Is it time for Universal Healthcare....and can it be done?

[BluesLegend]

Can I opt out of this commie care or will the libs force me onto universal healthcare because they need my money to pay for all their moochers?

 

[BluesLegend]

and just maybe we would get doctor's who are in it to actually help patients instead of the money.

^^^ another stupid ass socialist who lives in fantasy land. Why do shit for brains liberals always assume the people they are trying to screw over are 'rich' and can afford it?

Not a lib or a socialist, but it is you that lives in fantasy land. Get rid of Medicaid, Medicare, VA and tricare and you have more than enough to insure everyone in the U.S. But I don't advocate Medicare for All just a form, let everyone 55 or above receive Medicare, lower the insurance rates on individual plans to what they were 20 years ago, medically underwrite all policy's and anyone who is declined buys into Medicare and a higher rate than anyone that is currently on it until they reach 55.

AHAHAHA riiiiiight you forget I have read your posts before, lib.

The bunch of dumb ass politicians, especially dump shit Dem's assume well just pay doctors less no big deal they are rich. The reality is to prop up government's pyramid schemes they force doctors to take less than it actually costs to treat the patient so they are treating patients at a loss.

 

[froggy]

First off, for those that know me...I am a conservative.
I do ask the question in sincerity.
Last year with health premiums, and healthcare bills, my wife and I spent $7,040 for the two of us.
Then add in the employers portion of premium and that totals up to roughly $11,000.
Even with that, we are well below the average cost the average American pays.
So, would I pay out say... $600 a month in taxes, and my employer in lieu of paying premiums, pay another $400 a month? Instead of paying an insurer?
Yes, yes I would.
But only if the care was equally as good.
And would it be?
How would we, as a nation, pay for the bums and lazy asses who won't work?
Should a "health tax" be income specific? So someone who makes $250,000 a year would pay a great deal more than a $50,000 a year person? Would that work?

One thing is for certain. The current system is not working well. We are paying more and more and more to insurers who are raising deductibles and increasing premiums while covering less.
What fix is there?

Something has to be done to fix the disaster we are in now

 

[MaryAnne11]

We need to get the health care lobby out of government, keeping their monopoly pricing alive.

We need to get government out of health care. They are the ones that fucked this up.

No, we need to get Insurance lobbyists and Insurance companies out of our and Congress pocket.

 

[MaryAnne11]

I'm also not responsible for paying for your damn cable tv, water and garbage, electric bill, rent, or your damn car payment. Moochers need to get up off their ass and pay their own bills.

You don't pay anyone else's cable, water, garbage, electric, rent or car payment.
Only when there are dependent children are there any minor subsidies available, like Section 8 rent help, which only pays about 30% at most.
Almost all the Human Services federal money goes to disabled vets.

Government abolished welfare??? Oh wait they didn't

You obviously don't know anything about welfare.
If you are a male and not disabled, you just will not qualify.
Women with dependent children are the only ones who can get it, unless you are disabled.

I pay 10 times as much in taxes as the average middle class family, what do you mooching Dem's do with all my money?

You poor thing. I feel for you,Not!

Maybe you need a good tax man to help you.

 

[MaryAnne11]

"In another attempt to undermine health care, the Trump Administration is putting power back into the hands of insurance companies by making it easier for them to sell junk insurance -- plans that skirt patient protections for pre-existing conditions and maternity care." - Senator Patty Murray

How many people TRULY were unable to get health insurance BEFORE ACA because of "pre-existing conditions"?
Now don't use the gigantic lie Obama stated:Up to half of all Americans have a pre-existing condition." — Barack Obama on Thursday, September 26th, 2013 in a speech about ACA.

I'm waiting for you to do a little research as I know the answer but YOU need to do some scholarly work and see how your BIASED MSM has NOT shared the Truth that Obama LIED
about i.e. half of all Americans!

From those who signed up for the ACA I would say quite a few.

 

[healthmyths]

"In another attempt to undermine health care, the Trump Administration is putting power back into the hands of insurance companies by making it easier for them to sell junk insurance -- plans that skirt patient protections for pre-existing conditions and maternity care." - Senator Patty Murray

How many people TRULY were unable to get health insurance BEFORE ACA because of "pre-existing conditions"?
Now don't use the gigantic lie Obama stated:Up to half of all Americans have a pre-existing condition." — Barack Obama on Thursday, September 26th, 2013 in a speech about ACA.

