there is no funding. Vermont's tax base is not strong enough to fund a single payer system.
The announcement has " vote for us because we _thought_ of this".


----------



## jasonnfree (Jun 5, 2014)

Anathema said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > You have resolved to never step foot in Vermont?
> ...



Why are you still in Massachusetts by the way.  Isn't it a fairly liberal state?


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 5, 2014)

jillian said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



"which gives federal law supremacy over state laws..."
First..This is true but not accurate. The Supremacy clause applies only when there is an absence of state law. 
For example....The prohibition on sports betting. Before the Interstate Wire Act,4 states Nevada, Delaware, Montana and Oregon already permitted betting on sports. Therefore the Act did not apply to those states because under the States Rights Clause, federal law cannot supersede existing state law. There are certain conditions though. If an existing state law is deemed unconstitutional or so egregious that it outrages the system of federal government. For example if a state had a law that permitted a 12 year old child to own firearms. Or that permitted a young child to operate dangerous equipment as part of their employment. The federal government would be so outraged it would be virtually compelled to pass legislation which would not "outlaw" said state law but to word the federal law so that it would be impossible for the state law to be enforced.
You have to remember, laws do not go through "repeal" in an of themselves. Legislation must be passed and signed by the President that deems the existing law invalid. The old law still exists though. it is "legal" but unenforceable. 
"and you are aware that the constitution gives government the right to act for the general welfare of the populace, right?"
This is not true and not accurate. There is no such law. Nor do the words "act for the general welfare of the populace" appear anywhere in the US Constitution.
The only reference to "general welfare' is in the Preamble....
Which in part  reads "promote the general welfare"....


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 5, 2014)

kaz said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > I prefer a government that goes by the constitution, which gives federal law supremacy over state laws.... you are aware of that part of the constitution, right?
> ...


What these libs refuse to acknowledge and this is typical due to the manner in which Obama is more a ruler than a governor is that the US Constitution is a LIMITING document. 
If as Boopie says she wants a government to 'follow the Constitution", then she agrees that the government CANNOT do anything not stated in the Document. 
Of course as a lib she thinks precisely the opposite. 
Al Gore stated the liberal line on this very issue when the used the term "no controlling legal authority"....What he meant was "it doesn't say we can't".....


----------



## Mertex (Jun 5, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> And they will experience delays in treatment and more needless deaths, just like European countries and the VA.
> Why anyone thinks this is an advance is beyond me.



Not so.   People on Medicare don't experience that or Medicare would have already been thrown out.  You're delusional.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 5, 2014)

GHook93 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > And they will experience delays in treatment and more needless deaths, just like European countries and the VA.
> ...



Single payer would make all medical professionals defacto federal employees and all medical facilities de facto federal institutions. 
Once again, for single payer to function it MUST have a 100% captive market.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 5, 2014)

Meister said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > LordBrownTrout said:
> ...



Essentially, this blows Jillian's argument straight to Mars.


----------



## Mertex (Jun 5, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> that's way over their heads, all they see is FREE free free and that make everything all good



For someone who has admitted being on welfare at some point in time, you sure are against your own interests.  Doesn't that appear dumb to you?  You would rather have insurance companies that can hike up the premiums whenever they feel like it as opposed to an affordable regulated price?  Go figure.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 5, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



I think she's full of shit. 
I'm not an attorney. Never went to law school. I think I have a much better grasp on the law than she does,
I think it is her ideological approach which disqualifies her as a source of knowledge on the law.


----------



## Pogo (Jun 5, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > that's way over their heads, all they see is FREE free free and that make everything all good
> ...



I wonder if Steph would give up her public utility commission too...


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 5, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



While you libs think the Document means nothing. 
You view it only as a road block to your goal of a socialist utopia.


----------



## buckeye45_73 (Jun 5, 2014)

zeke said:


> The fuck is wrong with you right wing nutters. If any state tries to provide for its citizens in a manner that you right wing whackos don't like, all you can do is root for failure. You people are fucked up.




 Wrong point of view, we know it will be a failure and have outlined it....the problem is you keep rooting for shit that fails.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 5, 2014)

Harry Dresden said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Having a third party, an insurance company,  paying the health care bills of the consumers instead of the consumers paying for and being responsible for their own health care is about as inefficient system fullof waste and fraud as there could ever be.
> ...


We have medicare and medicaid alrwafy in place.
If the less fortunate already have access to the medical care system, then we did not need any further federal mandate ( ACA)....Of course Obamacare ( ACA) has absolutely ZERO to do with health care. It is merely a system of federal mandates costing trillions that is set up for failure. The reason it's set up for failure is so that Obama can go to the people and say "this ACA was never going to work. Ultimately we need a universal health care system. By executive order I...."....Blah  blah blah


----------



## Mertex (Jun 5, 2014)

buckeye45_73 said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> > The fuck is wrong with you right wing nutters. If any state tries to provide for its citizens in a manner that you right wing whackos don't like, all you can do is root for failure. You people are fucked up.
> ...





Medicare is not a failure.  Many Republican/conservatives that are on it love it and don't want it changed.  How do you rationalize that with your statement?


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 5, 2014)

Political Junky said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > Is it only a matter of time before the nation follows suit?
> ...


You must be kidding....Your post does not dignify a response.


----------



## Pogo (Jun 5, 2014)

buckeye45_73 said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> > The fuck is wrong with you right wing nutters. If any state tries to provide for its citizens in a manner that you right wing whackos don't like, all you can do is root for failure. You people are fucked up.
> ...



No, the point was, and is, you nutters keep rooting for shit TO fail.

That's what conservatism is all about, right?  Keep the status quo, never improve anything?


----------



## buckeye45_73 (Jun 5, 2014)

Mertex said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> > zeke said:
> ...



They love it, because it's all they got. I worked in a mail order pharmacy and setup orders for patients....there is a HUGE difference between medicare and private insurance...HUUUUUUGE

 Most of my complaints were medicae, because they wouldn't cover equipment for their treatments....Part C gave them the medicine, but they still had to pay for things like testers for diabetes, and basically anything for their treatments that isn't medicine.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 6, 2014)

Wait a minute, they are not kicking insurance companies out.
If you have private health insurance it is still good in Vermont.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 6, 2014)

buckeye45_73 said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > buckeye45_73 said:
> ...


Medicare pays testing supplies for diabetics.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 6, 2014)

Medicare is a runaway train wreck.
Blank check health care has to go. It will bankrupt us.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 23, 2014)

Well resurrecting this thread for an update.
Vermont realized it would be too expensive and inefficient to do what they wanted and scrapped the whole thing.
Good.  We know single payer doesnt work. Anyone still want to propose it?
Vermont s Single Payer Washout - WSJ


----------



## boedicca (Dec 23, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Well resurrecting this thread for an update.
> Vermont realized it would be too expensive and inefficient to do what they wanted and scrapped the whole thing.
> Good.  We know single payer doesnt work. Anyone still want to propose it?
> Vermont s Single Payer Washout - WSJ




The Universe has a great sense of humor.  I just love it when Nemesis tackles Hubris.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Dec 23, 2014)

Hey.. let 'em have at it is what I say.  But, when it fails, which it will, no bailouts.


----------



## hipeter924 (Dec 23, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Well resurrecting this thread for an update.
> Vermont realized it would be too expensive and inefficient to do what they wanted and scrapped the whole thing.
> Good.  We know single payer doesnt work. Anyone still want to propose it?
> Vermont s Single Payer Washout - WSJ


Single Payer works in multiple countries including Australia and Taiwan. It is complexity of implementation. US Federal laws and regulations make single payer impossible to implement. Same with any alternative to Single Payer, like a fully private healthcare system.


----------



## g5000 (Dec 23, 2014)

hipeter924 said:


> Single Payer works in multiple countries including Australia and Taiwan. It is complexity of implementation.



No.  It is the sudden gigantic jump in taxes required which killed it in Vermont.

Single payer countries pay far higher taxes than we do.


----------



## jasonnfree (Dec 23, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Well resurrecting this thread for an update.
> Vermont realized it would be too expensive and inefficient to do what they wanted and scrapped the whole thing.
> Good.  We know single payer doesnt work. Anyone still want to propose it?
> Vermont s Single Payer Washout - WSJ



It  works for most of Europe, but then they don't have as many right wing whackos voting against their own interests as USA does.


----------



## healthmyths (Dec 23, 2014)

jasonnfree said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Well resurrecting this thread for an update.
> ...


Hey I'm all in favor of Vermont experimenting with single payer!  After all that is the concept of the 50 states as a laboratories for national opportunities.
There is absolutely NO reason a state with 626,630 total population SHOULD NOT be able to have a single payer.
NOW of course with a population of 16.7% over 65 or 104,647 their services will consume a large portion of the premiums that the other 50% having to pay the bill will be interesting for those over 65 with Medicare's share of health services at 20%


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Dec 23, 2014)

DaGoose said:


> Is it only a matter of time before the nation follows suit?
> 
> *
> 
> ...


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 23, 2014)

healthmyths said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


They did experiment.  And that experiment was a failure.  So now those advocating for it need to explain why next time it will be different.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 23, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > Is it only a matter of time before the nation follows suit?
> ...


And VT failed.  Their experiment i single payer failed.  So we know it wont work and we can discard the idea.


----------



## Theowl32 (Dec 23, 2014)

Fucking liberals are fucking wrong about everything. For some reason the morons bring up Europe again as though they are right about everything.  Do they even research their dire financial conditions?  No. They do not.

They just spout their shit as though any of them have or will ever live in any of those countries.

You have to wonder, is there a massive movement of Americans trying to escape evil capitalism to get to any socialist bullshit country? Which one?

Fucking liberals.


----------



## LogikAndReazon (Dec 23, 2014)

Lets root for a civil servant run healthcare monoply !!!

For da peoplez sandinistas !


