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

[Weatherman2020]

Even Leftard Fact-check says Canadian wait times are twice as long as Americans wait times.

Comparing Health Care in Canada to the U.S.

Incomplete answer is misleading.

{...
Q: Is health care better in Canada?

A: Wait times are longer in Canada, but health and doctor quality don’t seem to suffer.
...}

The reality is Canada is rated higher than the US for over all health care.
Things that can not wait are done faster and better in Canada.
Something should have a longer wait, so that more important things happen sooner.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-co...dians-increasingly-come-to-us-for-health-care

https://ctvnews.ca/mobile/health/63...reatment-last-year-fraser-institute-1.3486635

Why Canadians Are Increasingly Seeking Medical Treatment Abroad

Canadians Come to America for Better Care

We have some great care..........for those who can afford it.

Like the millions of illegals who get healthcare in America? They’re all RICH!

They do not get healthcare. I do not know why you want to continue with something you know is false. They can access emergency care.

Illegals don’t get healthcare in America?

Youre a friggen troll

 

[Grumblenuts]

What’s the world ranking of Cuban healthcare according to the list you use?

79. Higher than the United States.

Life Expectancy in United States

Thanks for making my point. Your rankings are BS, nobody goes to Cuba for healthcare.

BTW, 2 second search.

So These the "Bad Hombres" Trump Wants to Get Rid Of?

You can put the money in my PayPal.

No idea anyone claimed anyone does.

Every Leftist, including you, claim Cuban healthcare is better.

Yet no one in the world goes there for treatment.

Quit saying that.
It is totally wrong.
Lots of people, including from the US, go to Cuba for medical care, every single year.

Medical Tourism in Cuba - Cuba Health Care System | myMEDholiday

{...
Cuba has catapulted into the public imagination since the beginning of the 21st century with its nascent, but rapidly developing medical tourism industry. The country has already established a reputation for medical treatments that include drug and alcohol rehabilitation, eye surgery, orthopedics, heart surgeries, dermatology, neurology and cosmetic surgeries. Medical institutions like Cira Garcia Clinic, Gonzalez Coro and Hermanos Ameijeiras in Cuba have the provision of separate rooms and facilities for medical tourists. The excellent quality of the doctors and the supporting staff in the country is a big advantage and is one of the most significant contributing factors to the growth of the economy through medical tourism. Medical services work out to be approximately 60 percent cheaper as compared to North American countries, without compromising on the quality and efficacy of the treatments involved.
...}

Yet another opportunity for the U.S. to lead the world pissed away.. thanks AMA:

physician associations behave like cartels that control the healthcare system. They limit the supply of doctors to keep salaries high, and use legislation to shut out competition from other medical professions.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What’s the world ranking of Cuban healthcare according to the list you use?

79. Higher than the United States.

Life Expectancy in United States

Thanks for making my point. Your rankings are BS, nobody goes to Cuba for healthcare.

BTW, 2 second search.

So These the "Bad Hombres" Trump Wants to Get Rid Of?

You can put the money in my PayPal.

Wrong!
Not only do thousands of people go to Cuba for health care each year, but teams of Cuban health providers are hired to come to other countries to deal with medical problems, like epidemics, etc.
Cuba has much better health care than the US in general. Just not some of the top, over paid, specialists.

Cuba has much better health care than the US in general.

Wow!

You'll believe anything.

He has been providing pretty good verification for what he says.

Yeah, commie propaganda is verification of sorts.

 

[Flopper]

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.

Maybe so. All depends on how loud and united we can get. With Bernie as POTUS things could be radically different as Congress has also ceded much of its former responsibility and control to the WH. Bernie can't be bought. Huge difference.

Even if Bernie is elected and democrats controlled congress, there would be major changes in his healthcare program. Transition from Obamacare to Medicare for All would result in major transitional problems in the healthcare system, probably greater than the transition to Obamacare because it would effectively eliminate most private insurance. A smooth transition would take may years but democrats would not have many years. Unless republicans supported the law which is extremely unlikely, they would repeal or change the system as soon as they got control.

 

[pknopp]

Incomplete answer is misleading.

{...
Q: Is health care better in Canada?

A: Wait times are longer in Canada, but health and doctor quality don’t seem to suffer.
...}

The reality is Canada is rated higher than the US for over all health care.
Things that can not wait are done faster and better in Canada.
Something should have a longer wait, so that more important things happen sooner.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-co...dians-increasingly-come-to-us-for-health-care

https://ctvnews.ca/mobile/health/63...reatment-last-year-fraser-institute-1.3486635

Why Canadians Are Increasingly Seeking Medical Treatment Abroad

Canadians Come to America for Better Care

We have some great care..........for those who can afford it.

