# Nationalize Med



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 22, 2017)

Time to pick a fight.  

The US is the ONLY western democracy without nationalized medicine.  The other countries realize that medical care is a right, not a privilege.  

Many people are moving towards National Medical.  One of the groups that have voiced this is the Doctors.  Imagine the billions saved by getting rid of the HMOs and Insurance Companies dealing in Medical benefits that do absolutely nothing except raking in the cash.  We are talking billions.

Doctors are having trouble affording their medical offices, equipment, etc..  And it keeps going up.  Meanwhile, the HMOs and Insurance Companies are taking a bigger chunk each year.  

Nationalize Medicine means that Doctors don't have to afford the office space and equipment.  It's paid for by the Billions saved by sending the HMOs and Insurance Companies packing.  

One of the worst is the Malpractice law suits.  Nationalizing gets rid of that.  

It also gets rid of the deductables that are eating many of us alive. 

Tag, yer it.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Apr 22, 2017)

The government has done enough to my soaring premiums.  Get the hell out of my healthcare.


----------



## Fenton Lum (Apr 22, 2017)

The Irish Ram said:


> The government has done enough to my soaring premiums.  Get the hell out of my healthcare.


Nope, that would be your for profit "insurance" industry.  Our healthcare costs dwarf those of all other advanced post industrial societies for far shittier outcomes.  Widely known, common knowledge outside the din of american corporate state media.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Apr 22, 2017)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Time to pick a fight.
> 
> The US is the ONLY western democracy without nationalized medicine.  The other countries realize that medical care is a right, not a privilege.
> 
> ...



Don't wanna.


----------



## Fenton Lum (Apr 22, 2017)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Time to pick a fight.
> ...


You already have son, it just takes from rather than serves the people.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 22, 2017)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Time to pick a fight.
> 
> The US is the ONLY western democracy without nationalized medicine.  The other countries realize that medical care is a right, not a privilege.
> 
> ...



*The US is the ONLY western democracy without nationalized medicine.*

Which is why we still have innovation. Which is why the world comes here for the newest, best care.

*The other countries realize that medical care is a right,*

The other countries are delusional.

*Many people are moving towards National Medical.*

Stupid people make stupid moves.

*One of the worst is the Malpractice law suits.  Nationalizing gets rid of that.* 

Exactly! You can't sue the government for incompetence, eh comrade?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Apr 22, 2017)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Time to pick a fight.
> 
> The US is the ONLY western democracy without nationalized medicine.  The other countries realize that medical care is a right, not a privilege.
> 
> ...



The federal government has no constitutional authority to nationalize anything.

If you want health care costs to go down, stop using insurance all the time.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Apr 22, 2017)

Daryl Hunt said:


> One of the worst is the Malpractice law suits.  Nationalizing gets rid of that.



Yay!! So if the government doctor amputates the wrong leg, oh well!  Too bad, so sad!  Here's a Tic Tac.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 22, 2017)

Fenton Lum said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > The government has done enough to my soaring premiums.  Get the hell out of my healthcare.
> ...



*Our healthcare costs dwarf those of all other advanced post industrial societies for far shittier outcomes.
*
More expensive, obviously, shittier outcomes, LOL!


Go to 10:16 for a typical story about the quality and speed of "free healthcare".


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Apr 22, 2017)

Fenton Lum said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



IYHO, I know.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Apr 22, 2017)

Fenton Lum said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > The government has done enough to my soaring premiums.  Get the hell out of my healthcare.
> ...



Nope, that would be Obama.  Premiums were fine before Obamacare.   And we had the best health care in the world.   We have an insurance problem, not a healthcare problem.


----------



## DGS49 (Apr 22, 2017)

"Nationalized" medicine is, as Al Gore might put it, a "risky scheme," that would not work in the U.S.

The key fact to remember is that the countries that have socialized medicine made that choice early on, and formally; the corollary fact is that "Nationalized medicine" is prohibited by the United States Constitution, and thus would require the supermajorities that go into a constitutional amendment, which it could never attain.

The Gub'Mint cannot make something into a "right" unless the said GubMint has the resources to provide it.  Check the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery (of doctors, in this case).  Hence, the "right to counsel" is guaranteed by the fact that governments employ attorneys (and contract others).  In order to have socialized medicine as a "right," the government would have to employ doctors, nurses, therapists, lab tech's, and so on, and would have to OWN hospitals, clinics, labs, etc., with which to provide that "right."  All of this is now provided by the private and quasi-private sector.  Thus, there is way too much inertia in the current system.  And I haven't even mentioned the hundreds of thousands of people who work in the private health insurance industry who would be rendered immediately and completely worthless, should the said constitutional amendment be passed.  In short, it ain't happening.

But take heart, we already have a shining example of American socialized medicine to analyze.  It's called the Veteran's Administration health system.  The Government owns the hospitals, employs the doctors, and so on.  And it is a disaster.  Despite having excellent doctors and other personnel, the drawbacks of public sector "production" cannot be avoided.  Wait times are criminal, mistakes are endemic, excellence is sporadic, and the cost is monumental.  Much, much higher than in the private sector.'

Be careful what you wish for.  Had HRC or Bernie been elected, we might be moving in that direction.


----------



## debbiedowner (Apr 22, 2017)

36 Countries that have better health care systems than U.S.

These Are The 36 Countries That Have Better Healthcare Systems Than The US

We are leading in innovation:

Though The U.S. Is Healthcare's World Leader, Its Innovative Culture Is Threatened


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 23, 2017)

Using Canada as an example shows that you aren't any smarter than a Canadian Voter.  Rather than use the failure, how about using a success as an example.  Like Denmark or Sweden.  

http://international.ucl.dk/files/2012/08/the_danish_healtcare_system.pdf

This is in Danish and English.  Both Denmark and Sweden have a very robust Healthy Care System and is normally free.  These are the two places where Citizens of the United States go unlike Canada.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 23, 2017)

http://www.denverpost.com/2009/09/03/health-care-in-denmark/
Health care in Denmark – The Denver Post

*Health care in Denmark*

I’m a U.S. citizen, but I’ve spent most of my adult life in Denmark. The Danish health care system is the nightmare of any anti-government free market believer: a tax-funded state-run universal health care system.

Denmark provides “free” health care to all residents, funded through taxes.

There is an optional private health care sector, but it is tiny compared with the vastly larger public system that is used by most of the population. Users pay for a few procedures, such as fertility treatments (from the third attempt onwards) and non-essential cosmetic surgery, as well as most of their own dental care and a portion of prescription medication.

Apothecaries are privately owned, but doctors” visits and hospitalization, including tests, treatment, follow-up care, and some medication, are fully covered.

The Danish health care system is not cheap. According to OECD’s Health Data 2009, Denmark’s health cost per person, public and private, was $3,512. But in the US the cost is more than double at $7,290!

In addition, Danish health care covers everybody – 100 percent of the population-while in the U.S. fewer than 80 percent of citizens are covered, and often only partially.

So basically the U.S. system costs more than twice as much and still leaves nearly a quarter of the population in the lurch if they need any medical care.

In fact, the U.S. could get universal coverage and still save about 1 trillion dollars per year on health care!

So what makes Danish health care so cheap? It’s not because it’s of poorer quality. According to international surveys, more than 90 percent of Danes are totally satisfied with their health care, and it uses the most advanced methods available anywhere. And per capita there are more hospital beds and doctors than in the U.S.

It’s mainly cheap because it’s a lot simpler to manage. There are no medical insurance companies or lawyers operating for profit, or financial background checks. There are no uninsured, so there is no paperwork if you get sick or injured.

Some proof of identity-citizenship or residence status – is all you need. And Danes are still free to pick their own family doctors, as long as they choose one within their own geographical area, and they have a choice of hospitals and in certain cases can even opt for treatment abroad.

Of course Denmark’s universal health care means a higher overall tax bill and that healthy people are paying for the treatment of sick people through their taxes. But because the system is simpler and less profit-oriented, it ends up being cheaper for everybody.

U.S. health care is the most expensive system on earth and incredibly wasteful. Of course I’m not advocating the wholesale adoption of the Danish or Scandinavian welfare system. Those countries have a radically different social model.

But Denmark and the other Scandinavian countries clearly prove that a government-run system can provide its population with superior care without being inefficient, bloated, or costly.

Stronger state regulations ensure that the money pouring through the system ends up where it’s supposed to: with doctors and health care providers.

The pharmaceutical industry still gets its fair share since medication is still bought on the free market. This rewards innovation.

In the U.S., health care financing is siphoned off by lawyers, administrators, and insurance companies; the cost of lobbying lawmakers and advertising is astronomical.

The U.S. is the only industrialized country in the world that does not support universal health care for its citizens. A greater degree of government involvement in health care might be un-American, but when the American system has abjectly failed, a refusal to look abroad for better models is simply self-defeating.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 23, 2017)

The Irish Ram said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...



Yeah, everything was peachy.  People dying because they can't get the care they need.  You talk about the Democrats would have started death panels.  Well, we have a GOP Death Panel without doing a damned thing.  Just send them home to die.  That is, if they have a home to go to.


----------



## dblack (Apr 23, 2017)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Time to pick a fight.
> 
> The US is the ONLY western democracy without nationalized medicine.  The other countries realize that medical care is a right, not a privilege.
> 
> ...



Why not nationalize everything? Why just health care?


----------



## Anathema (Apr 23, 2017)

Health Care is not a right. Never has been and hopefully never will become one.

It's definitely not a topic for the US Government to be involved in. That can be proven simply by the fact that it's not mentioned anywhere in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution. Until the Constitution is amended to add it, the Government has no legitimate powers regarding health care.

The Union I am part of just agreed to a new, 5 year contract. As you can imagine, health care was a major part of negotiations. With  the next 3 years we'll be down to only two choices for plans.... a national PPO and a High Deductible plan. Starting next January Management employees will only have the option if the High Deductible plan. No PPO  or POS options. Why? Because the ACA and Government interference have driven costs through the roof.


----------



## dblack (Apr 23, 2017)

Anathema said:


> Health Care is not a right. Never has been and hopefully never will become one.



It can't "become one".


----------



## Anathema (Apr 23, 2017)

dblack said:


> It can't "become one".



You're correct that it can never become s Natural Right, but it can become a Legal Right.


----------



## Fenton Lum (Apr 23, 2017)

Go to 10:16 for a typical story about the quality and speed of "free healthcare".[/QUOTE]






No one said anything about free, deadbeat.  I'll post these for those with an attention span to absorb more than a youtube vid.  I expect them to have no impact on you personally.