----------



## Pogo (Dec 23, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...



Didn't "fail" -- it wasn't implemented.  Something that never goes into operation cannot by definition "succeed" or "fail".

Go argue with Rabbi -- he posted this earlier.
Oh wait -- that's you.

Lie much?


----------



## Vandalshandle (Dec 23, 2014)

Wow! I sure hope that United Health Care doesn't find out about all this! They are my insurer under Medicare, which is, of course, the model for what democrats want  to adopt for all ages.  Somewhere, I missed them being taken over by the government. It must have happened on a busy news weekend.


----------



## Missouri_Mike (Dec 23, 2014)

jasonnfree said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Well resurrecting this thread for an update.
> ...


It works for europe because we take care of their military needs and they still can't balance their budgets because of their healthcare costs. You just haven't convinced Americans to be so shit ass stupid yet. You have some work to do.


----------



## Missouri_Mike (Dec 23, 2014)

How the hell do you left wing idiots think government run healthcare is going to be any better than government run retirement?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 23, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> And they will experience delays in treatment and more needless deaths, just like European countries and the VA.
> Why anyone thinks this is an advance is beyond me.


Hmmmmmmmm.................   They live longer, have a far lower infant mortality rate, and only pay half as much for their medical system.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Dec 23, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > And they will experience delays in treatment and more needless deaths, just like European countries and the VA.
> ...



They live longer because they have less violent crime and lower percentages of automobile deaths.  Their infant mortality rate is lower because they don't use the same metrics as we do and their medical system costs less because they ration care and have longer wait times.  You have a much better chance of surviving a potentially terminal illness in the U.S. than you do anywhere else.

Bear in mind, I'm not saying there aren't flaws in our system and there aren't plenty of things we can fix, but if you think you can implements a one size fits all system for 305 million people you're in La La Land.  We're never going to have a European system here because it's damn near impossible to implement for a nation this diverse and this large.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 24, 2014)

AzMike said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


It doesnt work for Europe.  I dont know why libs keep bleating this lie.  The European systems are bloated with exploding costs for an aging population.  They are all trying desperately to cut those costs by limiting treatments, etc.
Single payer is the most failed idea since the Obama stimulus.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 24, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


That's really the bottom line.  Why idiot liberals can't see this I dont know.  Of course I just answered my own question.


----------



## zeke (Dec 24, 2014)

Kinda weird hearing fuck head Republicans complaining how this won't work and that won't work. All the while the mother fucking Republicans have never, ever put forth a plan about ANYTHING that does work.

Why do you assholes spend all your time criticizing and no time at all trying to find solutions?
Oh I know, being a bitch complainer doesn't require much effort. And the one thing Republicans really lack is ideas and efforts to solve problems.

But you all do make good bitches.


----------



## Mac1958 (Dec 24, 2014)

.

Meanwhile, we stumble along with SIX (6) different health care delivery/payment systems that DO NOT directly communicate with each other:

1. The ACA
2. Group health insurance
3. Medicare
4. Medicaid
5. VA
6. Indigent/private pay

Amazing.  We don't appear to be the _tiniest bit embarrassed_ about that.

One (1) public/private health care system that covered everyone to create and maintain a healthier populace, dramatically lowered costs for American business and allowed for a massive increase of business for health insurance companies to maintain competition and innovation would not be difficult at all.  All of the requisite parts and systems are already in place.

But no, that would make too much fucking sense for the partisan ideologues.

.


----------



## Mertex (Jan 1, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> And they will experience delays in treatment and more needless deaths, just like European countries and the VA.
> Why anyone thinks this is an advance is beyond me.



That is horse pucky.....the military doesn't have any problem obtaining doctors and they pay way less what a doctor makes in civilian life.  Did it ever occur to you that perhaps doctors in civilian life are taking advantage of you?  Of course not....but as a conservative, you love the military, don't you?


----------



## Mertex (Jan 1, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Idiot conservatives support a system that allows insurance companies to give people the shaft.   Why don't idiot conservatives see this?


----------



## Mertex (Jan 1, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> AzMike said:
> 
> 
> > jasonnfree said:
> ...




Quit repeating what you hear on Faux News....you don't know what you are talking about.

Wiki:
The *French health care system* *is one of universal health care largely financed by government national health insurance. In its 2000 assessment of world health care systems, the World Health Organization found that France provided the "close to best overall health care" in the world.*[1] In 2011, France spent 11.6% of GDP on health care, or US$4,086 per capita,[2] a figure much higher than the average spent by countries in Europe but less than in the US. Approximately 77% of health expenditures are covered by government funded agencies.[3]

That brings us to another way that America is a big outlier on health care. The grey countries on this map tend to spend significantly less per capita on health care than do the green countries -- except for the U.S., where the government spends way more on health care per person than do most countries with free, universal health care. 
Here s a Map of the Countries That Provide Universal Health Care America s Still Not on It - The Atlantic

Thanks, conservatives.


----------



## Lakhota (Jan 1, 2015)

> *Vermont Going To Single Payer By 2017. Kicking Health Insurance Companies Out*



I hope this is true!


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jan 1, 2015)

AzMike said:


> How the hell do you left wing idiots think government run healthcare is going to be any better than government run retirement?


i get my check every month...just got a cost of living raise too....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jan 1, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > And they will experience delays in treatment and more needless deaths, just like European countries and the VA.
> ...



how long you live is more of a lifestyle thing than health care.....if you have ins and either dont use it or dont listen to the doctor....what good is it?....and many Americans do not take good care of themselves.....many people are overweight and eat poorly....i know men over 40 who have great ins....but will not get a Colonoscopy because,as one of them told me..."no one is sticking anything up my ass".....ins and health care is doing him a lot of good...


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jan 1, 2015)

Lakhota said:


> > *Vermont Going To Single Payer By 2017. Kicking Health Insurance Companies Out*
> 
> 
> 
> I hope this is true!


geezus lakota follow the thread.....Rabbi pointed this out above....here it is again for you

Vermont Throws in the Towel on Inane Single-Payer Plan - Mike Shedlock - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary - Page 1


----------



## Listening (Jan 1, 2015)

LoneLaugher said:


> Yeah! Just like the ACA!
> 
> I would have thought that the cons here would be supportive if this state initiative. Go figure.



They can do whatever they like.

They already scrapped the first go around....

Too expensive.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jan 2, 2015)

Listening said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah! Just like the ACA!
> ...



Yeah...I know. You've been trying to make this a bigger story than it is. The effort to do this won't be easy. But....I expect it will get done.


----------



## Darkwind (Jan 2, 2015)

The real headline reads:

Single payer a failure!


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 2, 2015)

LoneLaugher said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...


No it wont.
You dont understand this.
SIngle payer failed.  If it failed in VT it's going to fail even bigger nationally.  It is simply unsustainable at any reasonable cost.
The Left simply wont deal with the facts here.


----------



## AvgGuyIA (Jan 2, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> And they will experience delays in treatment and more needless deaths, just like European countries and the VA.
> Why anyone thinks this is an advance is beyond me.


Didnt Hawaii try this already?  I support this experiment.  Just one of fifty among the States.  It will fail and only lead to New Hampshire getting more doctors who flee Vermont for better pay.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jan 2, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



What? You are making a claim based on nothing but empty rhetoric? You? No way!

Look north, dummy. The way single payer was brought to Canada serves as a model. It is in our future. Might be too late for you and me....but its coming.


----------



## AvgGuyIA (Jan 2, 2015)

zeke said:


> The fuck is wrong with you right wing nutters. If any state tries to provide for its citizens in a manner that you right wing whackos don't like, all you can do is root for failure. You people are fucked up.


We don't want that shit spreading to our State.  It's your mind that is fucked up.


----------



## AvgGuyIA (Jan 2, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Results count. The Canadians and Europeans live longer than we do, have better overall health, and a far lower infant mortality. Yet we pay much more for our inadaquete healthcare than they do.


Stats with links please.


----------



## AvgGuyIA (Jan 2, 2015)

Every progressive program thought up by liberals turn out to be one giant clusterfuck.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 2, 2015)

Mertex said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > And they will experience delays in treatment and more needless deaths, just like European countries and the VA.
> ...


I worked in a VA hospital for 3.5 years and saw some bad shit. Has it ever occurred to you that the better doctors and employees go in the private sector for more pay?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Jan 2, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


Easily fixed.


----------



## Theowl32 (Jan 2, 2015)

Harry Dresden said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > > *Vermont Going To Single Payer By 2017. Kicking Health Insurance Companies Out*
> ...


Lol


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 2, 2015)

DaGoose said:


> Is it only a matter of time before the nation follows suit?
> 
> *
> 
> ...



You think doctors are going to line up to go to Vermont to make 50% less?

Fucking moron


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jan 2, 2015)




----------



## TooTall (Jan 2, 2015)

Fishlore said:


> In its original form, ACA provided for a government operated insurance company whose policies were to be sold on the exchanges. Congress mandated that the corporation must run on premiums only with no taxpayer subsidy of any kind. It was also required to operate under exactly the same mandates and regulations as every other company selling policies under ACA. The idea behind the plan was to ensure market competition in the many areas where only one or two companies were writing policies. A number of conservative politicians crowed about how the efficiency of private sector competition would allow for-profit companies to easily defeat the bloated, incompetent and wasteful federal bureaucracy in its attempt to sell insurance in the private market.
> 
> So, what happened?* The lobbyists for the insurance industry who were writing large parts of ACA for the GOP* took one look at the idea and shouted "Whoa!" They knew that a government program playing under the same rules but without the million dollar salaries and shareholder profits would easily out-compete the for-profit companies.
> 
> The Vermont program had its genesis at that moment. Eventually, as the costs of private insurance under ACA rise high enough, the nation will again turn to the government option as the way to transition to single payer. This will come on the national agenda in ten years or so.