Like the millions of illegals who get healthcare in America? They’re all RICH!

They do not get healthcare. I do not know why you want to continue with something you know is false. They can access emergency care.

Illegals don’t get healthcare in America?

Youre a friggen troll

I made a complete point. You can address that or not. No, illegals do not get healthcare. They can get emergency treatment.

 

[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.

Maybe so. All depends on how loud and united we can get. With Bernie as POTUS things could be radically different as Congress has also ceded much of its former responsibility and control to the WH. Bernie can't be bought. Huge difference.

Even if Bernie is elected and democrats controlled congress, there would be major changes in his healthcare program. Transition from Obamacare to Medicare for All would result in major problems in healthcare system, probably greater than the transition to Obamacare because it would effectively eliminate most private insurance. A smooth transition would take may years but democrats would not have many years. Unless republicans supported the law which is extremely unlikely, they would be trying repeal or change the system as soon as they got control.

Like they did with Obamacare?

 

[dblack]

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.

Maybe so. All depends on how loud and united we can get. With Bernie as POTUS things could be radically different as Congress has also ceded much of its former responsibility and control to the WH. Bernie can't be bought. Huge difference.

Even if Bernie is elected and democrats controlled congress, there would be major changes in his healthcare program. Transition from Obamacare to Medicare for All would result in major problems in healthcare system, probably greater than the transition to Obamacare because it would effectively eliminate most private insurance. A smooth transition would take may years but democrats would not have many years. Unless republicans supported the law which is extremely unlikely, they would be trying repeal or change the system as soon as they got control.

Yep. We can't make major changes to society without actual consensus. If we try to force it, it just creates wasteful thrashing.

 

[francoHFW]

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

At least he's being honest.

In all countries where there is publicly-funded healthcare, middle class taxes are higher to fund it.

The idea that we can just tax rich people and fund Medicare for All is a socialist fantasy.

No where ever had a flat tax system like we have now. Or an incredibly overpriced health system that could use the regulation.

 

[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.

Maybe so. All depends on how loud and united we can get. With Bernie as POTUS things could be radically different as Congress has also ceded much of its former responsibility and control to the WH. Bernie can't be bought. Huge difference.

Even if Bernie is elected and democrats controlled congress, there would be major changes in his healthcare program. Transition from Obamacare to Medicare for All would result in major problems in healthcare system, probably greater than the transition to Obamacare because it would effectively eliminate most private insurance. A smooth transition would take may years but democrats would not have many years. Unless republicans supported the law which is extremely unlikely, they would be trying repeal or change the system as soon as they got control.

Yep. We can't make major changes to society without actual consensus. If we try to force it, it just creates wasteful thrashing.

a public option would probably get us to medicare-for-all as fast as Sanders plan. He wants to bring down the age limit by 10 years every year.....

 

[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.

Maybe so. All depends on how loud and united we can get. With Bernie as POTUS things could be radically different as Congress has also ceded much of its former responsibility and control to the WH. Bernie can't be bought. Huge difference.

Even if Bernie is elected and democrats controlled congress, there would be major changes in his healthcare program. Transition from Obamacare to Medicare for All would result in major transitional problems in the healthcare system, probably greater than the transition to Obamacare because it would effectively eliminate most private insurance. A smooth transition would take may years but democrats would not have many years. Unless republicans supported the law which is extremely unlikely, they would repeal or change the system as soon as they got control.

Obama is their poster child for Democrat race acceptance. Even though long gone, I can't see them getting rid of his most known achievement that bears his name. They just won't do it.

 

[dblack]

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.

Maybe so. All depends on how loud and united we can get. With Bernie as POTUS things could be radically different as Congress has also ceded much of its former responsibility and control to the WH. Bernie can't be bought. Huge difference.

Even if Bernie is elected and democrats controlled congress, there would be major changes in his healthcare program. Transition from Obamacare to Medicare for All would result in major problems in healthcare system, probably greater than the transition to Obamacare because it would effectively eliminate most private insurance. A smooth transition would take may years but democrats would not have many years. Unless republicans supported the law which is extremely unlikely, they would be trying repeal or change the system as soon as they got control.

Yep. We can't make major changes to society without actual consensus. If we try to force it, it just creates wasteful thrashing.

a public option would probably get us to medicare-for-all as fast as Sanders plan. He wants to bring down the age limit by 10 years every year.....

I was responding to Flopper's post, which you apparently didn't read.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

At least he's being honest.

In all countries where there is publicly-funded healthcare, middle class taxes are higher to fund it.

The idea that we can just tax rich people and fund Medicare for All is a socialist fantasy.

No where ever had a flat tax system like we have now. Or an incredibly overpriced health system that could use the regulation.