*New York, N.Y., October 8, 2015 *— The U.S. spent more per person on health care than 12 other high-income nations in 2013, while seeing the lowest life expectancy and some of the worst health outcomes among this group, according to a Commonwealth Fund report out today. The analysis shows that in the U.S., which spent an average of $9,086 per person annually, life expectancy was 78.8 years. Switzerland, the second-highest-spending country, spent $6,325 per person and had a life expectancy of 82.9 years. Mortality rates for cancer were among the lowest in the U.S., but rates of chronic conditions, obesity, and infant mortality were higher than those abroad.

“Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits,” said Commonwealth Fund President David Blumenthal, M.D. “We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity.”

US Spends More on Health Care Than Other High-Income Nations But Has Lower Life Expectancy, Worse Health


U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries

U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries


*Major Findings*
·        *Quality:* The indicators of quality were grouped into four categories: effective care, safe care, coordinated care, and patient-centered care. Compared with the other 10 countries, the U.S. fares best on provision and receipt of preventive and patient-centered care. While there has been some improvement in recent years, lower scores on safe and coordinated care pull the overall U.S. quality score down. Continued adoption of health information technology should enhance the ability of U.S. physicians to identify, monitor, and coordinate care for their patients, particularly those with chronic conditions.

·        *Access:* Not surprisingly—given the absence of universal coverage—people in the U.S. go without needed health care because of cost more often than people do in the other countries. Americans were the most likely to say they had access problems related to cost. Patients in the U.S. have rapid access to specialized health care services; however, they are less likely to report rapid access to primary care than people in leading countries in the study. In other countries, like Canada, patients have little to no financial burden, but experience wait times for such specialized services. There is a frequent misperception that trade-offs between universal coverage and timely access to specialized services are inevitable; however, the Netherlands, U.K., and Germany provide universal coverage with low out-of-pocket costs while maintaining quick access to specialty services.

·        *Efficiency:* On indicators of efficiency, the U.S. ranks last among the 11 countries, with the U.K. and Sweden ranking first and second, respectively. The U.S. has poor performance on measures of national health expenditures and administrative costs as well as on measures of administrative hassles, avoidable emergency room use, and duplicative medical testing. Sicker survey respondents in the U.K. and France are less likely to visit the emergency room for a condition that could have been treated by a regular doctor, had one been available.

·        *Equity:* The U.S. ranks a clear last on measures of equity. Americans with below-average incomes were much more likely than their counterparts in other countries to report not visiting a physician when sick; not getting a recommended test, treatment, or follow-up care; or not filling a prescription or skipping doses when needed because of costs. On each of these indicators, one-third or more lower-income adults in the U.S. said they went without needed care because of costs in the past year.

·        *Healthy lives:* The U.S. ranks last overall with poor scores on all three indicators of healthy lives—mortality amenable to medical care, infant mortality, and healthy life expectancy at age 60. The U.S. and U.K. had much higher death rates in 2007 from conditions amenable to medical care than some of the other countries, e.g., rates 25 percent to 50 percent higher than Australia and Sweden. Overall, France, Sweden, and Switzerland rank highest on healthy lives.

Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, 2014 Update: How the U.S. Health Care System Compares Internationally


No other advanced country even comes close to the United States in annual spending on health care, but plenty of those other countries see much better outcomes in their citizens' actual health overall.

A new Commonwealth Fund report released Thursday underscored that point — yet again — with an analysis that ranks 13 high-income nations on their overall health spending, use of medical services, prices and health outcomes.

The study data, which is from 2013, predates the full implementation of Obamacare, which took place in 2014. Obamacare is designed to increase health coverage for Americans and stem the rise in health-care costs.

The findings indicate that despite spending well in excess of the rate of any other of those countries in 2013, the United States achieved worse outcomes when it comes to rates of chronic conditions, obesity and infant mortality.

One rare bright spot for the U.S., however, is that its mortality rate for cancer is among the lowest out of the 13 countries, and that cancer rates fell faster between 1995 and 2007 than in other countries.

"Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits," said Dr. David Blumenthal, president of the Commonwealth Fund. "We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health-care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity."

US health care: Spending a lot, getting the least


*Ranking 37th — Measuring the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System*
MMS: Error


*Health Care Outcomes in States Influenced by Coverage, Disparities*
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...-in-states-influenced-by-coverage-disparities


One explanation for the health disadvantage of the United States relative to other high-income countries might be deficiencies in health services. Although the United States is renowned for its leadership in biomedical research, its cutting-edge medical technology, and its hospitals and specialists, problems with ensuring Americans’ access to the system and providing quality care have been a long-standing concern of policy makers and the public (Berwick et al., 2008; Brook, 2011b; Fineberg, 2012). Higher mortality rates from diseases, and even from transportation-related injuries and homicides, may be traceable in part to failings in the health care system.

The United States stands out from many other countries in not offering universal health insurance coverage. In 2010, 50 million people (16 percent of the U.S. population) were uninsured (DeNavas-Walt et al., 2011). Access to health care services, particularly in rural and frontier communities or disadvantaged urban centers, is often limited. The United States has a relatively weak foundation for primary care and a shortage of family physicians (American Academy of Family Physicians, 2009; Grumbach et al., 2009; Macinko et al., 2007; Sandy et al., 2009). Many Americans rely on emergency departments for acute, chronic, and even preventive care (Institute of Medicine, 2007a; Schoen et al., 2009b, 2011). Cost sharing is common in the United States, and high out-of-pocket expenses make health care services, pharmaceuticals, and medical supplies increasingly unaffordable (Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance System, 2011; Karaca-Mandic et al., 2012). In 2011, one-third of American households reported problems paying medical bills (Cohen et al., 2012), a problem that seems to have worsened in recent years (Himmelstein et al., 2009). Health insurance premiums are consuming an increasing proportion of U.S. household income (Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance System, 2011).

Public Health and Medical Care Systems - U.S. Health in International Perspective - NCBI Bookshelf


*Once again, U.S. has most expensive, least effective health care system in survey*

A report released Monday by a respected think tank ranks the United States dead last in the quality of its health-care system when compared with 10 other western, industrialized nations, the same spot it occupied in four previous studies by the same organization. Not only did the U.S. fail to move up between 2004 and 2014 -- as other nations did with concerted effort and significant reforms -- it also has maintained this dubious distinction while spending far more per capita ($8,508) on health care than Norway ($5,669), which has the second most expensive system.

"Although the U.S. spends more on health care than any other country and has the highest proportion of specialist physicians, survey findings indicate that from the patients’ perspective, and based on outcome indicators, the performance of American health care is severely lacking," the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based foundation that promotes improved health care, concluded in its extensive analysis. The charts in this post are from the report.






Once again, U.S. has most expensive, least effective health care system in survey


*US healthcare system ranks 50th out of 55 countries for efficiency*
US healthcare system ranks 50th out of 55 countries for efficiency


he U.S. healthcare system notched another dubious honor in a new comparison of its quality to the systems of 10 other developed countries: its rank was dead last.

The new study by the Commonwealth Fund ranks the U.S. against seven wealthy European countries and Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It's a follow-up of previous surveys published in 2010, 2007, 2006 and 2004, in all of which the U.S. also ranked last.

Although the U.S. ranked in the middle of the pack on measures of effectiveness, safety and coordination of care, it ranked dead last on access and cost, by a sufficient margin to rank dead last overall. The breakdowns are in the chart above.

Conservative pundits hastened to explain away these results after the report was published. See Aaron Carroll for a gloss on the "zombie arguments" put forth against the clear evidence that the U.S. system falls short.

The U.S. healthcare system: worst in the developed world

*U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World*
U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World
New York, N.Y., October 8, 2015 — The U.S. spent more per person on health care than 12 other high-income nations in 2013, while seeing the lowest life expectancy and some of the worst health outcomes among this group, according to a Commonwealth Fund report out today. The analysis shows that in the U.S., which spent an average of $9,086 per person annually, life expectancy was 78.8 years. Switzerland, the second-highest-spending country, spent $6,325 per person and had a life expectancy of 82.9 years. Mortality rates for cancer were among the lowest in the U.S., but rates of chronic conditions, obesity, and infant mortality were higher than those abroad.
“Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits,” said Commonwealth Fund President David Blumenthal, M.D. “We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity.” 
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/press-releases/2015/oct/us-spends-more-on-health-care-than-other-nations

U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthcare-ranked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/#486bbd6f576f

Major Findings
•    Quality: The indicators of quality were grouped into four categories: effective care, safe care, coordinated care, and patient-centered care. Compared with the other 10 countries, the U.S. fares best on provision and receipt of preventive and patient-centered care. While there has been some improvement in recent years, lower scores on safe and coordinated care pull the overall U.S. quality score down. Continued adoption of health information technology should enhance the ability of U.S. physicians to identify, monitor, and coordinate care for their patients, particularly those with chronic conditions.
•    Access: Not surprisingly—given the absence of universal coverage—people in the U.S. go without needed health care because of cost more often than people do in the other countries. Americans were the most likely to say they had access problems related to cost. Patients in the U.S. have rapid access to specialized health care services; however, they are less likely to report rapid access to primary care than people in leading countries in the study. In other countries, like Canada, patients have little to no financial burden, but experience wait times for such specialized services. There is a frequent misperception that trade-offs between universal coverage and timely access to specialized services are inevitable; however, the Netherlands, U.K., and Germany provide universal coverage with low out-of-pocket costs while maintaining quick access to specialty services. 
•    Efficiency: On indicators of efficiency, the U.S. ranks last among the 11 countries, with the U.K. and Sweden ranking first and second, respectively. The U.S. has poor performance on measures of national health expenditures and administrative costs as well as on measures of administrative hassles, avoidable emergency room use, and duplicative medical testing. Sicker survey respondents in the U.K. and France are less likely to visit the emergency room for a condition that could have been treated by a regular doctor, had one been available. 
•    Equity: The U.S. ranks a clear last on measures of equity. Americans with below-average incomes were much more likely than their counterparts in other countries to report not visiting a physician when sick; not getting a recommended test, treatment, or follow-up care; or not filling a prescription or skipping doses when needed because of costs. On each of these indicators, one-third or more lower-income adults in the U.S. said they went without needed care because of costs in the past year. 
•    Healthy lives: The U.S. ranks last overall with poor scores on all three indicators of healthy lives—mortality amenable to medical care, infant mortality, and healthy life expectancy at age 60. The U.S. and U.K. had much higher death rates in 2007 from conditions amenable to medical care than some of the other countries, e.g., rates 25 percent to 50 percent higher than Australia and Sweden. Overall, France, Sweden, and Switzerland rank highest on healthy lives.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror

No other advanced country even comes close to the United States in annual spending on health care, but plenty of those other countries see much better outcomes in their citizens' actual health overall.

A new Commonwealth Fund report released Thursday underscored that point — yet again — with an analysis that ranks 13 high-income nations on their overall health spending, use of medical services, prices and health outcomes. 

