Bernie Sanders: We Will Raise Taxes On Anyone Making Over $29,000 To Fund Government Health Care

[pknopp]

Medicare for All reminds me of the original Obamacare, "Health Care for America Plan" which contained a public option allowing people to transfer to a Medicare like system without age restriction. The public option was of course a major target of the insurance companies and was dropped almost immediately by congress.

I think there are some misconceptions about how the Medicare for All proposals would be implemented. Once congress gets hold of any of the current proposals, they would change radically.

• First, it would not be Medicare. It would be a healthcare plan similar to Medicare but would look more like an employer sponsored plan than Medicare.
• It would be phased in over many years opening up first to older Americans and gradually extended to all ages.
• Lastly, there would be supplemental insurance just as there is with Medicare.

Any national healthcare plan would be a series of compromises. We have to remember this is not 1965 when Medicare was passed where deals were made between democrats and republicans to pass major legislation and the influence of lobbyists was far less than today.

What would actually stand a chance at working is allow people with preexisting conditions to go on Medicare. That would remove all the high risk patients from private insurance, and that would cause a price decrease, or at the very least, a price freeze.

Next is Medicare and Medicaid needs to start paying the entire bill instead of only part of it.
In any case, nothing gets done the right way until we work on lowering the cost of medical care first. If we don't do that, we're just passing the buck around.

No, Medicare and Medicaid is paying the only valid portion of the bill.
What we have to do is stop the insurance companies from paying more of the bill than Medicare does.
The current bills are incredibly fake and inflated.
That is the whole problem of 3rd party payer, they LIKE inflated bills because then everyone absolutely needs to have insurance even more.
The whole problem is 3rd party payer, who does not care about quality or cost.
The patient can do nothing because they already prepaid.
It is like prepaid legal service, can not possibly ever work.

It's worked very well for generations. Handing it over to government is the stupidest thing we could possibly do. Government is a huge reason why our healthcare is so expensive to begin with.

For generations the cost to deliver a baby was around $100.

 

[pknopp]

Why don't you mooching deadbeats get a job and pay for your own health insurance like everyone else. I'm not going to pay for YOUR health insurance, or your damn cable bill or buy your groceries snowflakes.

Too late. You do now.

I point and laugh at mooching Dem's. Some states don't have a state income tax I live in one on purpose

They get their taxes in other ways.

every time the GOP has cut taxes on the rich the last 35 years and passed it on with less federal aid to states and localities, state and local taxes have gone up which kills the non-rich. so now we have a flat tax system if you count all taxes, not the garbage you're told. Google the only tax graph you need to know and stop being a goddamn idiot, oops brain washed functional idiot.

None of that addressed what I said.

 

[Rigby5]

All you rich folks making $14 an hour need to bear the burden.

Sanders: Families Making $29,000 Will ‘Pay More In Taxes’ For Medicare For All - The Partnership for America’s Health Care Future

And of course these people always miscalculate so its not going to end there. Sanders has no idea what the actual costs and unintended consequences will be.

Sure he does, because we see the costs and consequences in all the other countries in the world.
The US does not have to invent something new here, the whole rest of the world has fixed their health care over half a century ago.

 

[francoHFW]

Medicare for All reminds me of the original Obamacare, "Health Care for America Plan" which contained a public option allowing people to transfer to a Medicare like system without age restriction. The public option was of course a major target of the insurance companies and was dropped almost immediately by congress.

I think there are some misconceptions about how the Medicare for All proposals would be implemented. Once congress gets hold of any of the current proposals, they would change radically.

• First, it would not be Medicare. It would be a healthcare plan similar to Medicare but would look more like an employer sponsored plan than Medicare.
• It would be phased in over many years opening up first to older Americans and gradually extended to all ages.
• Lastly, there would be supplemental insurance just as there is with Medicare.

Any national healthcare plan would be a series of compromises. We have to remember this is not 1965 when Medicare was passed where deals were made between democrats and republicans to pass major legislation and the influence of lobbyists was far less than today.

What would actually stand a chance at working is allow people with preexisting conditions to go on Medicare. That would remove all the high risk patients from private insurance, and that would cause a price decrease, or at the very least, a price freeze.