No where ever had a flat tax system like we have now.

How flat is it without payroll taxes?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Even Leftard Fact-check says Canadian wait times are twice as long as Americans wait times.

Comparing Health Care in Canada to the U.S.

Incomplete answer is misleading.

{...
Q: Is health care better in Canada?

A: Wait times are longer in Canada, but health and doctor quality don’t seem to suffer.
...}

The reality is Canada is rated higher than the US for over all health care.
Things that can not wait are done faster and better in Canada.
Something should have a longer wait, so that more important things happen sooner.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-co...dians-increasingly-come-to-us-for-health-care

https://ctvnews.ca/mobile/health/63...reatment-last-year-fraser-institute-1.3486635

Why Canadians Are Increasingly Seeking Medical Treatment Abroad

Canadians Come to America for Better Care

We have some great care..........for those who can afford it.

Like the millions of illegals who get healthcare in America? They’re all RICH!

They do not get healthcare. I do not know why you want to continue with something you know is false. They can access emergency care.

Their kids get it through Medicaid. Those who have a job with healthcare benefits get it as well, as long as they have a stolen identification and SS number.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So you like people making $14/hr getting higher taxes on their paychecks.
Yep. You Leftards hate the poor.

And free healthcare. It's a great deal actually but you brainwashed functional morons are so fear mongered I think we have to go with the public option like Obama wanted. He also did not want to mandate. Scary how total garbage propaganda is so powerful....

And free healthcare! Just like Canada so we can wait 19 months for a pacemaker!

Most people can wait 19 months for a pacemaker.
The waiting time in the US is about the same in countries with public health care, but they pay less than half as much.

Even Leftard Fact-check says Canadian wait times are twice as long as Americans wait times.

Comparing Health Care in Canada to the U.S.

Incomplete answer is misleading.

{...
Q: Is health care better in Canada?

A: Wait times are longer in Canada, but health and doctor quality don’t seem to suffer.
...}

The reality is Canada is rated higher than the US for over all health care.
Things that can not wait are done faster and better in Canada.
Something should have a longer wait, so that more important things happen sooner.

People with money in Canada buy insurance just like we do if they want much better care than the government doles out. I believe because of all the problems, they started that program around ten years ago.

But I say talk to a Canadian about it. We get Canadian drivers here, and we BS while waiting to get loaded. The younger and middle-aged drivers tell me they love it. The older drivers tell me I don't know how lucky I am to be in a country with our system of healthcare.

 

[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.

Maybe so. All depends on how loud and united we can get. With Bernie as POTUS things could be radically different as Congress has also ceded much of its former responsibility and control to the WH. Bernie can't be bought. Huge difference.

Even if Bernie is elected and democrats controlled congress, there would be major changes in his healthcare program. Transition from Obamacare to Medicare for All would result in major problems in healthcare system, probably greater than the transition to Obamacare because it would effectively eliminate most private insurance. A smooth transition would take may years but democrats would not have many years. Unless republicans supported the law which is extremely unlikely, they would be trying repeal or change the system as soon as they got control.

Yep. We can't make major changes to society without actual consensus. If we try to force it, it just creates wasteful thrashing.

a public option would probably get us to medicare-for-all as fast as Sanders plan. He wants to bring down the age limit by 10 years every year.....

I was responding to Flopper's post, which you apparently didn't read.

the point still remains. Biden is for a public option and I think that is the way to go. Americans do not like being mandated they like choice.

 

[dblack]

Maybe so. All depends on how loud and united we can get. With Bernie as POTUS things could be radically different as Congress has also ceded much of its former responsibility and control to the WH. Bernie can't be bought. Huge difference.

Even if Bernie is elected and democrats controlled congress, there would be major changes in his healthcare program. Transition from Obamacare to Medicare for All would result in major problems in healthcare system, probably greater than the transition to Obamacare because it would effectively eliminate most private insurance. A smooth transition would take may years but democrats would not have many years. Unless republicans supported the law which is extremely unlikely, they would be trying repeal or change the system as soon as they got control.

Yep. We can't make major changes to society without actual consensus. If we try to force it, it just creates wasteful thrashing.

a public option would probably get us to medicare-for-all as fast as Sanders plan. He wants to bring down the age limit by 10 years every year.....

I was responding to Flopper's post, which you apparently didn't read.

the point still remains. Biden is for a public option and I think that is the way to go. Americans do not like being mandated they like choice.

It remains a non-sequitur, an interruption in someone else's conversation to blurt out your own moronic opinions. Piss off.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What’s the world ranking of Cuban healthcare according to the list you use?

79. Higher than the United States.

Life Expectancy in United States

Thanks for making my point. Your rankings are BS, nobody goes to Cuba for healthcare.