The study data, which is from 2013, predates the full implementation of Obamacare, which took place in 2014. Obamacare is designed to increase health coverage for Americans and stem the rise in health-care costs.

The findings indicate that despite spending well in excess of the rate of any other of those countries in 2013, the United States achieved worse outcomes when it comes to rates of chronic conditions, obesity and infant mortality.

One rare bright spot for the U.S., however, is that its mortality rate for cancer is among the lowest out of the 13 countries, and that cancer rates fell faster between 1995 and 2007 than in other countries.

"Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits," said Dr. David Blumenthal, president of the Commonwealth Fund. "We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health-care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity."
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/08/us-health-care-spending-is-high-results-arenot-so-good.html

Ranking 37th — Measuring the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0910064#t=article

Health Care Outcomes in States Influenced by Coverage, Disparities
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2017-02-21/health-care-outcomes-in-states-influenced-by-coverage-disparities

One explanation for the health disadvantage of the United States relative to other high-income countries might be deficiencies in health services. Although the United States is renowned for its leadership in biomedical research, its cutting-edge medical technology, and its hospitals and specialists, problems with ensuring Americans’ access to the system and providing quality care have been a long-standing concern of policy makers and the public (Berwick et al., 2008; Brook, 2011b; Fineberg, 2012). Higher mortality rates from diseases, and even from transportation-related injuries and homicides, may be traceable in part to failings in the health care system.

The United States stands out from many other countries in not offering universal health insurance coverage. In 2010, 50 million people (16 percent of the U.S. population) were uninsured (DeNavas-Walt et al., 2011). Access to health care services, particularly in rural and frontier communities or disadvantaged urban centers, is often limited. The United States has a relatively weak foundation for primary care and a shortage of family physicians (American Academy of Family Physicians, 2009; Grumbach et al., 2009; Macinko et al., 2007; Sandy et al., 2009). Many Americans rely on emergency departments for acute, chronic, and even preventive care (Institute of Medicine, 2007a; Schoen et al., 2009b, 2011). Cost sharing is common in the United States, and high out-of-pocket expenses make health care services, pharmaceuticals, and medical supplies increasingly unaffordable (Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance System, 2011; Karaca-Mandic et al., 2012). In 2011, one-third of American households reported problems paying medical bills (Cohen et al., 2012), a problem that seems to have worsened in recent years (Himmelstein et al., 2009). Health insurance premiums are consuming an increasing proportion of U.S. household income (Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance System, 2011).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK154484/

Once again, U.S. has most expensive, least effective health care system in survey
A report released Monday by a respected think tank ranks the United States dead last in the quality of its health-care system when compared with 10 other western, industrialized nations, the same spot it occupied in four previous studies by the same organization. Not only did the U.S. fail to move up between 2004 and 2014 -- as other nations did with concerted effort and significant reforms -- it also has maintained this dubious distinction while spending far more per capita ($8,508) on health care than Norway ($5,669), which has the second most expensive system.

"Although the U.S. spends more on health care than any other country and has the highest proportion of specialist physicians, survey findings indicate that from the patients’ perspective, and based on outcome indicators, the performance of American health care is severely lacking," the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based foundation that promotes improved health care, concluded in its extensive analysis. The charts in this post are from the report.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/06/16/once-again-u-s-has-most-expensive-least-effective-health-care-system-in-survey/?utm_term=.3bea55276072

US healthcare system ranks 50th out of 55 countries for efficiency
http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/us-healthcare-system-ranks-50th-out-of-55-countries-for-efficiency.html

The U.S. healthcare system notched another dubious honor in a new comparison of its quality to the systems of 10 other developed countries: its rank was dead last. 

The new study by the Commonwealth Fund ranks the U.S. against seven wealthy European countries and Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It's a follow-up of previous surveys published in 2010, 2007, 2006 and 2004, in all of which the U.S. also ranked last.

Although the U.S. ranked in the middle of the pack on measures of effectiveness, safety and coordination of care, it ranked dead last on access and cost, by a sufficient margin to rank dead last overall. The breakdowns are in the chart above.

Conservative pundits hastened to explain away these results after the report was published. See Aaron Carroll for a gloss on the "zombie arguments" put forth against the clear evidence that the U.S. system falls short. 
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-the-us-healthcare-system-20140617-column.html

U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World
U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 23, 2017)

dblack said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Time to pick a fight.
> ...



There are quite a few things that are already Nationalized.


----------



## Fenton Lum (Apr 23, 2017)

Anathema said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > It can't "become one".
> ...


There are no natural rights in american society, never were.


----------



## Fenton Lum (Apr 23, 2017)

The Irish Ram said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


Oh for fuck sake son, if you're not going to tether yourself to objective reality then you don’t need anyone else for your illusions.


----------



## Fenton Lum (Apr 23, 2017)

dblack said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Time to pick a fight.
> ...


We don't do that here, we corporatize everything.


----------



## eflatminor (Apr 23, 2017)

Daryl Hunt said:


> ...medical care is a right, not a privilege.



Morally corrupt argument.  You have no right to the labor of someone in the healthcare industry (that's indentured servitude) nor the right to pick my pocket to pay for that service, which is simple theft.  

If medical care is a right, then I have the right to rob the local grocery store because I'm hungry.  Surely food is a more fundamental need than healthcare.

You and all your ilk that would force labor from others and/or steal for your own convenience are immoral and must be resisted.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 23, 2017)

Fenton Lum said:


> Go to 10:16 for a typical story about the quality and speed of "free healthcare".










> No one said anything about free, deadbeat.  I'll post these for those with an attention span to absorb more than a youtube vid.  I expect them to have no impact on you personally.
> 
> *New York, N.Y., October 8, 2015 *— The U.S. spent more per person on health care than 12 other high-income nations in 2013, while seeing the lowest life expectancy and some of the worst health outcomes among this group, according to a Commonwealth Fund report out today. The analysis shows that in the U.S., which spent an average of $9,086 per person annually, life expectancy was 78.8 years. Switzerland, the second-highest-spending country, spent $6,325 per person and had a life expectancy of 82.9 years. Mortality rates for cancer were among the lowest in the U.S., but rates of chronic conditions, obesity, and infant mortality were higher than those abroad.
> 
> ...



*No one said anything about free,
*
Nationalized healthcare isn't going to be free to the patient?
Why do you hate poor people?

*Mortality rates for cancer were among the lowest in the U.S.,*

Only because we have better healthcare.

*but rates of chronic conditions, obesity, and infant mortality were higher than those abroad.*

The healthcare system can't stop people from overeating, under exercising or drinking and taking drugs while pregnant.


----------



## Fenton Lum (Apr 23, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> > Go to 10:16 for a typical story about the quality and speed of "free healthcare".
> ...



I'm sorry, was this intended to be your response to the provided information?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 23, 2017)

Fenton Lum said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Fenton Lum said:
> ...



You are sorry.


----------



## dblack (Apr 24, 2017)

Fenton Lum said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



I'm not sure what you mean by corporatize. If you're referring to corporatism that does seem to be the trend.

But that doesn't answer the question. Why health care and not the other necessities of life? Should government also be charged with making sure we all have adequate "access" to food, housing, etc?


----------



## Fenton Lum (Apr 24, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




I'm sorry you were so utterly embarrassed by information.


----------



## Fenton Lum (Apr 24, 2017)

dblack said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...




No, we should keep emulating N Korea and cannibalize society, extracting the wealth we could pour into having a healthy, educated, competitive population, and redistribute societal wealth into our military to maintain empire and the aristocracy.


----------



## dblack (Apr 24, 2017)

Fenton Lum said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > But that doesn't answer the question. *Why health care and not the other necessities of life? Should government also be charged with making sure we all have adequate "access" to food, housing, etc?*
> ...



I guess that's sarcasm. When you're ready to discuss the issue seriously, let me know.

Anyone else who supports nationalizing health care have an answer?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 24, 2017)

Fenton Lum said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Fenton Lum said:
> ...



Tell it to the Canadian woman discussed in the video I linked, who had both legs amputated after lingering on the waiting list for over a year in that awesome, government run Canadian healthcare system.


----------



## Fenton Lum (Apr 24, 2017)

dblack said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


There are plenty of examples of other advanced societies that do healthcare, and more, much better and cheaper than we do; societies with much less wealth to work with.  We can't even learn from what others do succcessfully.  There is something deep within the american psyche that needs to see people suffer, and punished.  Both our own people and others.


----------



## Fenton Lum (Apr 24, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



We all thank you for your anecdote, but our system is what it is, and the evidence is overwhelming; the US sucks at healthcare.  And your system has you subsidizing the reduced pharmaceutical prices Canadians pay thanks to their ability to negotiate downward.  US pharma corps make up the difference on your dumbass.  USA!  USA!  USA!


----------



## dblack (Apr 24, 2017)

Fenton Lum said:


> There are plenty of examples of other advanced societies that do healthcare, and more, much better and cheaper than we do; societies with much less wealth to work with.  We can't even learn from what others do succcessfully.  There is something deep within the american psyche that needs to see people suffer, and punished.  Both our own people and others.



But that doesn't answer the question. *Why health care and not the other necessities of life? Should government also be charged with making sure we all have adequate "access" to food, housing, etc?*


----------



## Fenton Lum (Apr 24, 2017)

dblack said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> > There are plenty of examples of other advanced societies that do healthcare, and more, much better and cheaper than we do; societies with much less wealth to work with.  We can't even learn from what others do succcessfully.  There is something deep within the american psyche that needs to see people suffer, and punished.  Both our own people and others.
> ...


What could it do, could society be reorganized?  There's plenty of wealth generated by all members of this society.  Name me another that turns kids into debt peons for an education.  Globally competitive with other societies that invest in their own societies?  Naw, we'll never be.


----------



## dblack (Apr 24, 2017)

Fenton Lum said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > *Why health care and not the other necessities of life? Should government also be charged with making sure we all have adequate "access" to food, housing, etc?*
> ...



You're pretty evasive. It's a legitimate question. If health care should be nationalized why not grocery stores and residential housing? Where does the call for nationalizing necessary services end? Do we really want that much centralized control over our lives?


----------



## Fenton Lum (Apr 24, 2017)

dblack said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


We already have over centralized control, it's merely out of reach of the vote.  If the power structure has control of the economic system and banking system, it has no need to control the political system.

This version of "capitalism" will not be standing in 100 years, it's simply unsustainable.  As for "evasive" who knows what will come afterward.  Humanity evolved away from feudalism around 1500.  Humanity will also evolve away from american style caplitalism, and for much they
 same reasons it moved on from feudalism.


----------



## dblack (Apr 24, 2017)

Fenton Lum said:


> We already have over centralized control, it's merely out of reach of the vote. If the power structure has control of the economic system and banking system, it has no need to control the political system.





dblack said:


> *Why health care and not the other necessities of life? Should government also be charged with making sure we all have adequate "access" to food, housing, etc?*



It seems that you _really_ don't want to answer this question. Why?