Next is Medicare and Medicaid needs to start paying the entire bill instead of only part of it.
In any case, nothing gets done the right way until we work on lowering the cost of medical care first. If we don't do that, we're just passing the buck around.

No, Medicare and Medicaid is paying the only valid portion of the bill.
What we have to do is stop the insurance companies from paying more of the bill than Medicare does.
The current bills are incredibly fake and inflated.
That is the whole problem of 3rd party payer, they LIKE inflated bills because then everyone absolutely needs to have insurance even more.
The whole problem is 3rd party payer, who does not care about quality or cost.
The patient can do nothing because they already prepaid.
It is like prepaid legal service, can not possibly ever work.

It's worked very well for generations. Handing it over to government is the stupidest thing we could possibly do. Government is a huge reason why our healthcare is so expensive to begin with.

Sure super duper. The fact that our health care costs 18% of GDP, about twice as much as anywhere else and is approved of by 35% of the people while every other modern country has over 80% approval and higher lifespan meanss nothing right? LOL. You live in a dream world pal. Like most GOP voters -change the channel dumbass lol. People were getting killed by the old system for years. Never mentioned on the propaganda machine....

 

[pknopp]

As if you would know, brainwash functional moron. LOL. Fifteen million people were added to Medicaid so they have health care, and 75% of those on the exchanges pay less than $100 a month, and people with pre-existing can get great coverage. Approval of it is up to 55% at least even though it is sabotaged by the GOP as much as possible. You got to love those guys. My feeling is that you will all be going to hell. Willful ignorance will not go over well....

Go ahead, all you Dem's voluntarily send government $10,000 to gift healthcare to everyone. Lets see you back up your big talk. No?? Yeah that's we what thought.

I'm not a (D) but I've said many times that I'm willing to pay my share.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Actually I'm actually saying the government ALWAYS makes bad decisions. And why wouldn't they when there's no accountability? When they fuck up they can just dump it on the taxpayers.

When private industry fucks up, they either have to fix it or lose out to competition. So yeah, I have far more faith in private enterprise than a bunch of bureaucrats.

That makes no sense to be because the bureaucrats are elected, and therefore have to do exactly what we want them to do.
That is way better than for profit corporations that admit they are out to screw us.
And we do not have to speak theoretically.
Public health is the world norm, and is well proven to be vastly superior.

That makes no sense to be because the bureaucrats are elected

When are the elections for your local DMV?

Do you know what bureaucrat means?

If you want DMV changed, then you change who you vote for, based on what their policies and attitude towards DMV is.
Which is way better than private enterprise that just flat out admits they are out to gain all the money from you they can get.

If you want DMV changed, then you change who you vote for,

I want to vote out every bureaucrat in that entire building.
None of them seem to be on any ballot. Ever.

Which is way better than private enterprise that just flat out admits they are out to gain all the money from you they can get.

I don't have to buy their product.....unlike the DMV, eh?

I personally like the DMV for the most part.
Although I would like the EPA to stop discriminating against diesels.

And you DO have to buy the product of private corporations when it comes to health care, because it is a monopoly.

I personally like the DMV for the most part.

Even the employees you voted against? How long is their term in office?

And you DO have to buy the product of private corporations when it comes to health care, because it is a monopoly.

You're mistaken. I have many doctors, hospitals, clinics, pharmacies, pharma companies to choose from.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, we all pay for it. Do you think doctors and hospitals operate at a loss? They get that lost money back from other places.

It's also why these figures are all wrong by Sander's or anybody else. They are calculating what it would cost for all of us to be on Medicare, not figuring in how to pay for those losses since private pay and private insurance would no longer be doing it.

No they don't. It's a tax scam. They take the money they get (and obviously do very well) and then write the "paper loss" off on their taxes.

Write offs don't amount to much. I have nearly a hundred every year. They still lose money if they don't make it up elsewhere.

They don't lose a cent if the bills are artificially and deliberately inflated by over 75%.
And they are.
Which is why ACA is not a fix.
The providers are still way over charging.