" The lobbyists for the insurance industry who were writing large parts of ACA for the GOP"  I had to stop right there.  The ACA was a Democrat plan from start to finish.


----------



## LeftofLeft (Jan 2, 2015)

zeke said:


> The fuck is wrong with you right wing nutters. If any state tries to provide for its citizens in a manner that you right wing whackos don't like, all you can do is root for failure. You people are fucked up.



The fuck is wrong with you Leftists who at the core and your leaders' premise, depended on the stupidity of the American voter and the confusion of the Congressional Budget Office, to put forth a version of seemingly taking care of citizens. There are many angles to accomplish this and all of America is behind the premise; just not the implementation.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 2, 2015)

LoneLaugher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...


Based on nothing?  Didnt you read my link?  VT tried to implement single payer. It failed. The reasons it failed will go double for the rest of America.
As for Canada, it's a failure there as well.  For all the same reasons.
Single payer is one of the most failed government policies in recent memory.  What about that did you miss?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Jan 2, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> Single payer is one of the most failed government policies in recent memory.  What about that did you miss?


Yeah, except it works all over the world...


----------



## Listening (Jan 2, 2015)

LoneLaugher said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Sure.

They scrapped it because it was to expensive: FACT.

You expect it will get done: Wet Dream.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 2, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> And they will experience delays in treatment and more needless deaths, just like European countries and the VA.
> Why anyone thinks this is an advance is beyond me.




Sure, whatever you say.....Death panels, FEMA prisons, black helicopters, and all that other stuff you're scared of is coming. I'll bet your constant fear of imagined things plays havoc on your blood pressure.


----------



## LeftofLeft (Jan 2, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Single payer is one of the most failed government policies in recent memory.  What about that did you miss?
> ...



You might have a case if not for the World's Elite 1% coming to US for top quality healthcare over the single payer systems in their own country.


----------



## OKTexas (Jan 2, 2015)

Can you say it ain't going to happen.

Vt. gov releases details on decision to abandon single-payer health care plan Fox News


----------



## BlueGin (Jan 2, 2015)

Nope. Vermont pulled the plug on this. Read it in Modern Healthcare. Too expensive.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 2, 2015)

LeftofLeft said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Nobody ever said our healthcare system  wasn't the absolute best for the rich who could afford it. Those services just have not been available to those who aren't rich.  For the less than rich, all those wonderful services effectively didn't exist. That's why the new system is called  AFFORDABE  healthcare.


----------



## Mertex (Jan 3, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



There is bad shit in the private sector, too......and  private sector doctors are not better.....there are plenty that don't know what the hell they are doing.  I've have experienced really great doctors in the military, so Rabbi's post was just drivel.


----------



## Mertex (Jan 3, 2015)

LeftofLeft said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...




Yeah, aren't you glad you are in the 1% and can afford the same..........


----------



## initforme (Jan 3, 2015)

Every person should have access to good care no matter what their economic standing.  So if the ACA doesn't work, then present something better.  Just endure that a poor person has the same exact access to the best doctors as a billionaire does.  That should be a guarantee.


----------



## CowboyTed (Jan 3, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> And they will experience delays in treatment and more needless deaths, just like European countries and the VA.
> Why anyone thinks this is an advance is beyond me.



First, Europe has private health insurance... It used to top up the basic (but quite good) heath service you receive.

Rabbi, is talking out of arse here. The main European countries have better health systems which cost less by every major body who has studied this.

He is so ideologically led, he will kill Americans for his beliefs. He wrap himself in the flag and raise a cross and let Americans die. Remember that, he will tell you lies after lies... He is a ideologue not evidence based. Ideologues get people killed.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jan 3, 2015)

initforme said:


> Every person should have access to good care no matter what their economic standing.  So if the ACA doesn't work, then present something better.  Just endure that a poor person has the same exact access to the best doctors as a billionaire does.  That should be a guarantee.


That isn't going to happen.  In a free country it isn't going to happen either.


----------



## Listening (Jan 3, 2015)

initforme said:


> Every person should have access to good care no matter what their economic standing.  So if the ACA doesn't work, then present something better.  Just endure that a poor person has the same exact access to the best doctors as a billionaire does.  That should be a guarantee.



Why ?


----------



## CowboyTed (Jan 3, 2015)

Listening said:


> initforme said:
> 
> 
> > Every person should have access to good care no matter what their economic standing.  So if the ACA doesn't work, then present something better.  Just endure that a poor person has the same exact access to the best doctors as a billionaire does.  That should be a guarantee.
> ...



Because economics is a man made entity. We invented money, some people are saying because you have more of this man made entity you deserve to life more than someone else.

The Christian Right are believing in a false god no more better than the golden calf.

Why is it right that a single stockbroker deserves life more than a guy hold two jobs supporting his family of three kids.

I am sorry but while our capitalist model has advantages don't confuse it as being perfect in a god like way.

So while you complain society can be fair and equitable, some believe that society that look after each other are more advanced than ones that don't. Look at human rights, pollution.... 

Universal Healthcare is a hallmark of higher functioning society.


----------



## Listening (Jan 3, 2015)

CowboyTed said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > initforme said:
> ...



Hhhhmmmm.....

So which is the tail and which is the dog ?

And let's address this question.  If you were to look at two systems, one with equal access and one with unequal access....stay with me.....and the worst care in the unequal system was still better than the best care in the equal system.....

Which would be better ?

Just answer the question.  Don't deflect.


----------



## Listening (Jan 3, 2015)

CowboyTed said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > initforme said:
> ...



Well, a belief isn't really something I hang my hat on.  You can fight for what you believe.  But you can't expect us to take what you believe on as our beliefs.


----------



## deltex1 (Jan 3, 2015)

DaGoose said:


> Is it only a matter of time before the nation follows suit?
> 
> *
> 
> ...


If I lived in Vermont I would want to die also.


----------



## CowboyTed (Jan 3, 2015)

Listening said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



Show me the unequal system is better...

It is inefficient when compared to universal care, the US system costs almost twice the European universal model. Look at the WHO, Commonwealth Fund,...

The systems in US which have lowest admin costs are Medicare. 

So your foundation premise is made of dust. 

You also choose to ignore the actual European Model which allows people to pay for extra.


----------



## CowboyTed (Jan 3, 2015)

Listening said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



You have a right to your beliefs but to be consistent you have say human rights advances and pollution controls are regression of society...


----------



## Mustang (Jan 3, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> And they will experience delays in treatment and more needless deaths, just like European countries and the VA.
> Why anyone thinks this is an advance is beyond me.



Insurance companies take money OUT of healthcare that would otherwise go to doctors, hospitals, and treatment.


----------



## CowboyTed (Jan 3, 2015)

deltex1 said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > Is it only a matter of time before the nation follows suit?
> ...



That is a really nice thing to say.

Vermont has the 3rd highest quality of Life in the US.

The 10 states with the best quality of life - Yahoo Finance


----------



## deltex1 (Jan 3, 2015)

Mustang said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > And they will experience delays in treatment and more needless deaths, just like European countries and the VA.
> ...


I thought they take money from the insured to pay doctors and hospitals for treatment.


----------



## CowboyTed (Jan 3, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> And they will experience delays in treatment and more needless deaths, just like European countries and the VA.
> Why anyone thinks this is an advance is beyond me.



Except more people die in the US from not receiving treatment than in Western Europe.

Another foundation premise turns to dust...


----------



## CowboyTed (Jan 3, 2015)

deltex1 said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Insurance companies are far less efficient than a universal health care models. There administration overhead is way higher.


----------



## Listening (Jan 3, 2015)

CowboyTed said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > CowboyTed said:
> ...



I have no problem saying either.

But if I did, I would be as incorrect as you.

I would be assuming there is some set of metrics  that can be added up to see what the net benefit is to liberty and society.

Such metrics are almost always lacking in these conversations.

As to "Human Rights", I don't know you are referencing.  That is a broad term.  They've always existed.  They've not always been identified and supported.  

Pollution Controls ?  Do you know that is one of the reason we lost our steel industry in the mid 70's.  That was good ?


----------



## Listening (Jan 3, 2015)

CowboyTed said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...



Here we go with these claims again.  

Quality of life based on what ?

I never got a vote in the metrics.

I also lived in a city where they prided themselves on such a claim (highest in the state and country) and I know (because I kept an eye on my city council) that they had hired a marketing firm to help them make this pitch.


----------



## Listening (Jan 3, 2015)

CowboyTed said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > CowboyTed said:
> ...



I asked you a hypthetical....yes or no.

I am not saying anything about the U.S. or Europe. 

I simply asked you a hypothetical.

This response was not unanticipated (at some level of probability).  Which goes to demonstrate you can't let go or your emotional attachment long enough to consider a question that does not feed your pre-concieved notion of the world.


----------



## Listening (Jan 3, 2015)

CowboyTed said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > And they will experience delays in treatment and more needless deaths, just like European countries and the VA.
> ...



That has never been established beyond that bullshit Harvard paper study.

Whenever that roll of toilet paper (which other Harvard Professors called a "stretch") is brought up, I always ask for the names.  

This was identified over a decade ago...that would translate to 1/2 million corpses.  Where are the names ?

Answer: You don't have any.  With work, you might produce a few...but you should easily have hundreds of thousands.

I grow tired of arguing against the Shangri-la bullshit of the left.


----------



## Listening (Jan 3, 2015)

deltex1 said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > Is it only a matter of time before the nation follows suit?
> ...



Read on....

Vermont has the 3rd highest quality of life.  

People are just beating down the doors to get in.

They have a whopping 3 electoral votes.


----------



## deltex1 (Jan 3, 2015)

CowboyTed said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...


Any of them 18 trillion in debt?


----------



## deltex1 (Jan 3, 2015)

initforme said:


> Every person should have access to good care no matter what their economic standing.  So if the ACA doesn't work, then present something better.  Just endure that a poor person has the same exact access to the best doctors as a billionaire does.  That should be a guarantee.