----------



## Fenton Lum (Apr 24, 2017)

dblack said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> > We already have over centralized control, it's merely out of reach of the vote. If the power structure has control of the economic system and banking system, it has no need to control the political system.
> ...



Because it's irrelevant and you only seem interested your clinging to a belief system.  Think of your founders.  All they were interested in protecting was the property rights of the aristocracy and only land holding white males were granted the vote, with a senate appointed by the aristocracy.  Enslavement of a labor force to keep costs down was the order of the day for the "job creator" class and they had no compunctions around ethnic cleasing and genocide for access to land they didn't wish to pay for.  Somehow that got adverted/indoctrinated to the masses as "liberty" and "fweeumb".  Perhaps if this power structure would some day learn to treat all citizens the same, but that's too much to expect from america.  Should the govt have been charged with providing the GI Bill which turned out to be affirmative action for whites?  You know society benefitted from that investment, we all do.

The fact remains that america trails the rest of the advanced post industrialized world when it comes to health"care", because it is for profit, and we pay twice as much for shittier outcomes than the next most expensive system.  Which really isn't any kind of comparison at all given these other systems cover all.  If that's your belief system, just own it.  Be proud that you have THE most expensive and inefficient healthcare system on the planet, and that as a reward, your exceptional society has a health"care" system which folk commonly lose their homes over while half the nation exists in poverty.  No wonder we have to export this shyte through military hegemony.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 24, 2017)

Fenton Lum said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Fenton Lum said:
> ...



*We all thank you for your anecdote, but our system is what it is, and the evidence is overwhelming; the US sucks at healthcare.*

And based on long waitlists, like those seen in every government run health system in the world, their systems suck worse.

*And your system has you subsidizing the reduced pharmaceutical prices Canadians pay thanks to their ability to negotiate downward.* 

Yes, the fact that Canada and other countries steal our pharma IP, gives them lower prices on the medicines that they decide to allow their citizens to get.

*US pharma corps make up the difference on your dumbass.* 

If you feel like we need a lot less research on new drugs and that the current drugs are all we'll ever need, go right ahead and duplicate their systems here.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 24, 2017)

Fenton Lum said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Fenton Lum said:
> ...


*
Name me another that turns kids into debt peons for an education.*

Throwing trillions of dollars of government money at colleges has allowed them to boost their prices at multiples of the rate of inflation? Gee, who could have seen that coming? DERP!


----------



## Fenton Lum (Apr 24, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I give you more sourced information than you'll ever go through and you give me anonymous chat board pronouncements, noted.


----------



## Fenton Lum (Apr 24, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Other advanced nations educate their populations, yours marches them to poverty.  Spin it any way ya like pard.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 24, 2017)

Fenton Lum said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Fenton Lum said:
> ...



Yes, your sourced misinformation was very useful.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 24, 2017)

Fenton Lum said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Fenton Lum said:
> ...



To be fair, those other nations don't allow everyone who can fog a mirror to borrow tens of thousands of dollars to fatten the coffers of their universities. Why don't we throw a couple of trillion more government dollars at colleges, see if we can continue the inflationary spiral in their tuition? DERP!


----------



## Fenton Lum (Apr 24, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


You couldn't even address it son, c'mon now.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 24, 2017)

Fenton Lum said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Fenton Lum said:
> ...



It'd be a waste of my time pointing out all the falsehoods and errors in that post.
You feel government does a swell job....just ignore the casualties dying on the waiting list.


----------



## Fenton Lum (Apr 24, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



No, they don't allow the bankers to prey upon citizens, it is paid for by society as a whole.  We on the other hand are more interested in empire, so we send all our funding to a military/industrial complex that Ike warned us of back when "conservatives" were, well, conservative.

But that's scary stuff you can't admit.


----------



## Fenton Lum (Apr 24, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Bwa ha ha, yes, of course hon.


----------



## dblack (Apr 24, 2017)

Fenton Lum said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



It's utterly relevant. You're talking about nationalizing an industry that impacts all of our lives in the most personal way. Some of us are worried that folks like you want to nationalize pretty much everything. Is that what you don't want to admit?



> ... and you only seem interested your clinging to a belief system.



Nope. I'm asking a direct question without reference to ideology or belief.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 24, 2017)

Fenton Lum said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Fenton Lum said:
> ...



*No, they don't allow the bankers to prey upon citizens, it is paid for by society as a whole.*

Like the woman in my video. She paid with the loss of both her legs, because government rationed healthcare always involves substandard care and long waiting lists.


----------



## Fenton Lum (Apr 24, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Yeah, I heard, I gave you a list of documented research and data, and you got this youtube vid.  I got it, thanks.  Is that it?


----------



## IResist (Apr 24, 2017)

I think nationalizing the healthcare system is the best way to solve the problem. We are always going to lag behind other developed nations if we don't have a single-payer, universal healthcare system. Everybody should be in the insurance pool and we should all subsidize ourselves and one another.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 24, 2017)

Fenton Lum said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Fenton Lum said:
> ...



Yup, long waiting lists, shoddy service, what's not to like about National Healthcare?
At least it's free.
DERP!


----------



## westwall (Apr 24, 2017)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Time to pick a fight.
> 
> The US is the ONLY western democracy without nationalized medicine.  The other countries realize that medical care is a right, not a privilege.
> 
> ...








Based on the veterans experiences with the VA all I can say is no.  Hell no.  Can you imagine the entire medical industry of the USA run like that?


----------



## task0778 (Apr 24, 2017)

Go tell the American public you want UHC and then tell them that every other country that has it pays through the nose for it and see what the response is.   Most of them are paying 10-15% of their paychecks and that's EVERYBODY from $1 on up.   Or their paying a high VAT tax on stuff they buy, it ain't cheap.   Then remind them how well the gov't has been running the VA, which is single payer for our vets.   Then tell them how it was tried in Vermont and failed.   Free health care ain't free and it ain't that great either.


----------



## IResist (Apr 24, 2017)

I will gladly pay for a bump in taxes for single payer healthcare.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 24, 2017)

IResist said:


> I will gladly pay for a bump in taxes for single payer healthcare.



Yeah.....you're not very bright.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 24, 2017)

The Irish Ram said:


> The government has done enough to my soaring premiums.  Get the hell out of my healthcare.



The US has the highest medical costs in the world. A nationalized system might reduce costs by 50%.


----------



## IResist (Apr 24, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> IResist said:
> 
> 
> > I will gladly pay for a bump in taxes for single payer healthcare.
> ...



Maybe because it helps and benefits all in the long run.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 24, 2017)

IResist said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > IResist said:
> ...



Long waiting lists and rationing. Great idea!


----------



## IResist (Apr 24, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> IResist said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



There's a better quality of care and more access with single payer. It's cheaper, better coverage with more being covered and our system will be ranked more favorably worldwide.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 24, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...



The issue many people have is that they want to know they're going to get healthcare. In the US you might wait a lot less, but that's because a lot of people simply aren't going to get any healthcare.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 24, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> IResist said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Well that would depend on the healthcare system. It depends whether the govt is trying to cut back on costs or not. A decent healthcare system with protections in place will cost a lot of money, but less than the US.


----------



## IResist (Apr 24, 2017)

frigidweirdo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Fenton Lum said:
> ...



Even then, some people still wait a long time.

Other nations may have longer wait times, yet they receive better treatment.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 25, 2017)

IResist said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > IResist said:
> ...



I guess if you call waiting for months and then using outdated equipment "better quality".


----------



## dblack (Apr 25, 2017)

IResist said:


> I will gladly pay for a bump in taxes for single payer healthcare.



The question is, are you willing to use force against those who don't agree?


----------



## IResist (Apr 25, 2017)

The rankings of the systems who have single payer healthcare are above the system that we have in place. Developed nations do it better than we do it. Even if the waiting is longer, obviously they must be doing something right.

Honestly, force is used against us already since taxpayers fund healthcare for our elected officials. I see no reason why we shouldn't have their plan.


----------



## dblack (Apr 25, 2017)

IResist said:


> The rankings of the systems who have single payer healthcare are above the system that we have in place. Developed nations do it better than we do it. Even if the waiting is longer, obviously they must be doing something right.



Mussolini made the trains run on time.



> Honestly, force is used against us already since taxpayers fund healthcare for our elected officials.



Honestly, that's the problem.


----------



## IResist (Apr 25, 2017)

dblack said:


> IResist said:
> 
> 
> > The rankings of the systems who have single payer healthcare are above the system that we have in place. Developed nations do it better than we do it. Even if the waiting is longer, obviously they must be doing something right.
> ...



We subsidize each other because that is how insurance works. We might not have long wait times, but complications with our system, even worse before Obamacare, made our system a disaster. We the taxpayers ought to fund healthcare through our taxpayer dollars so every citizen could use it.

As I said earlier, it doesn't seem single payer systems other countries use are perfect, but they appear to be better than what we use.


----------



## dblack (Apr 25, 2017)

IResist said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > IResist said:
> ...



Insurance is voluntary. You don't have to play. Taxes aren't.


> As I said earlier, it doesn't seem single payer systems other countries use are perfect, but they appear to be better than what we use.



If they were truly better systems, they wouldn't need to be mandated by law.


----------



## westwall (Apr 25, 2017)

IResist said:


> I will gladly pay for a bump in taxes for single payer healthcare.







Good for you.  I'm not.


----------



## westwall (Apr 25, 2017)

frigidweirdo said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > The government has done enough to my soaring premiums.  Get the hell out of my healthcare.
> ...







Because we do most of the research silly boy.  We pay through the nose for the drugs because we are a wealthy country.  Canada pays less than half of what we do.


----------



## westwall (Apr 25, 2017)

IResist said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > IResist said:
> ...








If that were true Canadian politicians wouldn't come running to the USA to get their lifesaving medical procedures done.  The real world says you're wrong.


----------



## Political Junky (Apr 25, 2017)

The Irish Ram said:


> The government has done enough to my soaring premiums.  Get the hell out of my healthcare.


You already pay more than folks in any other leading nation, you must love that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 25, 2017)

IResist said:


> The rankings of the systems who have single payer healthcare are above the system that we have in place. Developed nations do it better than we do it. Even if the waiting is longer, obviously they must be doing something right.
> 
> Honestly, force is used against us already since taxpayers fund healthcare for our elected officials. I see no reason why we shouldn't have their plan.



*The rankings of the systems who have single payer healthcare are above the system that we have in place.*

Which explains why foreigners come here for care.....DERP!
*
Even if the waiting is longer, obviously they must be doing something right.*

Sure, if enough people die on the waiting list, they save a bunch of money.


----------



## IResist (Apr 25, 2017)

Foreigners often get access here while residents cannot.

