Replace the ACA with single payer

[Andylusion]

It's not a drug shortage. It's a flat out unavailability. We know this because people from Europe will come to the US seeking treatment they simply can't get there.

A shortage implies they can get it, but there just isn't enough to go around. No no.... they simply.... are not allowed to get it.

You claim people can't afford basic cancer treatment.... and yet we have the highest survival rates of any country in the world. You have a better chance of being cured of cancer here, than anywhere else. That's a fact. Been that way for decades.

And additionally, everyone gets treatment. Everyone does. Yes, you get a big massive bill, and you'll be paying on it for years. But you still get treated. I went to the hospital years ago, when I didn't have health insurance, or money. They treated me. I got a bill. I paid on that bill for years, until I paid it off.

You keep making up these BS mindless claims that people can't get care.... yet I dare you to show me proof of one person that went to the hospital, was told to leave because they were poor, and died without getting any care. Where is that person? Name one. You can't. You just make it up.

You claim I say things without proof, yet you say stuff all the time without proof. Practice what you preach baptist preacher! You live up to your own standards first.

Lastly, the World Health Organization's report was entirely 100% crap. You want me to walk you through how stupid and irrelevant that report was? Did you ever wonder why they never came out with a report ranking health systems since 2000? Because every single country said their report was total BS, including France which was ranked number 1. That's why they never made another ranking for the last 16 years. I bet you never even read the ranking. If you did, you'd be smart enough not to mention it.

I'm sorry what exactly are our cancer survivor statistics? You didn't make that clear. Are you saying that among people who actually get treatment, the cancer survivor rate is high? Yeah that's not hard to believe. Of course, this stat refers to people who actually get the full treatment. As in people are able to AFFORD it. I don't deny that American healthcare is state of the art. The obvious problem is that very few people can actually afford adequate treatment.

Also, how could their be drug unavailability in these nations if American drug companies sell their products in those companies? You're just making shit up.

You also don't know jack shit about the WHO report. You are calling it "100% crap" based on no information whatsoever. You just like the idea of me taking your word for it I guess.

This is one of those strange questions that I've never understood.

Cancer survival is pretty straight forward. A 5-year-survival rate is, when you get cancer, in five years, are you alive? Does it matter if you get treated? No. If you get cancer, and you don't get any treatment, after five years... are you alive? If no, then that lowers the 5-year cancer survival rate.

The survival statistic cover everyone. Poor, or rich, medicaid, or private insurance, from the swamps of Louisiana, to the towers of New York city.

View attachment 102442
Of course this is before Obama Care, which proves that before Obama Care we had the highest survival rates in the world.

I have about 6 or 7 different graphs from various research, all showing the same.

You have a better chance of surviving in the US, rich or poor, than anywhere else in the world.

Also, how could their be drug unavailability in these nations if American drug companies sell their products in those companies? You're just making shit up.

What are you talking about? This is the simplest concept possible..... how are you not getting this.

In France... the government run health care system, negotiates with companies on drugs. You admitted this yourself. Right? You said they place price caps on drugs.... right? You said this.

Well what happens if the price cap on the drug is too law, for the drug company to make a profit?

They simply.... don't..... sell.... the.... drug....! *gasp*..... What part of this concept are you not able to grasp? The French public simply doesn't have access to the drug. They simply don't get it. It's not a shortage... they simply are not able to get that drug at all.

The report I was reading pointed to a medication for arthritis, that in the US was obsolete and replaced by a more effective medication that had far fewer side effects. The elderly in France simply used the less effective older pill that had all the side effects. ..... but it's cheaper! Yay!

Most of the elderly in France didn't even know the newer and better medication existed, because doctors didn't even tell them. Why tell them about a drug they can't get? But remember... it's cheaper.

You also don't know jack shit about the WHO report. You are calling it "100% crap" based on no information whatsoever. You just like the idea of me taking your word for it I guess

No, I know EVERYTHING about the WHO report. I have the report saved on my computer, and I have read nearly every single page. Have you even read ONE page of it?

The WHO report doesn't look at the quality of care.

They look at nearly everything else, but not the quality of the care.

Page 54, section "Weighting the achievements that go into overall attainment"
Countries were graded on Three main aspects

Health

Overall Average- 25%
Equality- 25%

Responsiveness was divided into:

Overall Average- 12.5%
Equality- 12.5%

Fairness in Contribution

Distribution- 25%

Now..... notice a pattern here? Equality in health.... was 25% of the score. Equality in responsiveness..... was 12.5% of the score. Fairness in payment.... was 25% of the score.

Hello? Before we do ANYTHING.... right at face value, 62.5% of the entire score..... is simply how socialized it was! 62.5% of the score had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CARE.

I could rent a basket ball stadium, and give all the patients equal care of a wet wipe, and puke bucket, and charge them an equal price of $10 a day, and give them equal responsiveness and accomodation of a TV to watch.... as long as it's equal and fair, and everyone gets the same treatment and pays the same price, and has the same quality bed.......