They should also learn to be non drug taking, non obese, non promiscuous, working, educated humans.  No jussis, no peafs...yo.


----------



## deltex1 (Jan 3, 2015)

All fluxed up in LA....



Since Obamacare L.A. County ER visits show hospitals in apos state of flux apos - LA Times


----------



## Mertex (Jan 3, 2015)

Tipsycatlover said:


> initforme said:
> 
> 
> > Every person should have access to good care no matter what their economic standing.  So if the ACA doesn't work, then present something better.  Just endure that a poor person has the same exact access to the best doctors as a billionaire does.  That should be a guarantee.
> ...



Not as long as Republican/conservatives continue to buck it....but eventually it will.


----------



## Mertex (Jan 3, 2015)

Listening said:


> initforme said:
> 
> 
> > Every person should have access to good care no matter what their economic standing.  So if the ACA doesn't work, then present something better.  Just endure that a poor person has the same exact access to the best doctors as a billionaire does.  That should be a guarantee.
> ...



If you have to ask why, then you are way too uninformed to even be discussing it.

It is for the betterment of everyone in the country, that's why.


----------



## Mertex (Jan 3, 2015)

Listening said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



Yeah, just answer the question, because you know that your question is biased.

The United States might have had some of the best care, but only the very rich could access that best care.....so your analogy falls flat on its face.  The poor people had to settle for going to the ER in order to get help....most of the time too late, but I know, you don't care about the poor people.  There's your answer.


----------



## Mertex (Jan 3, 2015)

CowboyTed said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...



That was just his way of saying that he would rather live in an area with greedy conservatives and poor people dying due to lack of health care, than in a liberal state where everyone is healthier......even the poor.


----------



## Mertex (Jan 3, 2015)

Listening said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



So, if your question was not about the US or Europe than your question has no point.  You can only choose the unequal system that offers the best care if you are fortunate enough to be able to afford that system.....which most lower middle class and poor people didn't, here in the US.  Just because you were able to doesn't make it the choice of most people, but there again, you show your background, where you only care about yourself.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 3, 2015)

DaGoose said:


> Is it only a matter of time before the nation follows suit?
> 
> *
> 
> ...




So has something changed in last two weeks? 

Because two weeks ago, Vermont scuttled it's run for Single Payor Healthcare.   It turns out that it's not possible within the scope of financial viability.

This from the "Liberal Echo-Chamber" itself:

 A Slap in the Face Vermont Gov. Jumps Ship on Single-Payer Healthcare Common Dreams Breaking News Views for the Progressive Community

_"Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin on Wednesday abandoned his plan to create a single-payer healthcare system in his state, saying moving forward at this time would be too costly—a claim critics denounced as "a slap in the face" to Vermonters.

The proposal to create a universal, publicly financed healthcare system in Vermont was a centerpiece of the Democratic governor's agenda. Legislation Shumlin signed in 2011 put the state on a path to move beyond the federal Affordable Care Act by 2017 to a healthcare system more similar to that in neighboring Canada. He maintained that access to healthcare should be "a right and not a privilege."

But on Wednesday, Shumlin said that, despite his "steadfast support" for publicly-financed healthcare, he "reluctantly" could no longer press forward with the idea in Vermont. He made his decision after hearing from healthcare financing experts who said enacting the proposal would require a double-digit payroll tax on all Vermont businesses and a sliding scale for individuals of up to 9.5 percent. "_


----------



## Mertex (Jan 3, 2015)

Listening said:


> Read on....
> 
> Vermont has the 3rd highest quality of life.
> 
> ...



So, your only concern is how many electoral votes a state has?  Very telling.


----------



## Mertex (Jan 3, 2015)

deltex1 said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> > deltex1 said:
> ...



No, most of them didn't have a moron starting unnecessary wars that he didn't budget for.....that we're still paying for.


----------



## CowboyTed (Jan 3, 2015)

Listening said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



 “The measure of a civilization is how it treats its weakest members." - Mahatma Gandhi 

You want to weaken the US country as a society by treating your weakest badly.

Coal Pollution kills 24,000  of US Citizens a year. But hey a profit was made.


----------



## CowboyTed (Jan 3, 2015)

Listening said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



It called science... It's tough


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 3, 2015)

CowboyTed said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > CowboyTed said:
> ...


ROFLMNAO!

You can NOT make this crap up!

DESTROY the entire Healthcare System... to 'treat the weakest...'. 

Again... these people need to be removed from access to public communications.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 3, 2015)

CowboyTed said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > CowboyTed said:
> ...



It's called Bullshit; A shine, a deceit, a fraudulence intent upon influencing the ignorant; it is a common LIE, advanced by common idiots.


----------



## Listening (Jan 3, 2015)

CowboyTed said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > CowboyTed said:
> ...



Bullshitting is a science ?


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jan 3, 2015)

I am relatively okay with this (so called single payer, so called universal healthcare) being done at the state level. There's no Constitutional basis for it to be done at the federal level.


----------



## Listening (Jan 3, 2015)

Mertex said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > initforme said:
> ...



So is making everyone wear sunscreen.

When you can give a grown up answer...I'll be here.


----------



## Listening (Jan 3, 2015)

Mertex said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > CowboyTed said:
> ...



How was it biased ?  It was a hypothetical.

There was no analogy you dipshit.  It was a question.


----------



## Listening (Jan 3, 2015)

Mertex said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Read on....
> ...



Can be any more stupid ?

Quality of life......seems nobody's flocking there as near as I can tell.

Maybe the metrics are nothing anyone really cares about.  Ever think of that ?

Of course not.

You just come to this board to show us what a moron you are.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 3, 2015)

CowboyTed said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > CowboyTed said:
> ...


Lemme check,
Yup.  single payer is still dead.  Dead. Deceased.  Morte. Gestorben.  Umer.  
The idea is deader than last season's tuna catch.  Deader than a 10 year old corpse.   Deader than last season's Superbowl.  Over. Finished.
We will need to find some viable way to provide medical treatment.  Single payer isnt it.


----------



## hipeter924 (Jan 3, 2015)

> Under a single-payer system, there is no role for health insurance companies such as Aetna and Cigna as the government pays all the medical bills. Many hope that the United States will implement a single-payer system.


 Obviously they haven't lived under a Single Payer system, as without private hospitals and insurers there is no way for people to escape waiting lists or for the government to fund private clinics (when there is not enough capacity nearby)


Darkwind said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > And they will experience delays in treatment and more needless deaths, just like European countries and the VA.
> ...


 Not true, in fact the reverse as usually there are health services unions. Also general bureaucracy and regulations add costs to the system. But all in all you don't see it as it collectively paid through income taxes, payroll taxes or levies - and no government is going to advertise government waste if I wants another term.


----------



## rdean (Jan 3, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> And they will experience delays in treatment and more needless deaths, just like European countries and the VA.
> Why anyone thinks this is an advance is beyond me.


I missed the links to that. You are much too smart to rely only on hearsay.  So go ahead and post the links.


----------



## WelfareQueen (Jan 3, 2015)

Mertex said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > CowboyTed said:
> ...




I live in a community with a lot of Canadian snowbirds.  And yeah....only the rich can avoid the best care in Canada as well.  

They have a two tier health system, just like the U.S.  Their basic care is like Medicaid in the States.  Folks with any kind of money buy private insurance and go to different (and better) hospitals and doctors.  My understanding is the same system exists in the UK. 

Please don't be fooled.  Universal healthcare....wherever it exists....basically sucks.


----------



## Darkwind (Jan 3, 2015)

hipeter924 said:


> > Under a single-payer system, there is no role for health insurance companies such as Aetna and Cigna as the government pays all the medical bills. Many hope that the United States will implement a single-payer system.
> 
> 
> Obviously they haven't lived under a Single Payer system, as without private hospitals and insurers there is no way for people to escape waiting lists or for the government to fund private clinics (when there is not enough capacity nearby)
> ...


Not true?  Have you been living in a cave?

There is a growing trend among doctors and other healthcare providers to stop accepting medicaid/medicare because they pay well below common acceptable scale.

In a state where everyone is on the single payer, a lower scale than the rest of the private sector, healthcare professionals will flee for better environments.


----------



## Listening (Jan 3, 2015)

WelfareQueen said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



Yes, well facts just don't make it with madam dumbass.

From what I've read (and heard from Canadians) most big companies offer private health insurance as a perk.  So why would they need to do that if Canada was so great ?

To be fair, they'd never trade their system for ours (but then again, you should hear some of the shit they are being fed about our health care system).

Then there were the folks from B.C. that had to travel to Tacoma for medical work.  Seems the hospitals in Vancouver were filling up so B.C. literally rented a couple of floors from a hospital in the states to handle the overflow.  Everyone who went to that hospital were pretty impressed with the care they received (quality and attention) compared to what they got in the provinces.  

I don't bash other systems.  But this was somewhat telling.


----------



## blackhawk (Jan 3, 2015)

Good for them as long as the only one's picking up the cost for that free healthcare are the taxpayers of Vermont which they will have to do when there are more covered than paying in knock yourself out Vermont.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 3, 2015)

I think it's great!  Let Vermont health care collapse and no federal bail out.


----------



## lutraphile (Jan 3, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> And they will experience delays in treatment and more needless deaths, just like European countries and the VA.
> Why anyone thinks this is an advance is beyond me.



The 20 countries with the highest 20 life expectancies have something in common: Universal health care. The wait time thing is largely a myth. They exist, sure, but for emergency procedures it is generally not an issue. 

And for all the people talking about cost, Americans pay more for health care per capita than ANY other country. EIGHTEEN percent of our GDP. The next highest is twelve. 

Privatization of a health care system is inherently bad. When your life is in the hand of a company for which denying you care is in their best interest, no one ever worries about corporate tax rates. A shame that Shumlin is caving to political pressure.