People wait longer, but they don't get turned away.

I think it's only a matter of time until we have universal healthcare or single payer of some sort. I don't know when, but I think it'll happen. Not everyone may want to use insurance, but I think everyone should have it just in case they need it or want to use it.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 25, 2017)

Teenager refused lung transplant because he smoked marijuana dies after failed surgery

Teenager dies because Utah hospital refuses to give him a lung transplant, simply because he smoked pot. Oh, nice one.... just shows how rubbish nationalized healthcare is. Oh, no, wait, you have to pay for healthcare at the University of Utah Hospital... and they still let you die.

About Your Bill - Billing | University of Utah Health


----------



## IResist (Apr 25, 2017)

frigidweirdo said:


> Teenager refused lung transplant because he smoked marijuana dies after failed surgery
> 
> Teenager dies because Utah hospital refuses to give him a lung transplant, simply because he smoked pot. Oh, nice one.... just shows how rubbish nationalized healthcare is. Oh, no, wait, you have to pay for healthcare at the University of Utah Hospital... and they still let you die.
> 
> About Your Bill - Billing | University of Utah Health



If nationalized, he wouldn't have died. Nobody else has this problem but us.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Apr 25, 2017)

frigidweirdo said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > The government has done enough to my soaring premiums.  Get the hell out of my healthcare.
> ...



We have seen what government taking over our health care produces.  Our healthcare was fine.  We had an insurance problem.  Reduce* those* costs by 50% and we are good to go....


----------



## westwall (Apr 25, 2017)

Political Junky said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > The government has done enough to my soaring premiums.  Get the hell out of my healthcare.
> ...







When you take in to account the extremely high tax rates that people pay in single payer countries it isn't that much if at all.  And, as has been pointed out before, many times, we pay more for our drugs because we can.  We, the citizens of the USA carry the burden so that every other person on the planet has access to drugs at a lower cost than us.


----------



## IResist (Apr 25, 2017)

We pay more for drugs because of greedy pharmaceutical companies that are out of control. We get rid of insurance companies and we get rid of the problems.


----------



## westwall (Apr 25, 2017)

IResist said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Teenager refused lung transplant because he smoked marijuana dies after failed surgery
> ...







Wrong again.  Are you truly that ignorant or are you willfully blind?  

Patients condemned to die by NHS ban on leukaemia lifeline | Daily Mail Online

The NHS denied me a second bone marrow transplant and signed my life away





*Brave Abi Longfellow's heartbreak after NHS denies her drugs that may save her life*
*The 13-year-old schoolgirl is set to go ahead with a risky kidney transplant that may claim her life, because health chiefs won't sanction 137k-a-year bill*

Brave Abi Longfellow to risk a kidney transplant without lifesaving drug


----------



## IResist (Apr 25, 2017)

westwall said:


> IResist said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Not blind at all. The for profit healthcare system is a failure.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 25, 2017)

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Time to pick a fight.
> ...



I am trying to move from the VA care to Public Care.  Here is what I have found.

Public Medicine is outrageous.  The VA bulk buys and keeps the cost to the client down.  I pay 8 bucks per monthy dosage under the VA.  In the Public, I would pay at leat 15 and that is with Tricare covering the bulk of it.  Civilians would pay the whole thing or have to have expensive medical insurance.

Trying to find a doctor is almost impossible under the Public System.  I have been looking for a few months and only the subsidized offices (poor quality of health care) are available.  Older Americans that choose or are forced to change doctors are in serious trouble.  

I chose to go to a public emergency room for immediate care.  Good service.  But I found out something on my first using Medicare.  Not only does it cost me 105 bucks a month, it has a 165 buck deduction.  Now, factor in the Tricare with it's 175 to 400 buck deduction and you can see that I paid quite a bit for health care that was supposed to be covered.  This doesn't sound like much to someone working at a 50K a year job but I am in the 2300 a month category and that 500 bucks worth of money is hard hit.  

Medicare and Tricare are supposed to be single payer systems but they aren't much better than a good medical insurance program which are also quite expensive and selective in medical care along with some really hefty deductibles and monthly premiums.  

My cost of medical under the public health care is about 2000 bucks a year.  If I were under a public insurance program it would be closer to 5000 a year.  And that is not counting medicine.  Add in Medicine and it will average out to about 7500 a year for public medical care.

Now compare that to Denmark which you are taxed about 4500 per year in taxes to pay for and you see it's even cheaper than the Medical care that the Retired Vets get.  And if you use that argument that they have poor health care you would be wrong.  The Danish are extremely happy with their health care for any number of reasons.  The using 2 failed systems (The US and Canada) as examples is just plain stupid instead of learning from a completely successful medical program.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 25, 2017)

The Irish Ram said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...



Well, insurance companies need to pay their workers (for doing something unnecessary) and they need to take a slice of the pie for profits (for doing something unnecessary. You think they're going to lower those costs by 50% of the cost of the healthcare industry? You think they're just going to stop doctors being on the take? Pharma companies literally bribing doctors? It's not going to happen in the private system unless the govt stops it/


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 25, 2017)

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



You know that if you were in any other country, other than Canada or the US, you'd get decent healthcare insurance, private, for like $150 a month.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Apr 25, 2017)

westwall said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...




Actually the gov. will tax everything we buy even more to provide healthcare. And drug companies can charge with reckless abandon.  Epi pen is a perfect example.  Leave our health care alone, go after the insurance and pharmaceuticals.   Cap their incomes.  
I picked up a script up for my husband.  They rang it up, and told me the cost was $1,400.    I said, "no it $14.00".
She left and came back and said, "Sorry, we thought we were charging medicare."  
If the government regulated* them*, and the insurance companies instead of *us,* the whole system would be cost effective.  
I watched a news segment last night where the mother of a diabetic was buying insulin on the black market because insurance wouldn't cover the particular brand name insulin that her daughter needed.  That is what needs to be addressed.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Apr 25, 2017)

frigidweirdo said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Funny that a Canadian that posts here, warned us about assuming their type of health care.  I believe the example he used was of a woman in the ER waited 5 days to be seen.  A Dane warned us that, while they had gov. healthcare, their food, their cars, the clothes on their backs are taxed damn near out of accessibility.   I am tired of being taxed to death.  Our healthcare was the best in the world.  Canada, not so much.


----------



## westwall (Apr 25, 2017)

IResist said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > IResist said:
> ...







And yet it is the best system in the world regardless of the propaganda you've been fed and continuously repeat.  Canadian politicians ought to know, they come HERE.


----------



## westwall (Apr 25, 2017)

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...








Outrageous but you get to live.  How much is your life worth?  I have had two veteran friends die, who would have lived, had they been with my doctor instead of with the VA.


----------



## Political Junky (Apr 25, 2017)

westwall said:


> IResist said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


You're the one buying propaganda from insurance companies.


----------



## westwall (Apr 25, 2017)

Political Junky said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > IResist said:
> ...








Wrong.  I despise the health insurance community.  I however am very aware of the problems with single payer systems worldwide having lived and worked in countries with them.  So long as you are healthy they are great. Got a broken bone?  No problem, but get old, or a chronic disease, and you're screwed.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 25, 2017)

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Two?  I might buy one but we already know you are long on tales and short on truths.


----------



## IResist (Apr 25, 2017)

westwall said:


> IResist said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



No it is not. It isn't propaganda. This country just doesn't measure up in rankings.


----------



## debbiedowner (Apr 25, 2017)

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



So you pay $1765 per year plus your $8.00 per month for drugs? Not bad. BTW didn't the VA drugs go down a little this past year thanks to Obama? I believe they did or maybe that was for only the disabled vets.

Is there a premium for tricare or just the deductible?


----------



## westwall (Apr 25, 2017)

IResist said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > IResist said:
> ...









That's where you are wrong.  Propagandists tell you it is awful here.  If it were, the Canadian politicians (who's socialized medical system you so admire) wouldn't be coming HERE, to the USA for their lifesaving operations.  I will take cold, hard, facts, over your propaganda any day of the week.

Danny Williams, the premier of the Canadian province of Newfoundland, traveled to the United States earlier this month to undergo heart valve surgery at Mount Sinai Medical Center in Miami. With his trip, Williams joined a long list of Canadians who have decided that they prefer American medicine to their own country's government-run health system when their lives are on the line.

But just as American hospitals are becoming popular vacation destinations for about 40,000 Canadians a year, California's Senate is pressing ahead with its effort to make the state's health care system more like the one in the Great White North. The Senate recently approved a bill sponsored by Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, that would install a government-run, single-payer health system in the Golden State. The Assembly will soon consider the measure.


Lawmakers should take Williams' case to heart. Canada's experience shows that government health care leads to waiting lists, rationing and lower quality of care.



Why Canadian premier seeks health care in U.S.

"Liberal MP Belinda Stronach, who is battling breast cancer, travelled to California last June for an operation that was recommended as part of her treatment, says a report.

Stronach's spokesman, Greg MacEachern, told the _Toronto Star_ that the MP for Newmarket-Aurora had a "later-stage" operation in the U.S. after a Toronto doctor referred her.

"Belinda had one of her later-stage operations in California, after referral from her personal physicians in Toronto. Prior to this, Belinda had surgery and treatment in Toronto, and continues to receive follow-up treatment there," said MacEachern."

Stronach went to U.S. for cancer treatment: report


----------



## westwall (Apr 25, 2017)

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...









I am a lot older than you so I have a lot more friends who are older than you by a country mile.  Might want to consider that the world doesn't revolve around you...sport.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 25, 2017)

debbiedowner said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Meanwhile, we are averaging about 7000 bucks a year in the US.  And we are getting a hole lot less.

Tricare has deductible only plus 8 bucks per month for each medicine.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 25, 2017)

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You really wish to go down this road?  I'm game if you are.


----------



## westwall (Apr 25, 2017)

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...








Which road is that?


----------



## debbiedowner (Apr 25, 2017)

Daryl Hunt said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



Do you have tricare for life or just tricare? Tricare for life pays your Medicare Part B deductible. 

Health Plan Costs - TRICARE For Life Costs | TRICARE


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 25, 2017)

debbiedowner said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > debbiedowner said:
> ...



No, we still have to have Medicare Part B to get Tricare for Life.  I am on that train.

Tricare for life is second payer AFTER the deduction.   And that deduction is above and beyond the Medicare B deduction.  You are out of pocket for both the first time you use them in a year by a few hundred dollars.


----------



## Political Junky (Apr 25, 2017)

Medicare works great for me and it's single payer.
Medicare for everyone .. It's already set up and truly is easy.


----------



## debbiedowner (Apr 25, 2017)

Daryl Hunt said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



Well in that link I posted it says tricare for life is suppose to pay your Part B deductible.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 25, 2017)

The Irish Ram said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...




But your arguments don't stand up here.