Even if half of them die.... according to the standards of evaluation by the WHO......... IS IT EQUAL AND FAIR AND THUS I GET 62.5% OF THE SCORE YOU TOTAL AND COMPLETE IDIOT!

How dumb do you have to be?!?

But wait sparky.... there's more!

Let's look at how they rated Responsiveness.

Page 47.... let's see.....

Respect for dignity.... As long as I get respect.... my health care scores high.... even if I die. Or spend the rest of my incapacitated life in a bed.... but I have respect! That's not as important has treatment and healing.

Confidentiality..... because as long as no one knows what I'm dying of.... it doesn't matter if I die.... I score big on the WHO ranking.

Autonomy.... because when I die without treatment... I want to do it autonomously.

Quality of amenities.... because having a new TV set to watch is more important than being healed.

Access to social support networks.... As long as someone holds my hand while I die... WHO gives my country a big score.

Choice of provider.... because choosing where I die, is more important than.... you know... GETTING HEALED?

Which of these aspects of "Responsiveness" has anything at all to do with the quality of the care? You know, actually being diagnosed, treated, and healed?

Nothing.

Let's look at what they used to come up with the Health score....
Page 27.

Let's look at how they look at the quality of treatment, the ability to diagnose problems, the level of care, the percentage who are healed and cured........

Nope..... no.... they look at one thing.... life expectancy. That's it.
Life expectancy at birth
Life expectancy between 15 and 59
and Life expectancy under age 5.

That's it.

First, infant death.
Cuba doctors have already admitted that they simply don't record if an infant dies, because they know if they record too many, the government will fire them from one of the few good jobs there is.

Moreover, unlike the US, other countries, notably the UK, simply don't count a child as even being born, if it dies too early. In fact, by law, doctors are not even allowed to help a child born too early.

Premature baby 'left to die' by doctors after mother gives birth just two days before 22-week care limit | Daily Mail Online

We have better care than either one. But according to WHO, the countries that don't record a child dying, have better care.

The other two, have the exact same problem. Life expectancy doesn't tell you jack about the quality of care.

If you shoot me dead.... is that proof that health care in America is bad? According to this idiotic WHO report, it is.

If you drive down the highway, and get hit by a truck and killed, or you are living streaming on facebook like that idiot in the other thread was, and crash into a truck..... is that proof US care is bad? According to WHO it is.

View attachment 102473

Unless you believe that doctors should run out on the highway to prevent auto fatalities, and doctors should run at criminals and steal their guns so they can't shoot anyone..... clearly life expectancy isn't a reflection on the health care system.

In summary.... Absolutely nothing in the WHO report actually looked at the ability of the health care system to diagnose a patient, then treat that patient, and then heal, cure, and release that patient.

They didn't look at survival rates for anything. The entire report is utter trash. If you doubt that, simply look at Cuba. The average Cuban at the time of this ranking, couldn't even get Aspirin. Let alone any real health care. Yet it was ranked 39th. A country, where the average Cuban hospital doesn't even have sheets for the hospital beds, is ranked 39th?

The entire thing, from beginning to end, was 100% crap. Even the biggest dimwitted fool on this forum, should be able to grasp this report is trash.

There is no context to your graph. It doesn't say anything about whether or not those people received treatment or not. It makes no comparison between the people who get treatment vs survivors that don't. Obviously the survival rate is high among people who get it. Again, i don't deny the quality of our nation's healthcare.

Also, you still haven't provided any proof there is little drug availability in those European nations. And again, you aren't taking into account the egregious profit that these drug companies make. So yeah, the prices for these drugs is sky high in this country because of greed. These companies still make plenty of profit from their drugs when they sell in other countries. Think about it, why would they bother trying to sell those drugs if no one was buying them?

And...once again you have provided no independent evidence that the WHO report is flawed. You're just making shit up. You're cherry picking certain information in and pretending you some expert on the subject. Don't be ridiculous. How about you let actual medical experts decide if the report is flawed.

The graph doesn't need to make a comparison.

The graph covers everyone entirely. Every single person in the country, rich or poor, treated or not treated.... the 5-year-survival rate for Breast Cancer is 84%. That is higher than any other country in the world. The UK, has a 70% survival rate.

So rich or poor.... you have a better chance of surviving cancer in the US, than anywhere else in the world.

Even the poorest people in this country, still have a better chance of surviving cancer here, than in the UK.

Additionally, there's a reason why you don't see a comparison between untreated, and treated cancer patients...... because it's illegal to not treat someone who shows up at a hospital.

What you are talking about, is impossible. I worked at a dealership back in 2002. The cleaning guy, was this hourly worker. He got cancer, likely because he drank alcohol all the time, and smoked 5 packs a day. He didn't insurance, because he would blow all his money gambling. You'd see him out in the back, smoking and scratching off those lottery cards, 20 a day.