----------



## Listening (Jan 3, 2015)

lutraphile said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > And they will experience delays in treatment and more needless deaths, just like European countries and the VA.
> ...



Do they offer this as a tatoo for morons who actually believe it ?

I mean, all this bullshit has been dispelled time and time again...but somehow people have to keep spouting it.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 3, 2015)

Listening said:


> lutraphile said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


They're slow learners, is all I can say.
Every Euro system is overwhelmed with exploding costs from their aging populations.  They aer all tryng to reform their systems before they run out of money entirely.
In any case, Europe is not the US.  You cant compare the two.
VT, which is the US, tried single payer and abandoned it because it was too expensive.
Hint: Single payer is still a failure.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 3, 2015)

blackhawk said:


> Good for them as long as the only one's picking up the cost for that free healthcare are the taxpayers of Vermont which they will have to do when there are more covered than paying in knock yourself out Vermont.


You missed my post.
There will be no single payer in Vermont.  They scrapped the idea when it became apparent it would cost too much.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jan 3, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I think it's great!  Let Vermont health care collapse and no federal bail out.


Won't happen the feds bail everything out.


----------



## lutraphile (Jan 3, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > lutraphile said:
> ...




Single payer has been an enormous success in Europe. For all the tales of terror about the NHS from the media, the British public loves it even after it encountered problems the last couple of years. In a Gallup poll, 72% of Americans were dissatisfied with the lack of affordable health care, compared to 41% of Canadians and 52% of Britons. Maybe taxes will have to be raised, but so what? As the American population ages, our government-controlled systems will have to do the same, and insurance costs will probably rise as well.  That's not a problem with the system, that's just adjusting to people living longer, which thankfully is happening everywhere.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jan 3, 2015)

lutraphile said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...


ROFL what a dumb ass.  And in other news scum bags that don't like to work like free shit.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 3, 2015)

lutraphile said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...


Single payer is dead.  Deal with it.


----------



## lutraphile (Jan 3, 2015)

You both fail to refute the figures- that these nations pay less, receive better care, live longer. Just ad hominem attacks and oblique statements. 

I am sure a movement towards single payer will return, since younger voters are those who most support it. And, by the way, a plurality of Vermonters still support single payer, which makes it all the more infuriating it is being abandoned.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 3, 2015)

lutraphile said:


> You both fail to refute the figures- that these nations pay less, receive better care, live longer. Just ad hominem attacks and oblique statements.
> 
> I am sure a movement towards single payer will return, since younger voters are those who most support it. And, by the way, a plurality of Vermonters still support single payer, which makes it all the more infuriating it is being abandoned.


Single payer is dead.  What about that do you not understand?
As for your posts, it cherry picks factoids and ignores significant differences between the populatons of Europe and the US.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jan 3, 2015)

Most of the countries in Europe never had true single payer.   Cuba has true single payer but the people live on $20.00 a month.  Europe has always had a system where everyone paid into the system and still had private insurance for better care. 

Up until recently Europe could do this.  They had low immigration and a low poverty rate.  As immigration rose and socialism robbed people of motivation supporting a single payer system is much harder and much more expensive.  Government benefits and high immigration of the non skilled is threatening France, Spain,  Italy and Great Britain.   Sweden and Denmark are trying to bail out those sinking ships before they are swamped.

Single payer health care like socialism only works until you run out of other people's money.  Then you start killing the old and the sick.


----------



## asterism (Jan 4, 2015)

Mertex said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > And they will experience delays in treatment and more needless deaths, just like European countries and the VA.
> ...



The military has had a huge problem for a long time.

Critical Shortage of Army Neurologists for U.S. Troops in Iraq and Afghanistan - ProPublica
Military MD Shortage at Home WIRED
 It Is Just Not Walter Reed 
Military doctor recruiting takes wartime hit - amednews.com
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1491564/pdf/cmaj00135-0013b.pdf
Military s mental-health system faces shortage of providers lack of good diagnostic tools - The Washington Post
The Palm Beach Post - Google News Archive Search
Critical Shortage Of Doctors In Military Hospitals News Get Latest News on Symptoms Causes Treatment of Critical Shortage Of Doctors In Military Hospitals Disease TheHealthSite.com


----------



## Listening (Jan 4, 2015)

lutraphile said:


> You both fail to refute the figures- that these nations pay less, receive better care, live longer. Just ad hominem attacks and oblique statements.
> 
> I am sure a movement towards single payer will return, since younger voters are those who most support it. And, by the way, a plurality of Vermonters still support single payer, which makes it all the more infuriating it is being abandoned.



That's great.  Why didn't the governor go forward with it.

As many of us stated in on the other thread...it's great they are trying.  We should all learn from what they find to be successful.

Other nations receive better care.....can you help us out with that one.

As soon as I pick myself up from ROTFLMAO, I'll be interested to read it.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jan 4, 2015)

lutraphile said:


> You both fail to refute the figures- that these nations pay less, receive better care, live longer. Just ad hominem attacks and oblique statements.
> 
> I am sure a movement towards single payer will return, since younger voters are those who most support it. And, by the way, a plurality of Vermonters still support single payer, which makes it all the more infuriating it is being abandoned.


You're full of shit.  They pay double what we pay for half the quality and have to effing wait in line.  You're idea of cheaper is what a 70% of your income in total taxes? ROFL

UK taxes: 40 per cent of their GDP.  ROFL for people with a decent level of income their taxes are "crippling."


----------



## lutraphile (Jan 4, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> lutraphile said:
> 
> 
> > You both fail to refute the figures- that these nations pay less, receive better care, live longer. Just ad hominem attacks and oblique statements.
> ...



List of countries by total health expenditure PPP per capita - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

World Health Organization ranking of health systems in 2000 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

France has the world's best healthcare, 4th in expenditure. 

The US has the world's 38th best healthcare, 1st in expenditure.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jan 4, 2015)

lutraphile said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > lutraphile said:
> ...


ROFL ROFL ROFL Liar.  That communist WHO is full of shit. Ranking is based on the US counting infant deaths and the rest of the world ignoring them.  Ranking is based on what people get for free vs what is available for fee.  TOTAL BULLSHIT.  The USA spends what they fucking want to spend on health care you fool.  

you marxist POS ass holes are full of it ... look at me look at me we get more for less by screwing over everyone... oh the humanity.  You effers can't wipe your own asses without taxing for it first.


----------



## Judicial review (Jan 4, 2015)

We'll since anybody with common sense knows a single payers system idea is dead, this discussion is also dead.


----------



## Darkwind (Jan 4, 2015)

lutraphile said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > lutraphile said:
> ...


Do you even understand the concept that comparing a apple to a paramecium will return incoherent data?

Get back to us when you have an apple to apple comparison of people, systems, lifestyles, and methodology.


----------



## Listening (Jan 4, 2015)

lutraphile said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > lutraphile said:
> ...



Haw haw haw haw.....ROTFLMAO.

This would means someone is using the WHO rating system.  The same one that has us one clean band-aid better than Cuba.  

The left only continues to show just what a screwed up education system can do to inferior minds.


----------



## lutraphile (Jan 4, 2015)

Listening said:


> lutraphile said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



For all the state's flaws, Cuba has excellent health care, and roughly the same life expectancy as the US despite being much poorer. The WHO is the most impartial evaluator one could want. When you discard statistics in favor of opinions, there is no argument that could sway you.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jan 4, 2015)

lutraphile said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > lutraphile said:
> ...



ROFL OMFG ROFL  you must rate in your country, cause over here you would not even rate pond scum.  Does your mommy still cut your meat for you?


----------



## RKMBrown (Jan 4, 2015)

Cuba ROFL..


----------



## lutraphile (Jan 4, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> lutraphile said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



Once again, what a mature and cogent rebuttal.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jan 4, 2015)

lutraphile said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > lutraphile said:
> ...


rebutal to "cuba has excellent health care?" ROFL  what a fucking moron.


----------



## Listening (Jan 4, 2015)

lutraphile said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > lutraphile said:
> ...



That is to much.

I work in statistics you dumbass.

The first thing you have to know is who keeps them and what their metrics are.  You really think Cuba is going to give you an open look into their health care system ?   Are you that stupid.

BTW: This is from your article:

The WHO rankings have been subject to many and varied criticisms since its publication. Concerns raised over the five factors considered, data sets used and comparison methodologies have led health bodies and political commentators in most of the countries on the list to question the efficacy of its results and validity of any conclusions drawn. Such criticisms of a broad endeavour by the WHO to rank all the world's healthcare systems must also however be understood in the context of a predisposition to analytical bias commensurate with an individual nation's demographics, socio-economics and politics. In considering such a disparate global spectrum, ranking criteria, methodology, results and conclusions will always be an area for contention.


----------



## Listening (Jan 4, 2015)

lutraphile said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > lutraphile said:
> ...



Sorry, but utilizing the WHO is not a cogent anything.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 4, 2015)

lutraphile said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > lutraphile said:
> ...


The way the WHO measures "best" is guaranteed to produce skewed results.  A true measure of "best" is how well sick people fare after diagnosis.  On that criterion the US has the best health care system i nthe world.


----------



## lutraphile (Jan 4, 2015)

U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries - Forbes

If you want another source, most studies say about the same thing. I'm aware the WHO methodology is flawed, but surely a flawed source is better than none at all. 
The US might have the best health care in the world for millionaires, but overall we do not at all- and we do spend the most of any country, even Forbes (a right-wing publication if ever there was one) says that is universally accepted.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 4, 2015)

lutraphile said:


> U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries - Forbes
> 
> If you want another source, most studies say about the same thing. I'm aware the WHO methodology is flawed, but surely a flawed source is better than none at all.
> The US might have the best health care in the world for millionaires, but overall we do not at all- and we do spend the most of any country, even Forbes (a right-wing publication if ever there was one) says that is universally accepted.