First. If you're in Canada, or Denmark or wherever, you can buy health insurance. 

Second, in other countries you pay for your health insurance through taxes. However in the UK if you were to pay taxes for your health insurance AND buy private health insurance you'd still be paying LESS than you'd be paying in the US. You're fed up of paying taxes. Eh? What? Paying taxes is difficult? More difficult than buying health insurance? Health insurance pisses me off. It works on the basis that you pay your whole life, and if for some reason you can't pay one month and then you get ill, you're fucked. That annoys me.


----------



## westwall (Apr 25, 2017)

Political Junky said:


> Medicare works great for me and it's single payer.
> Medicare for everyone .. It's already set up and truly is easy.








ONE dentist in northern Nevada accepts Medicare.  Care to guess how long a wait you would have to see them?  It ain't all about you sweetie.


----------



## debbiedowner (Apr 25, 2017)

westwall said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Medicare works great for me and it's single payer.
> ...



Medicare or Medicaid? Medicare does not cover dental unless there is an accident to your mouth.

Now if you have a Medicare Advantage you may have what insurance companies call the little extra's for you to purchase it and include minimal dental.


----------



## westwall (Apr 25, 2017)

debbiedowner said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...








Medicare for old people.  Hell it's hard to find a GP up here who will accept it.  They get paid so little that most here won't accept it.  That's the problem with obummer care.  The deductibles have risen to 6500 but even after you reach your deductible you are still on the hook for 30% of the cost of whatever operation you need.  Guess what, that is going to be 20,000 to 30,000 for the average operation.  Care to guess how many middle class folks can cough that up?


----------



## IResist (Apr 25, 2017)

Insurance companies caused the rates to go up. Not Obamacare. You get rid of insurance companies, no more rising rates and you can see whichever doctor you'd like.


----------



## westwall (Apr 25, 2017)

IResist said:


> Insurance companies caused the rates to go up. Not Obamacare. You get rid of insurance companies, no more rising rates and you can see whichever doctor you'd like.







You are partly correct.  obummer mandated that me, as a 70 year old male, had to have pregnancy coverage.  The insurance companies said, "Ok boss...whatever you say" and they charged accordingly.  obummer and co. forced the insurance companies to add in all sorts of crap to a policy that MOST people don't need.  So, while the insurance companies indeed raised all of the costs, they were forced to do it.  And you can thank obummer.


----------



## IResist (Apr 25, 2017)

westwall said:


> IResist said:
> 
> 
> > Insurance companies caused the rates to go up. Not Obamacare. You get rid of insurance companies, no more rising rates and you can see whichever doctor you'd like.
> ...



If you had no insurance companies, they wouldn't need to.


----------



## debbiedowner (Apr 25, 2017)

westwall said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Well you mentioned a dentist for Medicare.

Man who are you dealing with for insurance? Yes you may have a deductible of $6500 but your max out of pocket is no more than $7150 per person. So your deductible and copays and 30% hit 7150 you are at your max. Same across the land doesn't matter where your located if you are a compliant ACA plan.


----------



## debbiedowner (Apr 25, 2017)

westwall said:


> IResist said:
> 
> 
> > Insurance companies caused the rates to go up. Not Obamacare. You get rid of insurance companies, no more rising rates and you can see whichever doctor you'd like.
> ...


----------



## debbiedowner (Apr 25, 2017)

IResist said:


> Insurance companies caused the rates to go up. Not Obamacare. You get rid of insurance companies, no more rising rates and you can see whichever doctor you'd like.



No obamacare caused the rates to go up, if you have to accept anyone regardless of health problems as did insurance companies there are billion's of immediate losses on claims.


----------



## IResist (Apr 25, 2017)

debbiedowner said:


> IResist said:
> 
> 
> > Insurance companies caused the rates to go up. Not Obamacare. You get rid of insurance companies, no more rising rates and you can see whichever doctor you'd like.
> ...



They are the ones who raised the rates. They usually do, and rates were going up even faster than before Obamacare.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 25, 2017)

westwall said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You certainly have some good points.  As long as you are saying you are in favor of a Nationalized Medical Plan.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Apr 25, 2017)

frigidweirdo said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Ok, let's try a different approach. We have an example of what healthcare is like under the control of the government.  So let's grade them on the quality of care they have given the patients that depend on that care and see if we want the government  to extend that care to us.

From 1 to 10 grade the government's performance caring for our vets.  
I want the government as far away as it can get from my care.........


----------



## The Irish Ram (Apr 25, 2017)

Here ya go.  From a Canadian poster:
'We felt like screaming': Wife says crowded hospital failed her dying husband


----------



## dblack (Apr 25, 2017)

Daryl Hunt said:


> You certainly have some good points.  As long as you are saying you are in favor of a Nationalized Medical Plan.



All other good points dutifully ignored?


----------



## westwall (Apr 25, 2017)

debbiedowner said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > debbiedowner said:
> ...








I think you need to read the policies better.  Cleraly you have no clue what you're talking about.


----------



## westwall (Apr 25, 2017)

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > debbiedowner said:
> ...







I have lived and worked in too any countries with socialized medicine to want it here.  Socialized medicine sucks.  Full stop.


----------



## westwall (Apr 25, 2017)

dblack said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > You certainly have some good points.  As long as you are saying you are in favor of a Nationalized Medical Plan.
> ...









He's a progressive.  That's what they do.


----------



## Political Junky (Apr 25, 2017)

westwall said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


If everyone was on Medicare doctors would take it.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 25, 2017)

The Irish Ram said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...



How about this one.

We have govt hospitals and we have private hospitals. If you don't like the care in the govt hospitals you pay for the private hospitals. If you're fine with govt hospitals, you go with govt hospitals?


----------



## westwall (Apr 26, 2017)

Political Junky said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > debbiedowner said:
> ...







Not when they don't get paid enough to run their practice.  50 billion in Medicare fraud is another concern as well.  Face it the government does a poor job for most of what it is responsible for.  The VA is merely the tip of the iceberg.  I really suggest you do some research on the horror story that the NHS has become.  They all start out as really great ideas, and i am with Ben Stein on this point, there is no reason why this country can't come up with a health care system that works for everyone, there just isn't.  The problem is the insurance companies have bought the politicians that prevent real reform.


----------



## Mindful (Apr 26, 2017)

westwall said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You 're correct about the NHS. I've just returned from the UK, and the system is teetering on the edge.

It started off as an admirable system, when there was less population, a big drop in that due  to WW2. But times have changed since those times. The demographics, immigration, mismanagement, lots of factors.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 26, 2017)

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



So have I.  You would rather have it like it trying to be presented in the US where only the well off gets anything other than Emergency room care?


----------



## debbiedowner (Apr 26, 2017)

IResist said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> > IResist said:
> ...



Yes rates were going up before obamacare as they have every year. Population gets older and sicker and state regs require insurance companies have so much money in reserves to operate in that state. 

Think about what your car insurance would cost you if the auto insurer's had to insure someone who just had an accident and pay for it although they had never had insurance with that company before.


----------



## debbiedowner (Apr 26, 2017)

westwall said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




No I don't have to, I know the law I have worked with it and in deep into it for 4 years now. You are not throwing the whole story out there, either you're 70 years old as you stated and you don't even have to be on an ACA plan or you're not. Yes Nevada I think has or had it's own exchanges, but the law of the land says an individual max out of pocket for 2017 is $7150 per individual. Even though states with their own exchanges did a little different than the states that had to use Fed exchange the max is still the same.


----------



## debbiedowner (Apr 26, 2017)

Out-of-pocket maximum/limit - HealthCare.gov Glossary


----------



## dblack (Apr 26, 2017)

westwall said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



It's not just progressives.


----------



## debbiedowner (Apr 26, 2017)

If anyone of you pay quite a bit for prescriptions use a goodrx card, gives pretty good discounts. I believe it's goodrx.com

For a few this morning I thought maybe Nevada had their own thing and they do have their exchange but have seen mixed articles on whether they closed their state exchange or not. But even so the max's were the same, even catastrophic. Any compliant ACA plan has the max deductible's and max out of pocket per the link above.


----------



## westwall (Apr 26, 2017)

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...







No, you haven't.  You claim to have served in the USAF which means you used on base medical facilities which means you have no clue what I am talking about.  In New Zealand I was skiing with a friend when they crashed and injured their leg.  The medical facility at the ski resort was better than the largest hospital in Christchurch.  Why you may ask?  Because they had tourist money to pay for it.  And that is New Zealand, a completely modern country.


----------



## IResist (Apr 26, 2017)

Critics called Medicare socialized medicine. Ask seniors how much they like Medicare.


----------



## westwall (Apr 26, 2017)

IResist said:


> Critics called Medicare socialized medicine. Ask seniors how much they like Medicare.









That's because it is.  And it is good for the most part.  However, as they get paid less and less to do more and more you are seeing doctors refusing to accept it.  So, once again, what good is an insurance program when no one accepts it?


----------



## Pete7469 (Apr 26, 2017)

If you believe you have a right to services provided by other people you are a parasite and should be thrown out of a helicopter.


----------



## Pete7469 (Apr 26, 2017)

IResist said:


> Critics called Medicare socialized medicine. Ask seniors how much they like Medicare.




People like "free shit". Parasites like you don't mind taking free shit at the expense of others because you're indoctrinated with the idea you're entitled to shit.


----------



## IResist (Apr 26, 2017)

Pete7469 said:


> IResist said:
> 
> 
> > Critics called Medicare socialized medicine. Ask seniors how much they like Medicare.
> ...



Is it free, or stuff people paid into? It works and is very effective.


----------



## westwall (Apr 26, 2017)

IResist said:


> Pete7469 said:
> 
> 
> > IResist said:
> ...








People have to pay for it one way or the other.  You either pay for it directly through companies that are ultimately accountable to their clients, their shareholders, and the public at large, or you pay for it with much higher taxes, and your care is given by people who are accountable to no one.   I think you truly don't understand that government involvement in anything is an invitation to disaster.  

It is not a question of if the government will screw up, but when.  The NHS in the UK was able to run well for less than 30 years.  The Canadian system failed even quicker to the point that they set up a two tier system so that those who can may buy their own private health insurance.  The Canadian system was so ridiculous that they were offering MRI to pets to help pay for the machines because those weren't under government control for those uses.


----------



## IResist (Apr 26, 2017)

westwall said:


> IResist said:
> 
> 
> > Pete7469 said:
> ...



Many government programs and things provided by the government - Social Securuty, Medicare, Medicaid, the Highway System, they're treasured by the people in this country. A good way to keep this going is to keeping their paws off.

I say a bill ought to be passed and signed into law making it illegal to raid the Social Security system.

Every citizen in this country needs and should have healthcare. If Obamacare is repealed, rates will not go down. That I am sure of.