They have to again, to recoup their losses. And remember Medicare is not their only loss. So is Medicaid or any government program. Then of course, the uninsured.

Wrong!
There is never a cent lost on Medicare or Medicaid patients.
The fact they do not want to take them as much is because they are not as much profit, but Medicare and Medicaid submissions and payments are always profitable.
The amounts are established by experts.
They never force anyone to take a loss.

Then why do hospitals and clinics primarily close down in low income areas? There is little to no private insurance in those areas. You are only making assumptions and no facts. If you know any doctors personally that you can speak to, just ask them. There is no money in taking care of government patients.

 

[Rigby5]

Medicare for All reminds me of the original Obamacare, "Health Care for America Plan" which contained a public option allowing people to transfer to a Medicare like system without age restriction. The public option was of course a major target of the insurance companies and was dropped almost immediately by congress.

I think there are some misconceptions about how the Medicare for All proposals would be implemented. Once congress gets hold of any of the current proposals, they would change radically.

• First, it would not be Medicare. It would be a healthcare plan similar to Medicare but would look more like an employer sponsored plan than Medicare.
• It would be phased in over many years opening up first to older Americans and gradually extended to all ages.
• Lastly, there would be supplemental insurance just as there is with Medicare.

Any national healthcare plan would be a series of compromises. We have to remember this is not 1965 when Medicare was passed where deals were made between democrats and republicans to pass major legislation and the influence of lobbyists was far less than today.

What would actually stand a chance at working is allow people with preexisting conditions to go on Medicare. That would remove all the high risk patients from private insurance, and that would cause a price decrease, or at the very least, a price freeze.

Next is Medicare and Medicaid needs to start paying the entire bill instead of only part of it.
In any case, nothing gets done the right way until we work on lowering the cost of medical care first. If we don't do that, we're just passing the buck around.

No, Medicare and Medicaid is paying the only valid portion of the bill.
What we have to do is stop the insurance companies from paying more of the bill than Medicare does.
The current bills are incredibly fake and inflated.
That is the whole problem of 3rd party payer, they LIKE inflated bills because then everyone absolutely needs to have insurance even more.
The whole problem is 3rd party payer, who does not care about quality or cost.
The patient can do nothing because they already prepaid.
It is like prepaid legal service, can not possibly ever work.

It's worked very well for generations. Handing it over to government is the stupidest thing we could possibly do. Government is a huge reason why our healthcare is so expensive to begin with.

For generations the cost to deliver a baby was around $100.

{...
The average total price charged for pregnancy and newborn care is about $30,000 for a vaginal delivery and $50,000 for a C-section, with insurers paying out an average of $18,329 and $27,866, according to a recent report by Truven Health Analytics.
...}

That is more than just inflation.

 

[BluesLegend]

As if you would know, brainwash functional moron. LOL. Fifteen million people were added to Medicaid so they have health care, and 75% of those on the exchanges pay less than $100 a month, and people with pre-existing can get great coverage. Approval of it is up to 55% at least even though it is sabotaged by the GOP as much as possible. You got to love those guys. My feeling is that you will all be going to hell. Willful ignorance will not go over well....

Go ahead, all you Dem's voluntarily send government $10,000 to gift healthcare to everyone. Lets see you back up your big talk. No?? Yeah that's we what thought.

I'm not a (D) but I've said many times that I'm willing to pay my share.

Those advocating for universal healthcare can have it tomorrow, just cut a check to the government to pay for it. That's why I call BS on Dem's promising all this free shit because even the most vocal advocates won't part with one dime of their own money to fund it.

 

[Rigby5]

That makes no sense to be because the bureaucrats are elected, and therefore have to do exactly what we want them to do.
That is way better than for profit corporations that admit they are out to screw us.
And we do not have to speak theoretically.
Public health is the world norm, and is well proven to be vastly superior.

That makes no sense to be because the bureaucrats are elected

When are the elections for your local DMV?

Do you know what bureaucrat means?

If you want DMV changed, then you change who you vote for, based on what their policies and attitude towards DMV is.
Which is way better than private enterprise that just flat out admits they are out to gain all the money from you they can get.