Again, the ratings are low simply because "universal health care coverage" is a major factor.
Look at how well people fare once they've been diagnosed, the only meaningful measure, and the US is far and away the best healthcare system.


----------



## CowboyTed (Jan 4, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> lutraphile said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...





The Rabbi said:


> lutraphile said:
> 
> 
> > U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries - Forbes
> ...



How did the guy who got Ebola fair when he was diagnosed the first time.

"
*Duncan's illness in Dallas[edit]*



Texas Presbyterian Hospital, where Duncan was treated
Duncan began experiencing symptoms on September 24, 2014, and arrived at the Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital emergency room at 10:37 p.m. on September 25.[26] At 11:36 p.m., a triage nurse asked Duncan about his symptoms, and Duncan reported feeling "abdominal pain, dizziness, nausea and headache (new onset)."[26] The nurse recorded a fever of 100.1 °F (37.8 °C), but did not inquire as to his travel history as this was not triage protocol at the time.[26] At 12:05 a.m., Duncan was admitted into a treatment area room where the on-duty physician accessed the electronic health record (EHR). The physician noted nasal congestion, a runny nose, and abdominal tenderness. Duncan was given Extra Strength Tylenol at 1:24 a.m.[26] CT scan results came back noting "no acute disease" for the abdominal and pelvic areas and "unremarkable" for the head.[26] Lab results returned showing slightly lowwhite blood cells, low platelets, increased creatinine, and elevated levels of the liver enzyme AST.[26][27] His temperature was noted at 103.0 °F (39.4 °C) at3:02 a.m. and 101.2 °F (38.4 °C) at 3:32 a.m. Duncan was diagnosed with sinusitis and abdominal pain and sent home at 3:37 a.m. with a prescription forantibiotics, which are not effective for treating viral diseases.[26][28]"

No Insurance,....


----------



## CowboyTed (Jan 4, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> lutraphile said:
> 
> 
> > U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries - Forbes
> ...



The reason for the universal thing, is that the US had a very effective way of removing the high risk patients from getting insurance.

It is easy for you to say 95% of all people are happy with our health system, the other 5% are sick


----------



## CowboyTed (Jan 4, 2015)

lutraphile said:


> U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries - Forbes
> 
> If you want another source, most studies say about the same thing. I'm aware the WHO methodology is flawed, but surely a flawed source is better than none at all.
> The US might have the best health care in the world for millionaires, but overall we do not at all- and we do spend the most of any country, even Forbes (a right-wing publication if ever there was one) says that is universally accepted.



Actually there is big questions about the American system of care. Questions have been raised of America overuse of medication adn the lack of consulting (i.e. help the patient change lifestyle rather than giving diet pills)...

Look at 
*Escape Fire: The Fight to Rescue American Healthcare*

There is also issues about lack of consulting going on as a result of the treadmill behaviour going on in hospitals. These a re worlwide issues and some have been addressed in US first in areas like care pathways... 

The US system while good for the wealthy has some major areas of improvement in preventive care and inconnectiblity of services.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jan 4, 2015)

CowboyTed said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > lutraphile said:
> ...


WTF does insurance have to do with health care?  Do you not understand the difference?  Do we or do we not have health care for the poor in the form of medicaid and chips?  This is a YES OR NO question.


----------



## CowboyTed (Jan 4, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



You have healthcare but it is not universal. It is also not comprehensive...

Actually your question is so poorly put I would recommend that you study a little on the topic and comapre health systems worldwode before you enter a subject like this which goes a bit above your head.


----------



## Ellipsis (Jan 4, 2015)

DaGoose said:


> Is it only a matter of time before the nation follows suit?
> 
> *
> 
> ...


You'll find the single-payer systom will cover a basic level of service, and you can still buy a private plan to cover more than that basic service.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 4, 2015)

CowboyTed said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > lutraphile said:
> ...


And yet he was treated anyway, for free.  Despite not being a US citizen.
Yes, US healthcare is the best in the world.  Thanks for demonstrating it.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 4, 2015)

Ellipsis said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > Is it only a matter of time before the nation follows suit?
> ...


You missed the point.  Single payer is dead.  It will never be enacted.  It failed in Vermont, ergo it will fail worse anywhere else in this country.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 4, 2015)

Ellipsis said:


> You'll find the single-payer systom will cover a basic level of service, and you can still buy a private plan to cover more than that basic service.


 
Yep.  And this is exactly what I've been stumping for for years.

It's nice of them to have given the insurance companies several (more) years to get their affairs in order.  Though they have seen this coming a long long way off.  We are after all the last nation willing to strap the disappearing and vital middle class and working classes' (and businesses') income with the equivalent of a second mortgage in health payment burdens each month while seriously questioning "what happened to all the consumer power in this country?".  Where is all my company's profits this year???  Der...duh... 

Like a nation of Idiocracy, we all have failed basic economics.  Or, our nation's politicians are so corrupt (and stupid) that they're willing to commit fiscal suicide and drag all other industry down with them all to placate this one industry: healthcare racket.

You'd think BigOil, BigVacation, BigEntertainment, BigTextiles, BigTech, BigUniversity, BigAgribusiness, BigAuto etc. would all be furious growing so thin with this one fat pig getting all the good offal at the trough..

Didn't miss a thing Rabbi [Below].  The trick is to perservere even while the horse and buggy moguls assure the new Ford Motor company "there's no way that thing will take off"..


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 4, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Ellipsis said:
> 
> 
> > You'll find the single-payer systom will cover a basic level of service, and you can still buy a private plan to cover more than that basic service.
> ...


You missed the memo that single payer is dead.  If it cant work in Vermont it can't work anywhere.


----------



## Listening (Jan 4, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Ellipsis said:
> ...



It COULD work in Vermont.  It's up to Vermont.

What is noted is that taxes would have had to have been increased substantially.

I don't know what the final accounting would be, but the governor saw an issue with costs.

And so he scrapped it for now.


----------



## boilermaker55 (Jan 4, 2015)

Do you live in a land of make believe. Our health care system ranks lower than you think
Are you trying to say we have needless deaths and delays and pharmaceutical companies don't take drugs off the market because they are not profitable for them. Thus causing undo deaths and suffering.
Get a clue. Once!




The Rabbi said:


> And they will experience delays in treatment and more needless deaths, just like European countries and the VA.
> Why anyone thinks this is an advance is beyond me.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 4, 2015)

Listening said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...


No, it was simply not feasible.  The costs were astronomic.  And VT is a fairly low cost state witha  relatively healthy population.  Imagine that in say Michigan or Florida.


----------



## CowboyTed (Jan 4, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



He was given a fucking aspirin for Ebola...  
Lets just say that is not the best healthcare it the world, you might think it is, so we know your standards and the height of the bar you need to clear to be the best.

If anything happens you in UK you get full treatment the same as any UK citizen...
Feeling embarrassed yet.


----------



## Listening (Jan 4, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Please read what I said.

It COULD work....it might destroy their economy in the process...but it COULD work.

If they all want to pay higher taxes, run businesses off, etc. etc. etc.

I just checked the date on the OP article.  It's over six months old.

It seems "Goosed (and liking it)" is a bit behind the times.


----------



## Ellipsis (Jan 4, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> Ellipsis said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...


You say it failed in Vermont but OP says it won't even happen until 2017.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 4, 2015)

Listening said:


> It COULD work in Vermont.  It's up to Vermont.
> 
> What is noted is that taxes would have had to have been increased substantially.
> 
> ...


 
They could start with sales taxes on all tobacco, booze and junk food...require a nominal co-pay to pay for the actual costs for routine checkups.  And so doing preventative/cheap care would save the state in the long run with longstanding undiscovered health issues going suddenly critical (and expensive).  The huge pool would cover the deal.

But Rabbi wants it killed in the cradle before it even tries to crawl or walk..  I'm betting Rabbi owns or has a lot of stock in a health insurance company...just a guess...


----------



## rdean (Jan 4, 2015)

rdean said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > And they will experience delays in treatment and more needless deaths, just like European countries and the VA.
> ...


"The Rabbi:  And they will experience delays in treatment and more needless deaths, just like European countries and the VA.
Why anyone thinks this is an advance is beyond me.

And I politely said:  I missed the links to that. You are much too smart to rely only on hearsay.  So go ahead and post the links.

And my answer was:............................in other words, no links.  Just hearsay.


----------



## Listening (Jan 4, 2015)

Ellipsis said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Ellipsis said:
> ...



You must have missed the thread that was started on the Governors decision to scrap the current plans and go back to the drawing board.  IOW: It ain't happening in the forseeable future.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 4, 2015)

CowboyTed said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > CowboyTed said:
> ...


He didnt get an aspirin for Ebola.  You're a fucking moron and a half wit.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 4, 2015)

Listening said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...


It could work if they destroy their economy=not working.  THey might implement it, is probably what you mean.  But work? Never. Even libs figured that one out.


----------



## CowboyTed (Jan 4, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Oh sorry...
What do you call " Duncan was given Extra Strength Tylenol at 1:24 a.m." and then sent home...

So you gave "Extra Strength Tylenol" for Ebola. Maybe you're right aspirin can't cure Ebola but Extra Strength Tylenol can...


----------



## Mertex (Jan 4, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



You sound so.........Faux News....ish.......


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 4, 2015)

CowboyTed said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > CowboyTed said:
> ...


You are one stupid disingenuous shit for sure.
He was intially misdiagnosed, which of course never happens in Europe, and given something for fever.
Please stop lying and stick to actual facts instead of lib talking points.


----------



## Mertex (Jan 4, 2015)

Listening said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



You don't comprehend grown up answers.....you'd be fine if those without healthcare contracted contagious diseases and passed them on, because that wouldn't affect you, right?