----------



## westwall (Apr 26, 2017)

IResist said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > IResist said:
> ...








They are "treasured" because the people don't know any better.  Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.  It is going to fail unless major changes are enacted to save it.  The highway system is indeed a great thing, but like everything else it touches it is failing all over the country.  I agree that a country as wealthy is this one is should be able to figure out a way to provide coverage for everyone, and in fact it does.  Even when people had no health insurance they were still able to go to ANY emergency room and receive care.  It was a law.  Try that in Japan, another country that progressives love to trot out as a great medical system.  

If you are over 70 years old you are covered, however, until you hit 70 if you have no health insurance.  You die.  No ER will accept you.  If you have health insurance that is affiliated with a hospital away from where you were injured they will transport you to THAT hospital instead of to the closer one....and people die because of that.

No system is perfect, but the one that we had, prior to obummer fucking it up, was among the best in the world.


----------



## IResist (Apr 26, 2017)

Social Security isn't a Ponzi Scheme. You earned it, you paid into it and you get your money.

How much longer are people going to use emergency rooms if funds are stripped? 

Our system was never one of the best and countries with single payer type systems rank ahead of. I can post a study I saw later. It's not good for our country and its not about to get better as the Freedom Caucus is ironically named.


----------



## Pete7469 (Apr 26, 2017)

IResist said:


> Social Security isn't a Ponzi Scheme. You earned it, you paid into it and you get your money.
> 
> How much longer are people going to use emergency rooms if funds are stripped?
> 
> Our system was never one of the best and countries with single payer type systems rank ahead of. I can post a study I saw later. It's not good for our country and its not about to get better as the Freedom Caucus is ironically named.



Then take your dumb ass to Europe you fuckin parasite.

Why you leftist assholes can't just leave us with one country that you don't run into the ground with your regressive tyranny is beyond me.


----------



## debbiedowner (Apr 26, 2017)

Pete7469 said:


> IResist said:
> 
> 
> > Social Security isn't a Ponzi Scheme. You earned it, you paid into it and you get your money.
> ...



You're the dumb ass. If someone pays into to social security most of their life they will never live to see all they paid in.  You don't want into the system don't work or get paid under the table and don't report it, don't pay your taxes. But you'll be screaming if you become disabled for your monthly ssdi checks. 

Now this will piss you off, I'm still working, drawing full social security, va disability and on Medicare and I LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOve it.


----------



## debbiedowner (Apr 26, 2017)

Pete7469 said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> > Pete7469 said:
> ...



What an intelligent eunuch, you add so much to the conversation.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 26, 2017)

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



If I were within 40 miles of a military base, I would use that.  But I am at least 250 miles from any military base.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 26, 2017)

Pete7469 said:


> If you believe you have a right to services provided by other people you are a parasite and should be thrown out of a helicopter.



And who makes the decision of whom is thrown from that Chopper?  Exactly where is the line drawn?


----------



## dblack (Apr 26, 2017)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pete7469 said:
> 
> 
> > If you believe you have a right to services provided by other people you are a parasite and should be thrown out of a helicopter.
> ...



It's supposed to be the Constitution. But that only works if we remember what it's for. We've largely lost that and will largely lose freedom as a result.


----------



## Pete7469 (Apr 26, 2017)

debbiedowner said:


> What an intelligent eunuch, you add so much to the conversation.



Who asked you to enter the conversation with your utter stupidity?

Try saying something worthy of an actual response and you might get something more than insulted.


----------



## Pete7469 (Apr 26, 2017)

Daryl Hunt said:


> And who makes the decision of whom is thrown from that Chopper?  Exactly where is the line drawn?



ME.

When you demand the government through the use of force steals my shit so that you can get free birth control pills. I should have the right to demand the government throws you out of a helicopter.

That would actually be the cheaper way to go as well.


----------



## debbiedowner (Apr 26, 2017)

Pete7469 said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> > What an intelligent eunuch, you add so much to the conversation.
> ...



You didn't start at the beginning of this thread, did you?


----------



## Pete7469 (Apr 26, 2017)

debbiedowner said:


> You didn't start at the beginning of this thread, did you?



You came in and gave me shit about something I never mentioned and I'm supposed to care where you set the bar for "intellectual discourse"?

If it wasn't for child proof lids you would have over dosed on Flintstones vitamins and died.


----------



## westwall (Apr 26, 2017)

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...









I can think of very few places on this planet where that is possible.


----------



## IsaacNewton (Apr 26, 2017)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Time to pick a fight.
> 
> The US is the ONLY western democracy without nationalized medicine.  The other countries realize that medical care is a right, not a privilege.
> 
> ...



I think if doctors ever unionized they could change the entire system to one-payer very quickly which is what needs to happen. Just looking at doctors, anyone that has been to a few doctors in the last ten years knows they are entirely controlled by insurance companies now. Many of them actually do harm to their patients because they lower their assessment of what is wrong with someone and what they need. I've talked to a number of doctors that have said this behind closed doors. A couple doctors I talked to have actually been ruined by an insurance company taking them to court because the doctor refused to redo their assessment in favor of the carrier paying a lot less money. 

These few wealthy vampires who run these insurance companies have to be broken. Their lobby right now dumps too much into the hand of people in Congress who are all too eager to ignore constituents in favor of cash. The buzz to change this is growing, people are really fed up with this crap. Other countries actually value all human life and many of them are mostly atheist. This country which depending on which poll you look at is between 75% - 85% 'Christian' views human beings as a burden.


----------



## westwall (Apr 26, 2017)

IsaacNewton said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Time to pick a fight.
> ...








You must not know too many doctors.  They for the most part hate single payer systems.  Why bother spending a decade of your life becoming a doctor if you will only be paid what your average electrician can make.  In fact in nations with single payer it is the doctors who are striking AGAINST the system.

*Junior doctors strike: why are they taking action and how will it affect you?*
Junior doctors strike: why are they taking action and how will it affect you?


----------



## westwall (Apr 26, 2017)

Instead of laughing how about you address the reality of the poor pay that doctors make under the NHS, and the fact that they are rebelling against it.  Or it that too difficult for your tiny little mind?


----------



## IsaacNewton (Apr 26, 2017)

westwall said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...




You must not know many doctors. For the most part they are tired of the insurance companies coming between them and healing people. They enter the system having taken the Hypocratic Oath to 'do now harm' and are almost immediately forced to do harm because an insurance company tells them to. And the doctor has no option but to comply.


----------



## debbiedowner (Apr 26, 2017)

IsaacNewton said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > IsaacNewton said:
> ...



There was a documentary of sorts lasted a couple of hours, put out I think in the 90's about a well know Insurance company HMO's, it's called damaged care. You may find it out youtube, nope just went to look. It had several instances in it of denial of care. It was based on the person in charge of the insurance company approving and disapproving procedures and the more she disapproved the more promotions she was awarded.  But she was basically forced when she was just a peon then as she became in charge of that department would approve procedures and the CEO would threaten her.

One scene I remember is a doctor was trying to get approved over the phone for a heart bypass on his patient while on his way to operating room and it showed her stamping disapproved and told the doctor so. I hated he did not operate and the man died. Another involved a cop and his daughter I believe had cerebral palsy and was disapproved for care and she may have died. The insurance company is still in business, public company making their shareholder's million's. That was then, I can only imagine now. Well company as we speak is known not to pay their claims in timely manner or requiring doctor's to send in additional information before they approve a payout.


----------



## Pete7469 (Apr 26, 2017)

westwall said:


> Instead of laughing how about you address the reality of the poor pay that doctors make under the NHS, and the fact that they are rebelling against it.  Or it that too difficult for your tiny little mind?



Are the doctors in a union? Are they allowed to be in a union in those places if they're "government employees"? When it comes to libturds, people can only demand more pay if they're paying their dues to the church of the global collective.


----------



## IsaacNewton (Apr 26, 2017)

debbiedowner said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I may have seen part of this documentary way back. It has gotten a lot worse. Insurance companies treat doctors almost like slaves and doctors have no recourse because they'll damage or lose their practice or if in a hospital the hospital won't cross the insurance company because that will but off their main revenue stream. 

It has to change, insurance companies come between doctors and patients daily. The exact thing detractors had to say about the ACA or Obamacare. Which is partly true but not because 'the government' is involved. It's because Obamacare still has people get on an insurance company's policy like Blue Cross or Anthem so those entities still pull their crap with doctors.


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 26, 2017)

Yeah, make it free for everybody.

To do that just nationalize every hospital and doctor's office without compensation.

Draft every doctor and nurse into national service - move them into barracks and feed them in mess halls.  No pay - just an "allowance" of those things they need to stay alive.

Right, Hugo?


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 26, 2017)

Pete7469 said:


> ME.
> 
> When you demand the government through the use of force steals my shit so that you can get free birth control pills. I should have the right to demand the government throws you out of a helicopter.
> 
> That would actually be the cheaper way to go as well.



Now there's the most effective method of birth control of which I've ever heard!

Oh, if the _*throwee*_ happens to be pregnant, does the *thrower* get double liberal brownie points for the death of the infant?


----------



## Pete7469 (Apr 26, 2017)

HenryBHough said:


> Now there's the most effective method of birth control of which I've ever heard!
> 
> Oh, if the _*throwee*_ happens to be pregnant, does the *thrower* get double liberal brownie points for the death of the infant?



Only if you count it as an abortion and paint a pink ribbon on the helicopter for breast cancer awareness.

Then you're covered because you "care".


----------



## debbiedowner (Apr 26, 2017)

IsaacNewton said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> > IsaacNewton said:
> ...



2002 it was
Linda Peeno - Wikipedia

Damaged Care | Dove Family Friendly Movie Reviews


----------



## IsaacNewton (Apr 26, 2017)

HenryBHough said:


> Yeah, make it free for everybody.
> 
> To do that just nationalize every hospital and doctor's office without compensation.
> 
> ...



That would be a 7 year old's way of doing it. Better to just look to the rest of the civilized world and see how they do it, successfully. The examples are already up and running for decades. Only in the US, which cons claim incessantly is a 'christian nation', is life treated as dog-eat-dog still. Survival of the fittest which betrays a belief in Darwinian evolution as well.


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 26, 2017)

IsaacNewton said:


> That would be a 7 year old's way of doing it. Better to just look to the rest of the civilized world and see how they do it, successfully. The examples are already up and running for decades. Only in the US, which cons claim incessantly is a 'christian nation', is life treated as dog-eat-dog still. Survival of the fittest which betrays a belief in Darwinian evolution as well.




I'm impressed!  That Hugo thunk all that up when he was only 7!  Personal friend?



_Anticipated response:_

_Whiny liberal demand for "link" followed by a silly icon or, if this is an especially good day, an insult directed at me, my family, my pets, etc._


----------



## IResist (Apr 26, 2017)

Pete7469 said:


> IResist said:
> 
> 
> > Social Security isn't a Ponzi Scheme. You earned it, you paid into it and you get your money.
> ...