I'm waiting for you to do a little research as I know the answer but YOU need to do some scholarly work and see how your BIASED MSM has NOT shared the Truth that Obama LIED
about i.e. half of all Americans!

From those who signed up for the ACA I would say quite a few.

The answer is this but you won't take the time to f/u with the links I provide but here for scholarly and intelligent discourse are the facts.
In reality there were less than 1.5 Americans denied health insurance OR they still got health insurance but paid a higher premium. FAR FAR cry from 160 million!
Then when ACA supposedly was to eliminate ALL "pre-existing conditions" how many people took advantage of the actual way ACA handled "pre-existing conditions ? 115,000!
YUP that's how many signed up for the PCIP feature of ACA.

CIP Enrollment Far, Far Below Expectations In First Year
Since its creation in July 2010, the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan has insured 30,395 people, according to the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the program. Officials initially estimated the initiative could reach as many as 375,000 by the end of 2010. There are up to 25 million uninsured Americans who have pre-existing conditions like heart disease or diabetes.
PCIP Enrollment Far, Far Below Expectations In First Year | HuffPost
Now that was in 2011.
NOTE how the BIASED huffingtonpost truly misrepresented the figures JUST as OBAMA DID!!!!
"There are up to 25 million uninsured Americans who have pre-existing conditions like heart disease or diabetes. "
Yup there probably are... but
A) with 10 million of Obama's BIG LIE of 46 million uninsured Americans being illegals that meant 22% of 46 million illegals.
So of the 25 million supposedly uninsured.. 22% being illegals that leaves 20 million of the supposedly 25 million!
B) with 14 million eligible and this was before ACA for Medicaid.. of the supposedly 46 million that is 30%! So 30% of 25 million is almost 8 million.

C) So that leaves of the supposedly 25 million uninsured 12 million. Finally... of that supposedly 46 million 18 million were under 34 years old employed and
refused employers health insurance WHICH would have paid for diabetes! 18 million of 46 million is 40% or 10 million of the 25 supposedly million!
When you add 5 million + 8 million + 10 million that 23 million of the supposedly 25 million less then 2 million.

Do you know understand how the BIASED MSM in cahoots with Obama obscured the realities and the proof is in the below links!


AGAIN...

 

[dblack]

First off, for those that know me...I am a conservative.
I do ask the question in sincerity.
Last year with health premiums, and healthcare bills, my wife and I spent $7,040 for the two of us.
Then add in the employers portion of premium and that totals up to roughly $11,000.
Even with that, we are well below the average cost the average American pays.
So, would I pay out say... $600 a month in taxes, and my employer in lieu of paying premiums, pay another $400 a month? Instead of paying an insurer?
Yes, yes I would.
But only if the care was equally as good.
And would it be?
How would we, as a nation, pay for the bums and lazy asses who won't work?
Should a "health tax" be income specific? So someone who makes $250,000 a year would pay a great deal more than a $50,000 a year person? Would that work?

One thing is for certain. The current system is not working well. We are paying more and more and more to insurers who are raising deductibles and increasing premiums while covering less.
What fix is there?

Something has to be done to fix the disaster we are in now

Which isn't to say that "anything" should be done. Or to imply that "anything" is better than nothing. Doing something that would make things worse, for example, should NOT be done.

 

[sakinago]

First off, for those that know me...I am a conservative.
I do ask the question in sincerity.
Last year with health premiums, and healthcare bills, my wife and I spent $7,040 for the two of us.
Then add in the employers portion of premium and that totals up to roughly $11,000.
Even with that, we are well below the average cost the average American pays.
So, would I pay out say... $600 a month in taxes, and my employer in lieu of paying premiums, pay another $400 a month? Instead of paying an insurer?
Yes, yes I would.
But only if the care was equally as good.
And would it be?
How would we, as a nation, pay for the bums and lazy asses who won't work?
Should a "health tax" be income specific? So someone who makes $250,000 a year would pay a great deal more than a $50,000 a year person? Would that work?

One thing is for certain. The current system is not working well. We are paying more and more and more to insurers who are raising deductibles and increasing premiums while covering less.
What fix is there?