----------



## Mertex (Jan 4, 2015)

Listening said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...


  Because obviously people are going to choose better over less than better.  But it is obvious that you are referring to the previous system in the United States, where the *access was unequal*, and trying to imply that the *best care in the equal system (ACA*) is worse...........*but it isn't.*  The unequal system was only good to those that could afford the best care either through high insurance premiums or just outright paying for it.......most affordable insurances didn't cover many illnesses/problems, and insurance companies were able to disqualify people based on their idea of pre-existing conditions, causing many people to not be able to get treatment.   How in the hell is that better.



> There was no analogy you dipshit.  It was a question.


A stupid question by a stupid person who is trying to make a point but is failing miserably.


----------



## Mertex (Jan 4, 2015)

Listening said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...


Why would I want to be as stupid as you?



> Quality of life......seems nobody's flocking there as near as I can tell.


Are you that ignorant, to think that because everyone doesn't move there their quality of life is not 3rd in the nation?  Where do you live?  Mississippi?  Arkansas? Tennessee? W.Virginia?



> Maybe the metrics are nothing anyone really cares about.  Ever think of that ?


Well duh, there are many things people consider before moving to another state.....ever think of that?



> Of course not.


You're the one making the stupid assumption.




> You just come to this board to show us what a moron you are.



No, I come to this board to show morons like you that you don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## hipeter924 (Jan 4, 2015)

Darkwind said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> > > Under a single-payer system, there is no role for health insurance companies such as Aetna and Cigna as the government pays all the medical bills. Many hope that the United States will implement a single-payer system.
> ...


Medicare/Medicaid ≠ complete UHC system.

Also OECD stats disagree. The quality of American healthcare ranks well below nations with UHC: http://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/Briefing-Note-UNITED-STATES-2014.pdf


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 4, 2015)

hipeter924 said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > hipeter924 said:
> ...


Health profiles are not the same as health care.
Geez, can we stop with these fallacies once and for all?  WHo cares that people in France live longer or are less obese?  This isnt France.  This isnt Germany. Our populations, histories, culture and lifestyles are completely different.  We might as well compare ourselves to Bolivia, Indonesia and Guinea.


----------



## hipeter924 (Jan 4, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...


It isn't a 'fallacy' but a statistical tool.

You're the one arguing here that a system can't work that doesn't exist, whilst stating that UHC doesn't work or is less efficient even though it works quite effectively in other countries - and with much better results.

That's the real fallacy, your ideologically driven assumptions about a system you know nothing about - as it doesn't exist yet.

Edit: If you were a 'liberal' you would be arguing against a fully private health system with just as much narrow-mindedness. Because that doesn't exist either.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jan 4, 2015)

CowboyTed said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > CowboyTed said:
> ...


Liar. No Americans go without health care.. thus is "universal."  Still further our health care is "more" comprehensive than euro weenie health care.  WTF do universal and comprehensive mean to you, ya dipshit? 

Nothing goes above my head, my reflexes are too quick.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 4, 2015)

hipeter924 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > hipeter924 said:
> ...


You keep missing the point here: Vermont studied the possibilities and determined it wouldnt work.  There's your system right there.
You havent shown UHC works anywhere.  You post fallacious data points tht proves nothing mroe than different populations have different health profiles.  In addition all the European sytems are hemorrhaging money and desperately making changes to accomodate it.


----------



## Listening (Jan 4, 2015)

Mertex said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



I know a grown up answer and that is not you.

And no, I wouldn't.

At the same time, I am not real thrilled with the number of fatties running around who will eventually need insulin, knee and hip replacements.


----------



## Listening (Jan 4, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



I'll go with that.


----------



## Listening (Jan 4, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



It is amazing we don't hear more about Tenncare.

It has been some time since I checked, but it was still in business when I paid attention to it.

They opened up enrollment and got a deluge of people.

The only way they survived was kicking a bunch of people off of the roles (don't know what the criteria was).


----------



## hipeter924 (Jan 4, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


 An attempt at UHC wasn't ever implemented in Vermont, and the jury is still out over whether it won't be implemented in 2017.

It isn't 'fallacious' as it is OECD data on OECD countries, which is usually derived from official stats of OECD nations. It just happens that the best performers have some form of UHC, and it isn't just OECD stats pointing that out: U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries - Forbes


> 1. United Kingdom
> 2. Switzerland
> 3. Sweden
> 4. Australia
> ...


So what is more likely? A grand international 'socialist' conspiracy to create fake data on the US, or that the US healthcare system is worse performing on a per capita basis?

Edit: I wonder if you have ever used the healthcare system of another country. I have personal experience in using two UHC systems and the US healthcare system, and thus can compare them from personal experience as well.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jan 4, 2015)

hipeter924 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > hipeter924 said:
> ...


The fact that Vermont workers would see income taxes rise some 20 percentage points caused the governor to scrap the plan. Which was at best pie in the sky in the first place.
Without implementation of confiscatory taxes, single payer is just plain unaffordable.


----------



## hipeter924 (Jan 4, 2015)

thereisnospoon said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


Single Payer isn't the same as UHC: Universal Coverage Is Not Single Payer Healthcare - Forbes


> It’s easy – often politically expedient – to lump universal health coverage (UHC) and “Single Payer” together, but they are not the same thing.
> Here in the U.S., one big reason for the confusion is that we’re the only (industrialized) country that doesn’t have UHC. What we have here in the U.S. is called SHC – selective health coverage.
> 
> While other countries debate (and then implement) different funding mechanisms, they all start with UHC – which is less about how healthcare is funded and focuses more on who has access to healthcare.
> ...


Also keep in mind that US Federal taxes would still be collected for the ACA system they aren't using, and they would still have to deal with Federal regulations, so it is hardly surprising that more costs would be involved.


----------



## Listening (Jan 4, 2015)

hipeter924 said:


> Edit: I wonder if you have ever used the healthcare system of another country. I have personal experience in using two UHC systems and the US healthcare system, and thus can compare them from personal experience as well.



I don't want to


hipeter924 said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > hipeter924 said:
> ...



Right.  So Obamacare has screwed a state.

Nobody on the left really cares.  

After all states are only good for enforcing Jim Crow laws.


----------



## Listening (Jan 4, 2015)

hipeter924 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > hipeter924 said:
> ...



Still heavily weighted on Universal access.

Not much different from the WHO.


----------



## hipeter924 (Jan 4, 2015)

Listening said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> > Edit: I wonder if you have ever used the healthcare system of another country. I have personal experience in using two UHC systems and the US healthcare system, and thus can compare them from personal experience as well.
> ...


 In the sense that regardless of the system you attempt to implement on the state level, you would still be restricted in what you can do or fund based on the existing Federal system.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jan 4, 2015)

CowboyTed said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > CowboyTed said:
> ...


Genius...There is no free lunch.
Implementation of single payer in the USA would be a shock to the economic system from which recovery may not be possible.
To fully insure and provide for 320 million people PLUS any person from Mexico and Central America capable of making it across our Swiss cheese border, womb to tomb medical care would be an undertaking so gargantuan, it is unimaginable the cost to do so....


----------



## hipeter924 (Jan 4, 2015)

Listening said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


Probably because minimum cover effects the overall health of the country, and how fast disease spreads in a population. 

Preventive care also weighs into how expensive a healthcare system is to run, if people have regular check ups it is more likely that health issues will be treated at their early stages rather than develop to the point people need expensive surgery.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jan 4, 2015)

Listening said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...


Mertex is about as sharp as a bowling ball


----------



## hipeter924 (Jan 4, 2015)

thereisnospoon said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...


 Depends who you attempt to insure. If you only insured citizens and legal residents, then it wouldn't be as much an issue. Several countries that have Single Payer don't provide 'free' healthcare to non-citizens and illegal residents.

That said, I don't see how Single Payer could work without first removing the Federal healthcare system and allowing states to determine their own healthcare system. If you try to implement an alternative system to ACA/Medicare/Medicaid in a state, you are essentially asking people in that state to pay twice.


----------



## CowboyTed (Jan 4, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Fact: Western European Countries have better healthcare for all its people than US. As I stated before if you are allowed to take the high risk people out then healthcare is easy, especially when you spend twice the amount. Do you want the list of organisations who have produced reports on this: WHO, Commonwealth fund, OCED......

Fact: Europe didn't send people with Ebola home with a Tylenol.

If I was you I would stay away from facts, you are having real trouble with them...


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jan 4, 2015)

WelfareQueen said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...


Universal is rationed care. Period.
These systems are based on actuarial tables and bureaucracy.
Older people instead of receiving treatment that may prolong their lives and improve their health are told to get their affairs in order.
Anything beyond basic care we receive from our family MD takes MONTHS to receive. 
Government regulations decide wages of medical professionals.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 4, 2015)

CowboyTed said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > CowboyTed said:
> ...


Fact: You dont have a fucking clue what you are talking about.
Fact: When people actually get sick the US delivers the best health care results.
Fact: The populations of Europe are not in any way comparable to the US
Fact: Misdiagnosis occurs and in the case of the guy with Ebola he was treated free of charge.
Fact: Facts are not your friends here.


----------



## CowboyTed (Jan 4, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



The European systems are far cheaper than the present US system.






So your answer is we are different. You actually want to be compared to third world countries like Boliva....

You should run on that manifesto, Let me help you with your speech : 'I can see it now, our country will have a health system like Boliva's'


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 4, 2015)

CowboyTed said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > hipeter924 said:
> ...


Fact: Your comparisons are spurious.  US health care costs more because people in the US are sicker.  People in the US also subsidize drug costs in other countries.
You can keep slinging shit but you look like an idiot with every post because you dont know what the fuck you're talking about.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jan 4, 2015)

Darkwind said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> > > Under a single-payer system, there is no role for health insurance companies such as Aetna and Cigna as the government pays all the medical bills. Many hope that the United States will implement a single-payer system.
> ...