Again with the name calling. It says more about you than it says about me.


----------



## Pete7469 (Apr 26, 2017)

IResist said:


> Again with th name calling. It says more about you than it says about me.



There's no point in saying anything else about you. Let me look for fucks to give about anything you have to say...


----------



## westwall (Apr 26, 2017)

IsaacNewton said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > IsaacNewton said:
> ...










I count three surgeons as hunting buddies, and another five or so who i go shooting with on a regular basis, and I fly with three others.  They would all think you're a blathering fool.


----------



## westwall (Apr 26, 2017)

Pete7469 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Instead of laughing how about you address the reality of the poor pay that doctors make under the NHS, and the fact that they are rebelling against it.  Or it that too difficult for your tiny little mind?
> ...







I am not sure to be honest with you.


----------



## debbiedowner (Apr 26, 2017)

westwall said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Yep, the Medicare fee schedule isn't much for these docs and most of your health insurance claims they base on Medicare fee schedule and add a little to it. I believe the republican's are trying to raise this a little, but I don't think a little will work. I've seen some of these EOB's Medicare sends out, for instance I saw one for a patient that was receiving physical therapy for knee surgery, the bill was well over a hundred and when they were done the patients 20% was only $8.00. 

Medicare and insurance companies think the docs can make the difference's up by quantity instead of quality. I have a procedure tomorrow morning as an outpatient that I will be put to sleep and the procedure lasts approximately 10 minutes. My cost is $101.00 for facility, don't know what or if the doc is getting anything over and above not to mention the anesthesiologist.


----------



## westwall (Apr 26, 2017)

debbiedowner said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > IsaacNewton said:
> ...








When I had my heart surgery i worked out a deal with the surgeon and i paid him 4800 bucks for his part of it.  The anesthesiologist got 3K IIRC.  The hospital charged 101K for my four day visit, but the insurance company whittled that down to around 80k IIRC.  Had I not paid him cash the surgeons bill would have been around 7500 to cover all of the BS expenses he gets hit for, and the amount of time it takes to get paid from the insurance company.  

He won't accept Medicare period.  He will do pro bono operations on those who need him but can't afford him however.  He's a pretty good egg.


----------



## IsaacNewton (Apr 26, 2017)

westwall said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I know a number of doctors that would count you as a blathering fool.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 26, 2017)

dblack said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Pete7469 said:
> ...



It's not in the Constitution.  Its in the Declaration of Independence. 

_We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; ..._

Sounds to me like it was meant to mean it for ALL and not just some.  Again, who gets to pick who lives or dies, unhappy and without liberty?


----------



## Pete7469 (Apr 26, 2017)

Daryl Hunt said:


> It's not in the Constitution.  Its in the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> _We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; ..._
> 
> Sounds to me like it was meant to mean it for ALL and not just some.  Again, who gets to pick who lives or dies, unhappy and without liberty?



The declaration isn't LAW.

The LAW.... otherwise known as The Constitution does not provide an avenue for you to use the government to coerce me into funding your sustenance. 

Period. End of mother fucking discussion.

"Giving" you shit TAKEN from anyone else is immoral without the consent of the providing party.

Period. 

It is being resisted and resistance to tyranny ALWAYS prevails. Don't like it? Go to euroweenieland where they not only don't resist it, they demand it. The rest of our ancestors left for a damn good reason.


----------



## dblack (Apr 27, 2017)

Daryl Hunt said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



Oh, I see. You misread the quote you were responding to. Pete suggested those who want to use government for entitlements be "thrown out of a helicopter". I assumed you were asking, figuratively, how we decided what services government should provide.

If you're actually asking who decides who lives or dies, ultimately it's whoever is paying for it. If we set it up so that government is paying for our health care, government will make that call (ie "death panels"). Otherwise, it's up to the individual in question to arrange financing for their own health care.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 27, 2017)

Pete7469 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > It's not in the Constitution.  Its in the Declaration of Independence.
> ...



I see.  It's YOU that wants to decide who lives and dies.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 27, 2017)

dblack said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I see.  If a person has the funding to do so then that's good.  If they don't then we condemn them to die.  Sounds like a defacto death panel.


----------



## dblack (Apr 27, 2017)

Daryl Hunt said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



? That's quite a leap. How did you land there?

The term 'death panel' refers to decisions being taken out of the hands of individuals and, instead, making them with government. I know you want to equate insurance companies with the government, but they're radically different. Insurance companies can't force you to buy their product. If you don't like what insurance companies are selling, you can refuse to do business with them. If you don't like government policy, too bad. Fight it, and you go down in flames.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 27, 2017)

dblack said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Now, take out the Insurance Companies and HMOs.  That saves billions each year.  Then we go after the Drug Companies that have jacked up the cost of medicine beyond belief.  There goes another few billion a year.  Go after the people that supply the equipment for Doctors.  There goes another few billion  a year.  

Take the savings and pass it on to both the people and doctors and hospitals.  In order to do this you will have to nationalize medical to some degree.  Or at least regulate it heavily.

Otherwise, without some kind of program, the poor are sent home to die and the rich make out like the bandits they are.


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 27, 2017)

Take away enough from enough providers and you soon have only government left to do drug research, manufacture medicines, run hospitals and draft promising students forcing them to become doctors.  But first you need to build a wall to keep them from defecting.


----------



## Pete7469 (Apr 27, 2017)

Daryl Hunt said:


> I see.  It's YOU that wants to decide who lives and dies.



Try and steal my shit, it will still be you who decides your fate.


----------



## Pete7469 (Apr 27, 2017)

Daryl Hunt said:


> I see.  If a person has the funding to do so then that's good.  If they don't then we condemn them to die.  Sounds like a defacto death panel.



Bullshit.

People are plenty charitable.

That doesn't mean you're ENTITLED to shit, so you best not subsist on a diet of doritoes and beer.

If you do, yeah, you'll die.

That's your fault not anyone else's. You still have some responsibility to maintain your own health dipshit. That's the way it is with you bed wetters though. If someone expresses displeasure with their tax rates to fund programs they earn to much to qualify for while oxygen thieves like you absorb resources intended for people who need help and deserve it. Then you pretend it's the extreme "you just want people to die". 

How about a little fucking efficient spending and throwing the loafers out of the safety net?

Of course not, you'd rather use government to steal other people's shit at gun point.

I'd rather use government helicopters to throw parasites like you into the north pacific gyre. It would be a lot more cost effective.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 27, 2017)

Pete7469 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > I see.  If a person has the funding to do so then that's good.  If they don't then we condemn them to die.  Sounds like a defacto death panel.
> ...



Do you mean I am an ultra left wing Democrat (socialist) who lives off everyone else?  Let's see.

I am a fiscal conservative that believes that the Government should only take what is needed to keep the doors open on important programs.  I believe that we need to protect our environment.  I believe that EVERYONE deserves quality health care.  I believe that we need to get the graft out of office.  I believe in quite a bit more.  But,most, I believe the first paragraph of the Declaration and the Constitution that was based on it.  I believe in the Bill of Rights that the Constitution was based on.  I believe that Companies MUST take care of their employees.  

You want Corporations to keep running roughshod over their employees including in moving the jobs overseas?  You want nationalized health care to work, start building jobs near the epicenter of population.  This is one of Trump's promises but he's proven to be a friggin liar.  He didn't run for office for Patriotic reasons.  He ran to make MORE money for his likes.  

BTW, I am a 20+ year USAF Retiree.  I paid dearly for my income.  I didn't cheat the system.  I did a job that you were either too lazy or scared to do.  It sounds like it's YOU that is sucking at some type of government tit.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 27, 2017)

Pete7469 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > I see.  It's YOU that wants to decide who lives and dies.
> ...



Your fate is going to change drastically.  Now, you you wish to show up with that Chopper to throw me out of, empty threats mean nothing.  I don't want your "Shit".  It's below average.  Stop with the Koch Brothers diatribe.  I bet you didn't even get your cut of what they keep shelling out to keep people fooled like you are.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 27, 2017)

HenryBHough said:


> Take away enough from enough providers and you soon have only government left to do drug research, manufacture medicines, run hospitals and draft promising students forcing them to become doctors.  But first you need to build a wall to keep them from defecting.



Or we can bring back the Hippocratic Oath that most doctors believe.


----------



## debbiedowner (Apr 27, 2017)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pete7469 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



In my short time here I have noticed if you don't think exactly like them you are a dem.


----------



## Pete7469 (Apr 27, 2017)

debbiedowner said:


> In my short time here I have noticed if you don't think exactly like them you are a dem.



You don't think.

You can't.

That's why you're a dem.


----------



## debbiedowner (Apr 27, 2017)

Pete7469 said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> > In my short time here I have noticed if you don't think exactly like them you are a dem.
> ...




Nope never have been, just a critical thinker that very many lack here.


----------



## Pete7469 (Apr 27, 2017)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Do you mean I am an ultra left wing Democrat (socialist) who lives off everyone else?  Let's see.
> 
> I am a fiscal conservative that believes that the Government should only take what is needed to keep the doors open on important programs.  I believe that we need to protect our environment.  I believe that EVERYONE deserves quality health care.  I believe that we need to get the graft out of office.  I believe in quite a bit more.  But,most, I believe the first paragraph of the Declaration and the Constitution that was based on it.  I believe in the Bill of Rights that the Constitution was based on.  I believe that Companies MUST take care of their employees.
> 
> ...



Spare me your life story bed wetter, and don't try and leverage military service to bolster your sniveling regressive babbling. I'm a combat vet. I did my time and got out. 

You're a moonbat. They have all that nanny state bullshit in euroweenieland.


----------



## Pete7469 (Apr 27, 2017)

debbiedowner said:


> Nope never have been, just a critical thinker that very many lack here.



I love libturds like you....

You get ridiculed by everyone in the room, but you can still storm off in a huff convinced everyone is an idiot except YOU....

You're "educated" right? Got some prestigious degree in "liberal arts" and it makes you a fuckin expert on everything right?


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Apr 27, 2017)

debbiedowner said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Pete7469 said:
> ...



Well said.


----------



## debbiedowner (Apr 27, 2017)

Pete7469 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Do you mean I am an ultra left wing Democrat (socialist) who lives off everyone else?  Let's see.
> ...



I bet the only combat you've ever seen is hand to hand and then it probably slipped off and hit the wall.


----------



## debbiedowner (Apr 27, 2017)

Pete7469 said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> > Nope never have been, just a critical thinker that very many lack here.
> ...


 
Why do you ask? You didn't use your supposedly GI bill and went to school? Or they kicked you out when they saw you had hatred issues, alcohol or other problems that you couldn't fit in. Right? Of course I am.


----------