If you want DMV changed, then you change who you vote for,

I want to vote out every bureaucrat in that entire building.
None of them seem to be on any ballot. Ever.

Which is way better than private enterprise that just flat out admits they are out to gain all the money from you they can get.

I don't have to buy their product.....unlike the DMV, eh?

I personally like the DMV for the most part.
Although I would like the EPA to stop discriminating against diesels.

And you DO have to buy the product of private corporations when it comes to health care, because it is a monopoly.

I personally like the DMV for the most part.

Even the employees you voted against? How long is their term in office?

And you DO have to buy the product of private corporations when it comes to health care, because it is a monopoly.

You're mistaken. I have many doctors, hospitals, clinics, pharmacies, pharma companies to choose from.

I believe you are mistaken.
You do not pay the doctors, hospitals, clinics, pharmacies, etc., yourself, and your insurance company tells you who you can go to. And they only allow those who support their monopoly.
And don't try to tell me you pay cash instead, because I have tried that, and they won't even make an appointment unless I have insurance. And even when I have insurance, it turns out it was not accepted in other states. A total and complete monopoly.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Medicare for All reminds me of the original Obamacare, "Health Care for America Plan" which contained a public option allowing people to transfer to a Medicare like system without age restriction. The public option was of course a major target of the insurance companies and was dropped almost immediately by congress.

I think there are some misconceptions about how the Medicare for All proposals would be implemented. Once congress gets hold of any of the current proposals, they would change radically.

• First, it would not be Medicare. It would be a healthcare plan similar to Medicare but would look more like an employer sponsored plan than Medicare.
• It would be phased in over many years opening up first to older Americans and gradually extended to all ages.
• Lastly, there would be supplemental insurance just as there is with Medicare.

Any national healthcare plan would be a series of compromises. We have to remember this is not 1965 when Medicare was passed where deals were made between democrats and republicans to pass major legislation and the influence of lobbyists was far less than today.

What would actually stand a chance at working is allow people with preexisting conditions to go on Medicare. That would remove all the high risk patients from private insurance, and that would cause a price decrease, or at the very least, a price freeze.

Next is Medicare and Medicaid needs to start paying the entire bill instead of only part of it.
In any case, nothing gets done the right way until we work on lowering the cost of medical care first. If we don't do that, we're just passing the buck around.

No, Medicare and Medicaid is paying the only valid portion of the bill.
What we have to do is stop the insurance companies from paying more of the bill than Medicare does.
The current bills are incredibly fake and inflated.
That is the whole problem of 3rd party payer, they LIKE inflated bills because then everyone absolutely needs to have insurance even more.
The whole problem is 3rd party payer, who does not care about quality or cost.
The patient can do nothing because they already prepaid.
It is like prepaid legal service, can not possibly ever work.

It's worked very well for generations. Handing it over to government is the stupidest thing we could possibly do. Government is a huge reason why our healthcare is so expensive to begin with.

For generations the cost to deliver a baby was around $100.

And then came the trail lawyers. Doctors pay tens of thousands of dollars for malpractice. Surgeons and anestlesiologists are in six figure malpractice range. Mind you most lawsuits are failures, but to defend against them is an arm and a leg. Lawsuits can last for years.

 

[pknopp]

As if you would know, brainwash functional moron. LOL. Fifteen million people were added to Medicaid so they have health care, and 75% of those on the exchanges pay less than $100 a month, and people with pre-existing can get great coverage. Approval of it is up to 55% at least even though it is sabotaged by the GOP as much as possible. You got to love those guys. My feeling is that you will all be going to hell. Willful ignorance will not go over well....

Go ahead, all you Dem's voluntarily send government $10,000 to gift healthcare to everyone. Lets see you back up your big talk. No?? Yeah that's we what thought.

I'm not a (D) but I've said many times that I'm willing to pay my share.

Those advocating for universal healthcare can have it tomorrow, just cut a check to the government to pay for it. That's why I call BS on Dem's promising all this free shit because even the most vocal advocates won't part with one dime of their own money to fund it.

How many times do I have to note that I am perfectly willing to pay my share.