And next comes the flood of doctors from all over the world as Americans will find the education and training to become doctors so expensive and the payoff so slow to return, that just like Canadians, Americans will forego medicine as a career.
I would be in mortal dread of Single payer


----------



## CowboyTed (Jan 4, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Except it not.





By the way, I would suggest you learn about how European model works before you actually talk about it.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 4, 2015)

thereisnospoon said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > hipeter924 said:
> ...


Government control of anything results in poverty, misallocation of resources, misery and death.  Why does anyone think next time will be different?


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 4, 2015)

CowboyTed said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > CowboyTed said:
> ...


Hmm let's check:
Nope, still not a valid comparison.
Call me back when you get a clue.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jan 4, 2015)

CowboyTed said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > hipeter924 said:
> ...


These charts conveniently leave out tax burden. They exclude advanced care. Wait times for said care. Etc.....


----------



## CowboyTed (Jan 4, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Putting 'Fact' before something doesn't make it an actual Fact. 

By the way the Western Europe has a population larger than the US by about 50 million... So pretty comparative...


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 4, 2015)

thereisnospoon said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


The whole exercise is absurd.  Europeans are not AMericans.  We have a different population and a different lifestyle.  Ergo our medical expenses are going to be different too.
What's a vital difference is what happens when people actually suffer heart attacks, strokes, or develop cancer.  And then you want to be in the US because outcomes are far better here.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 4, 2015)

CowboyTed said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > CowboyTed said:
> ...


LOL.
You really don't get it, do you?  It wouldnt matter if Western Europe's population was a million times bigger.  It is still not comparable on a qualittative basis.


----------



## CowboyTed (Jan 4, 2015)

thereisnospoon said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Prove it.


----------



## CowboyTed (Jan 4, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



I know we have higher quality, but I am still willing to come down to your level.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 4, 2015)

CowboyTed said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > CowboyTed said:
> ...


I accept your admission of defeat in this discussion.
Next.


----------



## CowboyTed (Jan 4, 2015)

Listening said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



It kind of has to be universal otherwise everyone could just get rid of sick people. Are you telling me that certain Americans Citizens don't count... 'All men created equal..' must be fortune cookies...

I think your argument is the US has the best healthcare system in the world as long as you don't get sick. 

Are you Newt Gingrich divorce lawyer?


----------



## CowboyTed (Jan 4, 2015)

hipeter924 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > hipeter924 said:
> ...



Hipster,
You are showing where real saving can be made. Another one is education of medical staff, in UK a GP doctor makes about $120k a year but has very little student debt. You don't become a doctor to become a millionaire but you will have a comfortable life.  

So they are starting earlier, medicine is still very sort after and the caliber of students are still to the highest.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jan 4, 2015)

lutraphile said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...


yeah....And their tax burden STARTS at 50% and moves up from there. Gas starts $6 per gallon. There are taxes on the fucking air. And it STILL isn't enough.


----------



## CowboyTed (Jan 4, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


No facts... No evidence... Intellectually bankrupt...


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jan 4, 2015)

CowboyTed said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > hipeter924 said:
> ...


Wow, a whole bunch of straw men crash the party.


----------



## CowboyTed (Jan 4, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



"US health care costs more because people in the US are sicker"

Ever try and figure out why? Has Europe got some magic juice?


----------



## CowboyTed (Jan 4, 2015)

thereisnospoon said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



Not one link from the Hard Right to support your arguments... Use  of hearsay and my cousin got sick once...

We have used world respected organisations, peer reviewed studies...  

You have nothing....


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 5, 2015)

CowboyTed said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > CowboyTed said:
> ...


It's a lifestyle issue.  Europe also has many fewer cars as people live in old crowded cities.
ANything else you need help figuring out?  Just ask me.  I'll set you straight.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 5, 2015)

CowboyTed said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > CowboyTed said:
> ...


You have used biased worthless sources.  And even though this has been pointed out over and over you perist like it didnt exist.  We have even pointed out the source of the biases (subjective questions like "are you happy with your healthcare", measurements that assume more government control is better, etc).  And yet you persist.  What does this say about your ability to reason?


----------



## RKMBrown (Jan 5, 2015)

hipeter924 said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > CowboyTed said:
> ...


Everyone in the USA is already insured through medicare/medicaid. DUH!

There are two issues at hand:

1) Some people are dead beats and this government is insane, thus everyone gets to cover the bills of the dead beats. 
2) Some people live in lollipop land where money grows on trees and everyone gets to be the six million dollar man in exchange for a few pennies and millions of wishes.

The amount of money one can spend on one person's health care can exceed the assets of every single human being on the planet.  Should we spend 200 trillion dollars to save one life?  No?  You would sacrifice one life for money?


----------



## asterism (Jan 5, 2015)

lutraphile said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > lutraphile said:
> ...



Impartial?  The WHO openly states a bias in favor of government-run healthcare systems:



> The fourth function is called stewardship, because the concept is well described by the
> dictionary definition: the careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one’s
> care (19). People entrust both their bodies and their money to the health system, which has
> a responsibility to protect the former and use the latter wisely and well. The government is
> ...





> Priority setting is generally considered a public sector exercise, particularly concerning
> the proper use of public or publicly mandated expenditure. It does not matter for this purpose
> whether the delivery of services is public or private, nor how providers are paid. What
> matters is that by contracting with private providers or reimbursing them through public
> ...





> Stewardship is the last of the four health systems functions examined in this report,
> and it is arguably the most important. It ranks above and differs from the others –
> service delivery, input production, and financing – for one outstanding reason:* the ultimate
> responsibility for the overall performance of a country’s health system must always lie with
> government.*


http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_en.pdf


----------



## Listening (Jan 5, 2015)

hipeter924 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > hipeter924 said:
> ...



Our so called "Constitutional Scholar" Affirmative Action Failure of a POTUS does it again.


----------



## asterism (Jan 5, 2015)

CowboyTed said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



There's a shortage of doctors in the UK:

UK has fewer doctors per person than Bulgaria and Estonia - Telegraph
NHS hospitals suffer staffing crisis on top of scandals - Telegraph
NHS recruiting 50 doctors from India over Skype to plug desperate A E shortages Daily Mail Online


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 5, 2015)

asterism said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> > hipeter924 said:
> ...


Forget it.  Cowboy Ted is a jew hating stupid bastard who will blame the international Zionist conspiracy on Britain's doc shortage.


----------



## hipeter924 (Jan 5, 2015)

asterism said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> > hipeter924 said:
> ...


They are leaving in droves to places like New Zealand and Australia:


> It was only a fortnight ago that health workforce planners realised so few young doctors were moving on to specialist training that they had places for only 50 new graduates rather than the usual 140. *Meanwhile, the doctors they have recruited from the UK and Ireland, are taking up their contracts.*
> 
> After years of a doctor shortage, there is a surfeit. Where previously one in four New Zealand-trained doctors would disappear overseas, the loss is only one in 20 now.


 Herald on Sunday editorial Suddenly a surplus of doctors - National - NZ Herald News


----------



## Listening (Jan 6, 2015)

Let me go back.

Goosed posted an article from six months ago.

Since that time, Vermont has given Single Payer the flush.

It cost to much.

Great that they tried.

To bad Obama has screwed them.

But that's the bottom line.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 7, 2015)

Single payer=Dead.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jan 7, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> Single payer=Dead.


Single payer = democrat orgasm.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 7, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Single payer=Dead.
> ...


They can orgasm all they want.  It isnt going to happen.  It isnt a viable solution, any more than a guaranteed income is a viable solution.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jan 7, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


It's viable.  We just have to be willing to swallow a 20% (essentially doubling) or so tax increase on the upper middle class to pay for all of the expensive health care needs and desires of the entire nation between 25 and 65.  But hey then health care would be free


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem (Jan 7, 2015)

DaGoose said:


> Is it only a matter of time before the nation follows suit?
> 
> *
> 
> ...


If I were a doctor, I would set up my clinic right on the border with Vermont. Leftism would put my kids through college and vouchsafe a nice retirement for me.


----------



## hazlnut (Jan 7, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> And they will experience delays in treatment and more needless deaths, just like European countries and the VA.
> Why anyone thinks this is an advance is beyond me.




Why do you assume a death is "needless" without know the person who died.

Just like abortions, you assume to know what's best.


----------



## hazlnut (Jan 7, 2015)

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > Is it only a matter of time before the nation follows suit?
> ...



No.  You'd go broke sitting alone in your new office.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem (Jan 7, 2015)

hazlnut said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...


Incorrect. Thousands of hospitals and doctors are located right across the border to Canada. There's a reason for that. Communism doesn't work no matter how many times you try it.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 7, 2015)

hazlnut said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > And they will experience delays in treatment and more needless deaths, just like European countries and the VA.
> ...


You're an idiot, like that's news.
Do you think every death due to doctor's incompetence, hospital's failure to follow procedures, or other medical mistakes is somehow not needless?


----------



## westwall (Jan 7, 2015)

DaGoose said:


> Is it only a matter of time before the nation follows suit?
> 
> *
> 
> ...







I wonder how long it will take for Vermont's health system to implode like it's doing in the UK?


*NHS in critical condition as A&E waiting times are worst in a decade


"Case study: ‘I almost lost my foot’ long wait for ambulance*
Rugby player Luigi Segadelli had to wait three hours lying face-down on a soggy pitch for an ambulance on Saturday after breaking his leg during a match. Mr Segadelli, 30, waited so long, paramedics told him he was in danger of losing his foot, which began to turn blue."


NHS in critical condition as A E waiting times are worst in a decade - Health News - Health Families - The Independent


----------



## Listening (Jan 8, 2015)

westwall said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > Is it only a matter of time before the nation follows suit?
> ...



I doubt it will ever get there.  

They'll figure it out all to quickly.


----------