So what you’re referring too is single payer or socialistic healthcare, not the same as universal, and there’s an important difference. Universal healthcare just means that everyone has to buy health insurance, or be subject to fine. Kind of like how if you have a car, you need insurance to drive that car around, but it still allows for a free market system. This is what the ACA (Obamacare) did, except it also stated, to put this in car insurance terms, that all the safe drivers have to pay for or supplement the bad drivers who can’t afford car insurance too. Now that’s a little bit of an insensitive way to put it since sick people are not always responsible for their ailments, but it illustrates the metaphor in a fairly good way. That’s not saying that insurance companies weren’t playing too loosely with the term “prexisting condition”, just that Obamacare was a really dumb way of getting around that. So as a result from the ACA, we got the worst of both worlds. We got a universal system, but one that inserted even more regulation into an already heavily regulated industry. This is in contrast to the Swiss system, probably the best system in the world, which is a universal system, but one with very little regulation. I would be open to a system like this; ok if it’s going to be universal, stop making me purchase through my employer (if they wanna chip in great), stop limiting our choices in the type of coverages we have to get, or where and who we can purchase from. If I’m a young, single male or whatever, let me get dirt cheap insurance with little coverage. Then when I start a family I’ll up the coverage. Or give me a medium expensive plan when I’m young healthy and single, so when I get older and start a family, the price will not change as much since I’ve been paying into it longer and the insurance company was able to cover the risk ahead of time.

Single payer at best is only good when you come down with the flu or something common. In other words, it is utilitarian and does what is good for the majority (in need of healthcare), not necassarily the minority (in need of healthcare). So, as long as you are a relatively healthy person, single payer seems pretty good to you. But, let’s say you have some rare mitochondrial disease, or aggressive cancer or something. Not a good system for you. Since the specialized doctors are limited, and the state is footing the bill devoid of emotion from the situation. This is why cancer survivability rates are higher in America than in countries with single payer systems. Emergency services in these countries are also not on par with the America system. That doesn’t mean that if you are having a massive heart attack you are screwed, just that you’d be better off in America since there would be little chance you’d be stuck waiting 4 hours for an ambulance or in the waiting room on a busy night. Or let’s say grandpa needs a new knee, in America gramps gets that knee PDQ. In those countries grandpa usually gets a cane and some pain pills. If he really needs a new knee, he’s waiting 4-6 months for it while being wheelchair bound. Another thing to mention about these countries is that many of them still have privatized insurance that those who are better off purchase, to offer them preferential treatment in a sense. Also it is a very inefficient system in many (pretty much all) cases (which is why privatized insurance is still offered). I think the statistic is that around 60% of the UK working population works in the healthcare field, and a large majority of them are paper pushers, not doctors and nurses. That is not an efficient system if it requires that many people dealing with red tape.

Single payer (Medicare for all) in America is estimated to cost between 29-34 trillion over the next 10 years. This is almost double the entire nations GDP, and 10 times the government tax revue. Mind you, we already have a state sponsored healthcare system to look too in the form of the VA, not very promising. Another thing to keep in mind is that in the fiscal year of 2016 alone, the fed misspent over 1 trillion dollars. Misspent doesn’t mean wasteful spending either on stupid stuff like bedays for cats, or a couple million here for an Argentinian clown college. Misspent is government making double payments here, or paying the wrong person here, or money just straight up disappearing and unaccounted for. 1 trillion gone, a full third of what the government takes in in taxes gone, over 5% of national GDP gone, the entire worth of apple (the first 1 trillion dollar company ever) gone. This is government you’re OK with taking over our healthcare system?

 

[2aguy]

It is way past time for Universal Health Care. Why are we the only developed country without Healthcare daycare paid parental leave living wage cheap College and training good vacations Fair taxes on the rich national ID card to stop illegal immigration Etc etc etc? Scumbag GOP and silly dupes Like Norman...

The socialized medical care in other countries is only affordable now, because the United States spends our money to protect those countries. If they each had to pony up enough money to keep their countries safe, they couldn't afford their unaffordable healthcare. And if you look at their books... their health care systems are unsustainable, even with the U.S. protecting them.