 

[pknopp]

Medicare for All reminds me of the original Obamacare, "Health Care for America Plan" which contained a public option allowing people to transfer to a Medicare like system without age restriction. The public option was of course a major target of the insurance companies and was dropped almost immediately by congress.

I think there are some misconceptions about how the Medicare for All proposals would be implemented. Once congress gets hold of any of the current proposals, they would change radically.

• First, it would not be Medicare. It would be a healthcare plan similar to Medicare but would look more like an employer sponsored plan than Medicare.
• It would be phased in over many years opening up first to older Americans and gradually extended to all ages.
• Lastly, there would be supplemental insurance just as there is with Medicare.

Any national healthcare plan would be a series of compromises. We have to remember this is not 1965 when Medicare was passed where deals were made between democrats and republicans to pass major legislation and the influence of lobbyists was far less than today.

What would actually stand a chance at working is allow people with preexisting conditions to go on Medicare. That would remove all the high risk patients from private insurance, and that would cause a price decrease, or at the very least, a price freeze.

Next is Medicare and Medicaid needs to start paying the entire bill instead of only part of it.
In any case, nothing gets done the right way until we work on lowering the cost of medical care first. If we don't do that, we're just passing the buck around.

No, Medicare and Medicaid is paying the only valid portion of the bill.
What we have to do is stop the insurance companies from paying more of the bill than Medicare does.
The current bills are incredibly fake and inflated.
That is the whole problem of 3rd party payer, they LIKE inflated bills because then everyone absolutely needs to have insurance even more.
The whole problem is 3rd party payer, who does not care about quality or cost.
The patient can do nothing because they already prepaid.
It is like prepaid legal service, can not possibly ever work.

It's worked very well for generations. Handing it over to government is the stupidest thing we could possibly do. Government is a huge reason why our healthcare is so expensive to begin with.

For generations the cost to deliver a baby was around $100.

And then came the trail lawyers. Doctors pay tens of thousands of dollars for malpractice. Surgeons and anestlesiologists are in six figure malpractice range. Mind you most lawsuits are failures, but to defend against them is an arm and a leg. Lawsuits can last for years.

We have already agreed for the need of tort reform.

 

[BluesLegend]

And then came the trail lawyers. Doctors pay tens of thousands of dollars for malpractice. Surgeons and anestlesiologists are in six figure malpractice range. Mind you most lawsuits are failures, but to defend against them is an arm and a leg. Lawsuits can last for years.

Yeah but but but trial lawyers are one of the biggest Dem donors and the Dem's BFF...hold on let me call Dem headquarters to get a talking point deflection for this.

 

[Rigby5]

No they don't. It's a tax scam. They take the money they get (and obviously do very well) and then write the "paper loss" off on their taxes.

Write offs don't amount to much. I have nearly a hundred every year. They still lose money if they don't make it up elsewhere.

They don't lose a cent if the bills are artificially and deliberately inflated by over 75%.
And they are.
Which is why ACA is not a fix.
The providers are still way over charging.

They have to again, to recoup their losses. And remember Medicare is not their only loss. So is Medicaid or any government program. Then of course, the uninsured.

Wrong!
There is never a cent lost on Medicare or Medicaid patients.
The fact they do not want to take them as much is because they are not as much profit, but Medicare and Medicaid submissions and payments are always profitable.
The amounts are established by experts.
They never force anyone to take a loss.

Then why do hospitals and clinics primarily close down in low income areas? There is little to no private insurance in those areas. You are only making assumptions and no facts. If you know any doctors personally that you can speak to, just ask them. There is no money in taking care of government patients.

That is not at all true, and my wife worked at a clinic, doing bookkeeping.
The fact doctors want MORE profit, does not at all imply there is no profit in treating government patients.
The rates set by the government are established by medical experts.
They are not wrong.
If there were no profit in taking government patients, then no one would. But the reality is many do specialize in government patients, and they still do very well.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, we all pay for it. Do you think doctors and hospitals operate at a loss? They get that lost money back from other places.

It's also why these figures are all wrong by Sander's or anybody else. They are calculating what it would cost for all of us to be on Medicare, not figuring in how to pay for those losses since private pay and private insurance would no longer be doing it.