BTW, 2 second search.

So These the "Bad Hombres" Trump Wants to Get Rid Of?

You can put the money in my PayPal.

No idea anyone claimed anyone does.

Every Leftist, including you, claim Cuban healthcare is better.

Yet no one in the world goes there for treatment.

Quit saying that.
It is totally wrong.
Lots of people, including from the US, go to Cuba for medical care, every single year.

http://www.mymedholiday.com/country/cuba

{...
Cuba has catapulted into the public imagination since the beginning of the 21st century with its nascent, but rapidly developing medical tourism industry. The country has already established a reputation for medical treatments that include drug and alcohol rehabilitation, eye surgery, orthopedics, heart surgeries, dermatology, neurology and cosmetic surgeries. Medical institutions like Cira Garcia Clinic, Gonzalez Coro and Hermanos Ameijeiras in Cuba have the provision of separate rooms and facilities for medical tourists. The excellent quality of the doctors and the supporting staff in the country is a big advantage and is one of the most significant contributing factors to the growth of the economy through medical tourism. Medical services work out to be approximately 60 percent cheaper as compared to North American countries, without compromising on the quality and efficacy of the treatments involved.
...}

Micheal Moorcrap said that one time. Guess where he gets his care at?

 

[Flopper]

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!

The only reason we're ranked 29th is because not everybody has equal coverage.

According to the people who like the current system, less than 10% are without private coverage, and they get free ER care.
I think the reality is that more than 20% actually are without coverage, and the current system has very poor quality care.
I know people who went in for chest pains, were told it was indigestion, and they died a well later from a heart attack.
I know someone else who had a seizure, went in for MRI and xrays, were told nothing found, and a month later other doctors removed a golf ball sized tumor. But too late.
When I don't have insurance, no office will even take me, and I have to use ER or Urgent care.
ER wanted $2500 for a couple of stitches.

I have a lot of family that are healthcare providers and I have not seen or heard of most of the problems you listed.

My guess is that higher deductibles are keeping more people from going to the doctor with relatively minor problems because they are paying 100% of the cost while expanded Medicaid is encouraging people to seek medical help even for minor problems. For people with fairly serious problems such that they exceed their deductible or their yearly maximum, they are able to get the care they need without bankrupting the family, losing their home, etc.

 

[Rigby5]

Thanks for making my point. Your rankings are BS, nobody goes to Cuba for healthcare.

BTW, 2 second search.

So These the "Bad Hombres" Trump Wants to Get Rid Of?

You can put the money in my PayPal.

No idea anyone claimed anyone does.

Every Leftist, including you, claim Cuban healthcare is better.

Yet no one in the world goes there for treatment.

Quit saying that.
It is totally wrong.
Lots of people, including from the US, go to Cuba for medical care, every single year.

Medical Tourism in Cuba - Cuba Health Care System | myMEDholiday

{...
Cuba has catapulted into the public imagination since the beginning of the 21st century with its nascent, but rapidly developing medical tourism industry. The country has already established a reputation for medical treatments that include drug and alcohol rehabilitation, eye surgery, orthopedics, heart surgeries, dermatology, neurology and cosmetic surgeries. Medical institutions like Cira Garcia Clinic, Gonzalez Coro and Hermanos Ameijeiras in Cuba have the provision of separate rooms and facilities for medical tourists. The excellent quality of the doctors and the supporting staff in the country is a big advantage and is one of the most significant contributing factors to the growth of the economy through medical tourism. Medical services work out to be approximately 60 percent cheaper as compared to North American countries, without compromising on the quality and efficacy of the treatments involved.
...}

Wow, thanks. I had no idea.

You had no idea because it’s illegal for Americans to go to Cuba for that reason.

US citizens have been going to Cuba for decades, they just used to go through Canadian arrangements.
But Obama ended most of the restrictions.
It is much easier for US citizens to go to Cuba now.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Do I get a dollar for every Leftard post on USMB praising Cuban healthcare?

You would have nothing.

What’s the world ranking of Cuban healthcare according to the list you use?

79. Higher than the United States.

Life Expectancy in United States

Thanks for making my point. Your rankings are BS, nobody goes to Cuba for healthcare.

BTW, 2 second search.

So These the "Bad Hombres" Trump Wants to Get Rid Of?

You can put the money in my PayPal.

Wrong!
Not only do thousands of people go to Cuba for health care each year, but teams of Cuban health providers are hired to come to other countries to deal with medical problems, like epidemics, etc.
Cuba has much better health care than the US in general. Just not some of the top, over paid, specialists.

Do you go to Cuba? No!

Can you name a single person who did? No!

Can you name a single American treated by one of these imaginary Cuban doctors? No!