 

[sakinago]

It is way past time for Universal Health Care. Why are we the only developed country without Healthcare daycare paid parental leave living wage cheap College and training good vacations Fair taxes on the rich national ID card to stop illegal immigration Etc etc etc? Scumbag GOP and silly dupes Like Norman...

The socialized medical care in other countries is only affordable now, because the United States spends our money to protect those countries. If they each had to pony up enough money to keep their countries safe, they couldn't afford their unaffordable healthcare. And if you look at their books... their health care systems are unsustainable, even with the U.S. protecting them.

Even then, affordable is a very subjective term. Affordable in relation to standard of living would be a better comparison. American standard of living is definitely up there, and our ability to climb up the economic ladder blows them out of the water. In Europe that ability is pretty much static. In those countries the few rich usually stay rich and the middle and lower class stay that way too. In America, such a higher percentage/average of people have a couple thousand sq ft house with a few cars etc, vs Europe the average is squeezing a family into a 900 sq ft apartment and sharing one old tiny Fiat. And in America, you may start out meagerly, but I think some 60 or 70% of the population will at one point reach the top 20%, 50% in the top 15%, 30% top 10...something along those lines. I’ll look it up and post it.

Almost all of the Nordic countries, that folks like Bernie and Ocasio-Cortez like to reference, are all economically freer than the US is. I think Norway is the one exception, and they have the advantage of vast oil resources (that their fed is merely a shareholder in, but not allowed to interfere in with policy). They are all capitalistic/free market countries, their taxes are jacked way up to pay for their social programs, but policy wise they are ranked economically freer than the US is. The US has social programs like Medicare social security, but that doesn’t make us a socialist country either. In fact, many of the Nordic countries have moved to the right in the past couple of years to shrink governments. They became wealthy before their installation of large social programs, went further and further left over the years, and are now trying to turn the ship around.

Another factor is that they are much smaller, and very culturally and racially uniform populations compared to the US. LA county alone is more heavily populated than most of these countries. LA county is an post-modern, abstract mosaic compared to the Nordic states that are just blank frames.

 

[dblack]

Another factor is that they are much smaller, and very culturally and racially uniform populations compared to the US. LA county alone is more heavily populated than most of these countries. LA county is an post-modern, abstract mosaic compared to the Nordic states that are just blank frames.

All your points were valid, but this one, in particular, is something liberals just don't want to face. They keep asking why we can't have the "nice things" that other countries have, like socialized medicine, family leave, two month vacations, etc, etc... And the reason is as simple as it is obvious. It's because we can't agree. Because we have a wide diversity of opinion. eg - some people would rather have more take home pay and less vacation.

Nationalizing services takes a tremendous amount of consensus to be viable. We can't socialize medicine on a slim majority vote. Or, rather, we can, but will be a disaster - undermined and reversed by the opposition at every opportunity.

Ironically, the only thing that really allows a country as diverse as the use to thrive is the one thing liberals are most eager to get rid of: freedom. Freedom allows us to live side by side with people we disagree with, each minding their own business and promoting their own values voluntarily.

 

[froggy]

First off, for those that know me...I am a conservative.
I do ask the question in sincerity.
Last year with health premiums, and healthcare bills, my wife and I spent $7,040 for the two of us.
Then add in the employers portion of premium and that totals up to roughly $11,000.
Even with that, we are well below the average cost the average American pays.
So, would I pay out say... $600 a month in taxes, and my employer in lieu of paying premiums, pay another $400 a month? Instead of paying an insurer?
Yes, yes I would.
But only if the care was equally as good.
And would it be?
How would we, as a nation, pay for the bums and lazy asses who won't work?
Should a "health tax" be income specific? So someone who makes $250,000 a year would pay a great deal more than a $50,000 a year person? Would that work?

One thing is for certain. The current system is not working well. We are paying more and more and more to insurers who are raising deductibles and increasing premiums while covering less.
What fix is there?

Something has to be done to fix the disaster we are in now

Which isn't to say that "anything" should be done. Or to imply that "anything" is better than nothing. Doing something that would make things worse, for example, should NOT be done.

What's done is worse I had good insurance before Obamacare

 

[BluesLegend]

I'm also not responsible for paying for your damn cable tv, water and garbage, electric bill, rent, or your damn car payment. Moochers need to get up off their ass and pay their own bills.