I disagree.
When medical providers are only paid a third of what they charge, they are not operating at a loss.
It is just that they have jacked up their bills by over 4 times what they should be.

The savings that would pay for medicare for all would be the billions currently wasted on filling out private insurance claims, prepaying premiums, tax exempt employer benefits, incredibly jacked up provider charges, profit skimming by insurance companies and medical corporation monopolies, etc.
Other countries prove health care costs can be cut in half and still provide better quality service.

Nobody has better healthcare than the US when it comes to quality.

I'm a patient at the world famous Cleveland Clinic. In fact, was just there yesterday to get checked out. When you go to their downtown campus, you are the one who feels like a foreigner.

It's not just patients, it's doctors as well. They either come here from their socialized medical care countries to make some real money, or come here, get educated, and never return home. So because of our system, we draw the best talent from around the world.

My sister works there as well. She can testify to the amount of Canadian patients at the Clinic looking for some relief that they couldn't get in their socialized medical care country. In fact, all our northern hospitals have Canadian patients.

So you can't tell me of another country that's problem-less either. They all have either extremely slow services, low quality equipment, medications we quit using decades ago, or outright refuse to treat some people. Nobody has a perfect medial system, including ours.

Not at all true.
The US is ranked something like 29th in health care.
Medical tourism FROM the US is 100 times higher than people coming to the US for medical care.
The only people coming to the US for medical care are the very wealthy who want elite care.
That is not what most people in the US get.
The US has over 100,000 a year dying from medical malpractice, and is one of the worst in the world for health care quality.
The fact we pay physicians more does not mean we get better quality health care.

Writing bad mortgages had nothing at all to do with the 2008 real estate collapse.

That's hilarious!!

The proof these were not bad mortgages in the first place, is that people had been successfully making payments on them for many years.

Refinancing during the growth phase of a bubble is easy.

It was the changes in 2008 that doubled their monthly payment that caused the home buyers to default

You mean that mortgages that were current at 1% interest and in default at 5% interest were good mortgages?

and that was NOT their fault.

People who took out loans they couldn't afford are entirely blameless?

The mortage defaults were never allowed to refinance.
The bubble busting made their home not worth enough for them to qualify.
They owed more than the home was worth.
But they still would have kept making their old payments because they would want to protect their down payment.
But they could not make the new ARM payments that as much as doubled.

There were no 1% interest mortgages.
They lowest mortgages during the bubble were around 8%, and the bust made them jump to over 15%.
The drop to 3% did not happen until years later, when there were so many foreclosures that banks had to eventually drop rates.

Almost no one took out real estate loans they could not afford.
They were making the payments successfully, and could have continued doing so.
It was their rates being jack up deceptively by ARM loans that forced them to default.
Do you think they just wanted to throw away their down payment and years of monthly payments?
They liked being make homeless?

Again, read about the LIBOR scandal.
Libor scandal - Wikipedia

But they could not make the new ARM payments that as much as doubled.

If you can only afford the teaser rate.....chances are you got a bad mortgage.

There were no 1% interest mortgages.

There were definitely mortgages with very low teaser rates as well as negative amortization mortgages.

They lowest mortgages during the bubble were around 8%,

If rates were 8% or higher, the bubble wouldn't have happened.

and the bust made them jump to over 15%.

You're lying.

It was their rates being jack up deceptively by ARM loans that forced them to default.

Deceptively? LOL!
When was the last time you took out a mortgage?
The pages and pages of rate disclosure documents are hard to miss.

Do you think they just wanted to throw away their down payment and years of monthly payments?

Many had very low or no down payment at all.

First of all, teaser rates most definitely ARE DECEPTIVE and not the fault of the borrower.
Second is that the loan paper work did NOT disclose that the loan was based on the British LIBOR instead of the US Prime, and that in a recession when the US Prime would go down, the LIBOR would greatly go UP!

First of all, teaser rates most definitely ARE DECEPTIVE

You're lying.