You don't pay anyone else's cable, water, garbage, electric, rent or car payment.
Only when there are dependent children are there any minor subsidies available, like Section 8 rent help, which only pays about 30% at most.
Almost all the Human Services federal money goes to disabled vets.

Government abolished welfare??? Oh wait they didn't

You obviously don't know anything about welfare.
If you are a male and not disabled, you just will not qualify.
Women with dependent children are the only ones who can get it, unless you are disabled.

I pay 10 times as much in taxes as the average middle class family, what do you mooching Dem's do with all my money?

You poor thing. I feel for you,Not!

Maybe you need a good tax man to help you.

I think Gilligan and the Skipper are calling you.

 

[francoHFW]

It is way past time for Universal Health Care. Why are we the only developed country without Healthcare daycare paid parental leave living wage cheap College and training good vacations Fair taxes on the rich national ID card to stop illegal immigration Etc etc etc? Scumbag GOP and silly dupes Like Norman...

The socialized medical care in other countries is only affordable now, because the United States spends our money to protect those countries. If they each had to pony up enough money to keep their countries safe, they couldn't afford their unaffordable healthcare. And if you look at their books... their health care systems are unsustainable, even with the U.S. protecting them.

Meanwhile in the real world they are all paying 8 to 12 percent of GDP for their health care, while we're now at 18 percent for this bought off GOP scam.

 

[francoHFW]

It is way past time for Universal Health Care. Why are we the only developed country without Healthcare daycare paid parental leave living wage cheap College and training good vacations Fair taxes on the rich national ID card to stop illegal immigration Etc etc etc? Scumbag GOP and silly dupes Like Norman...

The socialized medical care in other countries is only affordable now, because the United States spends our money to protect those countries. If they each had to pony up enough money to keep their countries safe, they couldn't afford their unaffordable healthcare. And if you look at their books... their health care systems are unsustainable, even with the U.S. protecting them.

Even then, affordable is a very subjective term. Affordable in relation to standard of living would be a better comparison. American standard of living is definitely up there, and our ability to climb up the economic ladder blows them out of the water. In Europe that ability is pretty much static. In those countries the few rich usually stay rich and the middle and lower class stay that way too. In America, such a higher percentage/average of people have a couple thousand sq ft house with a few cars etc, vs Europe the average is squeezing a family into a 900 sq ft apartment and sharing one old tiny Fiat. And in America, you may start out meagerly, but I think some 60 or 70% of the population will at one point reach the top 20%, 50% in the top 15%, 30% top 10...something along those lines. I’ll look it up and post it.

Almost all of the Nordic countries, that folks like Bernie and Ocasio-Cortez like to reference, are all economically freer than the US is. I think Norway is the one exception, and they have the advantage of vast oil resources (that their fed is merely a shareholder in, but not allowed to interfere in with policy). They are all capitalistic/free market countries, their taxes are jacked way up to pay for their social programs, but policy wise they are ranked economically freer than the US is. The US has social programs like Medicare social security, but that doesn’t make us a socialist country either. In fact, many of the Nordic countries have moved to the right in the past couple of years to shrink governments. They became wealthy before their installation of large social programs, went further and further left over the years, and are now trying to turn the ship around.

Another factor is that they are much smaller, and very culturally and racially uniform populations compared to the US. LA county alone is more heavily populated than most of these countries. LA county is an post-modern, abstract mosaic compared to the Nordic states that are just blank frames.

Of course you have no clue as to the facts... We now have the worst upward Mobility and most inequality of any developed country after the last 35 years of GOP give away to the rich. Dumbass dupe.

 

[francoHFW]

First off, for those that know me...I am a conservative.
I do ask the question in sincerity.
Last year with health premiums, and healthcare bills, my wife and I spent $7,040 for the two of us.
Then add in the employers portion of premium and that totals up to roughly $11,000.
Even with that, we are well below the average cost the average American pays.
So, would I pay out say... $600 a month in taxes, and my employer in lieu of paying premiums, pay another $400 a month? Instead of paying an insurer?
Yes, yes I would.
But only if the care was equally as good.
And would it be?
How would we, as a nation, pay for the bums and lazy asses who won't work?
Should a "health tax" be income specific? So someone who makes $250,000 a year would pay a great deal more than a $50,000 a year person? Would that work?