Second is that the loan paper work did NOT disclose that the loan was based on the British LIBOR instead of the US Prime

You're lying.

in a recession when the US Prime would go down, the LIBOR would greatly go UP!

No one knew LIBOR would go up. Any specifics?
Or just something you heard?

View attachment 291977

3-Month London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR), based on U.S. Dollar | FRED | St. Louis Fed

Was this "greatly go UP"?

Yes, teaser interest rates most definitely are deliberately deceptive.
The buyers were lead to belief they could easily refinance at reasonable rates when the balloon payment came due.
But the market collapse meant they were denied any refinance.

Your graph shows a spike in the LIBOR that doubled.
And the LIBOR scandal was about the fact it was not just known about, but deliberately created.

Libor scandal - Wikipedia

Yes, teaser interest rates most definitely are deliberately deceptive.

You have this "teaser rate" for 12 months.
For the 13th month, your rate will be (insert index rate) plus 2 points.

Sounds pretty clear to me.

The buyers were lead to belief they could easily refinance at reasonable rates

Oh, basing your purchase on the ability of a real estate agent to predict future events/prices/rates.

You might be a moron if.......

But the market collapse meant they were denied any refinance.

Unless your loan documents said you were guaranteed a new loan.......not deceptive.

And the LIBOR scandal was about the fact it was not just known about, but deliberately created.

Unless your reset was in that short period in my chart......meh.

 

[pknopp]

And then came the trail lawyers. Doctors pay tens of thousands of dollars for malpractice. Surgeons and anestlesiologists are in six figure malpractice range. Mind you most lawsuits are failures, but to defend against them is an arm and a leg. Lawsuits can last for years.

Yeah but but but trial lawyers are one of the biggest Dem donors and the Dem's BFF...hold on let me call Dem headquarters to get a talking point deflection for this.

Which is why nothing was done and it's widely acknowledged that Obamacare has failed.

 

[Rigby5]

As if you would know, brainwash functional moron. LOL. Fifteen million people were added to Medicaid so they have health care, and 75% of those on the exchanges pay less than $100 a month, and people with pre-existing can get great coverage. Approval of it is up to 55% at least even though it is sabotaged by the GOP as much as possible. You got to love those guys. My feeling is that you will all be going to hell. Willful ignorance will not go over well....

Go ahead, all you Dem's voluntarily send government $10,000 to gift healthcare to everyone. Lets see you back up your big talk. No?? Yeah that's we what thought.

I'm not a (D) but I've said many times that I'm willing to pay my share.

Those advocating for universal healthcare can have it tomorrow, just cut a check to the government to pay for it. That's why I call BS on Dem's promising all this free shit because even the most vocal advocates won't part with one dime of their own money to fund it.

Why should anyone have to pay more for universal health care when they are paying twice as much for private insurance now anyway?
Universal health care does NOT cost more, but about half as much.

 

[BluesLegend]

How many times do I have to note that I am perfectly willing to pay my share.

That's what they all say but like you none have cut a check, shocker. I see you have internet service, cancel it and send the money to Bernie.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

An entire thread of Leftards justifying raising taxes on people making $14/hr. Wowzers.

No, public health care would save everyone lots of money, and not cost anyone any more than they spend now.
The rest of the world is proof.

Rationing and long waiting lists are awesome!!!

There is no rationing or long waiting lists for emergencies in Canada, England, France, Germany, or any place with public health care.

There is no rationing or long waiting lists for emergencies in Canada, England, France, Germany, or any place with public health care.

What about for non-emergencies?

Anyone can make a lying video.
There are long waits for non-emergency medical care in the US as well.
When I had a colonoscopy scheduled, the soonest was 8 months out.
The people I know in other countries, like Canada, definitely have shorter waits, and better quality care.
Not to mention they pay less than half as much.

Anyone can make a lying video.

Or a true one.

There are long waits for non-emergency medical care in the US as well.

I don't believe you.

When I had a colonoscopy scheduled, the soonest was 8 months out.

They had to train 2 or 3 volunteers to work their way in there...…..

The people I know in other countries, like Canada, definitely have shorter waits, and better quality care.

Like the woman who had both her mom's legs amputated...…..