One thing is for certain. The current system is not working well. We are paying more and more and more to insurers who are raising deductibles and increasing premiums while covering less.
What fix is there?

Something has to be done to fix the disaster we are in now

Which isn't to say that "anything" should be done. Or to imply that "anything" is better than nothing. Doing something that would make things worse, for example, should NOT be done.

What's done is worse I had good insurance before Obamacare

It was probably about to crash anyway... Hi deductibles and catastrophic coverage was just the way things were going. You were probably due for a downgrade... The problem in the US is out of control costs. Thanks GOP!

 

[healthmyths]

It is way past time for Universal Health Care. Why are we the only developed country without Healthcare daycare paid parental leave living wage cheap College and training good vacations Fair taxes on the rich national ID card to stop illegal immigration Etc etc etc? Scumbag GOP and silly dupes Like Norman...

The socialized medical care in other countries is only affordable now, because the United States spends our money to protect those countries. If they each had to pony up enough money to keep their countries safe, they couldn't afford their unaffordable healthcare. And if you look at their books... their health care systems are unsustainable, even with the U.S. protecting them.

Meanwhile in the real world they are all paying 8 to 12 percent of GDP for their health care, while we're now at 18 percent for this bought off GOP scam.

And the trade off..

But part of the reason why Europeans accept restrictions on their ability to sue doctors for malpractice is that they have guaranteed health insurance.
It's part of the social contract: doctors accept limited salaries in exchange for limited liability; patients accept that they cannot sue doctors for millions of dollars in exchange for a guarantee of access to decent health care.
Malpractice and the social contract

But here in the USA doctor studies estimate nearly $1 TRILLION a year is wasted on defensive medicine.

So either you
A) defend lawyers and the billions they make (average lawyer salary:Lawyers earned an average annual salary of $139,880 in 2016,)
How Much Can a Lawyer Expect to Get Paid?
B) accept tort reform similar to Europe.

Can't have it either way.

 

[healthmyths]

Remember the 1946 Tort Reform act says you can't sue doctors on government payroll.
Consequently less than half the doctors practice defensive medicine as they KNOW they won't get sued.

But non-government physicians 92% order duplicate tests, etc. practice defensive medicine and the COST is paid by the insurance companies as they simply raise the premiums.
Remember all insurance companies are regulated by states.

All states require companies to have reserves for future claims.

Reserves come from premiums that aren't used to pay claims...
(average insurance company pays out about 80% of premiums in claims...
i.e. defensive medicine included) and of the balance of 20% revenue pays salaries,etc.

AND then if any profits add to reserves... and then any profits left out of the 6% after salaries, etc., taxes reserves... Again a major reason many companies pulled out of Obamacare because the idiots forced companies to pay 85%...i.e. called medical liability ratio.
Left no money for profits which are used to build reserves required by states!

 

[froggy]

First off, for those that know me...I am a conservative.
I do ask the question in sincerity.
Last year with health premiums, and healthcare bills, my wife and I spent $7,040 for the two of us.
Then add in the employers portion of premium and that totals up to roughly $11,000.
Even with that, we are well below the average cost the average American pays.
So, would I pay out say... $600 a month in taxes, and my employer in lieu of paying premiums, pay another $400 a month? Instead of paying an insurer?
Yes, yes I would.
But only if the care was equally as good.
And would it be?
How would we, as a nation, pay for the bums and lazy asses who won't work?
Should a "health tax" be income specific? So someone who makes $250,000 a year would pay a great deal more than a $50,000 a year person? Would that work?

One thing is for certain. The current system is not working well. We are paying more and more and more to insurers who are raising deductibles and increasing premiums while covering less.
What fix is there?

Something has to be done to fix the disaster we are in now

Which isn't to say that "anything" should be done. Or to imply that "anything" is better than nothing. Doing something that would make things worse, for example, should NOT be done.

What's done is worse I had good insurance before Obamacare

It was probably about to crash anyway... Hi deductibles and catastrophic coverage was just the way things were going. You were probably due for a downgrade... The problem in the US is out of control costs. Thanks GOP!

Now I have high premiums High deductibles and no coverage