Regardless, this guy got cancer, and went to the hospital. I went and visited him. No money, no insurance, and he was getting treated with Chemo.

This mythology that you people make up, that all the ill poor people of this country, are sitting on street corners dying, is not just wrong, it's intellectually dishonest. You all are just a bunch of liars.

And...once again you have provided no independent evidence that the WHO report is flawed. You're just making shit up. You're cherry picking certain information in and pretending you some expert on the subject. Don't be ridiculous. How about you let actual medical experts decide if the report is flawed.

Ok, I'm not going to argue with you. I posted directly from the text of the WHO report, with page numbers as citation.

If you are so stupid.... so mentally challenged, that you can't think logically and rationally for yourself without someone somewhere telling you what is true....

Then you are too stupid of a ideological idiot for an intelligent person like me to talk to you.

You obviously have nothing of any value to add to this conversation, because you have in this one paragraph, admitted that you are nothing more than a parrot that can only mindlessly repeat what other people have said.

I've give you the facts. You have responded with ignorance, hearsay, and arrogance. You are hereby discredited as a rational thinking person.

Uhh no I don't buy that in the least. The graph clearly only covers those that undergo long term cancer treatment over the span of time. lol and hospitals would only treat complications from cancer treatment that result in emergencies to save their lives in the immediate future. It's not like they could just stay in the hospital for months on end to get rid of the tumor.

And you quoting the report means jack shit if all you are doing is cherry picking information and then make broad conclusions about the report. Its completely absurd. You aren't an expert. Quit pretending you are.

Like I said, I'm not going to spoon feed a foolish moron. I read the report. I read the entire report. Not just one section. I read how they came up with their ranking. Not one thing I said was untrue, nor unsupported by the citation I gave.

You are simply a complete moron, doing the 5-year-old "lalalala" with your fingers in your ears. I'm not going to argue with a 5-year-old. Grow up.... or get of the forum. You are waste of space.

The graph covers everyone who gets cancer. If you go into a hospital and have cancer, you are recorded as having cancer. No matter what happens, if you die from cancer, you are recorded as having died of cancer. If you are alive 5 years after getting cancer, you are recorded as having been alive 5 years after having cancer.

Those numbers create a 5-year-survival rate.

You are either bright enough to grasp this, are you are too dumb to be on this thread.

You tell me which you are... I'm fine either way. I seen dumb people that couldn't get it, and seen smart people which might still support single-payer, but at least grasped that you have a better chance of surviving, rich or poor, in the US.

Are too dumb to get it? You tell me.

 

[francoHFW]

There is no context to your graph. It doesn't say anything about whether or not those people received treatment or not. It makes no comparison between the people who get treatment vs survivors that don't. Obviously the survival rate is high among people who get it. Again, i don't deny the quality of our nation's healthcare.

Also, you still haven't provided any proof there is little drug availability in those European nations. And again, you aren't taking into account the egregious profit that these drug companies make. So yeah, the prices for these drugs is sky high in this country because of greed. These companies still make plenty of profit from their drugs when they sell in other countries. Think about it, why would they bother trying to sell those drugs if no one was buying them?

And...once again you have provided no independent evidence that the WHO report is flawed. You're just making shit up. You're cherry picking certain information in and pretending you some expert on the subject. Don't be ridiculous. How about you let actual medical experts decide if the report is flawed.

The graph doesn't need to make a comparison.

The graph covers everyone entirely. Every single person in the country, rich or poor, treated or not treated.... the 5-year-survival rate for Breast Cancer is 84%. That is higher than any other country in the world. The UK, has a 70% survival rate.

So rich or poor.... you have a better chance of surviving cancer in the US, than anywhere else in the world.

Even the poorest people in this country, still have a better chance of surviving cancer here, than in the UK.

Additionally, there's a reason why you don't see a comparison between untreated, and treated cancer patients...... because it's illegal to not treat someone who shows up at a hospital.

What you are talking about, is impossible. I worked at a dealership back in 2002. The cleaning guy, was this hourly worker. He got cancer, likely because he drank alcohol all the time, and smoked 5 packs a day. He didn't insurance, because he would blow all his money gambling. You'd see him out in the back, smoking and scratching off those lottery cards, 20 a day.

Regardless, this guy got cancer, and went to the hospital. I went and visited him. No money, no insurance, and he was getting treated with Chemo.

This mythology that you people make up, that all the ill poor people of this country, are sitting on street corners dying, is not just wrong, it's intellectually dishonest. You all are just a bunch of liars.

And...once again you have provided no independent evidence that the WHO report is flawed. You're just making shit up. You're cherry picking certain information in and pretending you some expert on the subject. Don't be ridiculous. How about you let actual medical experts decide if the report is flawed.

Ok, I'm not going to argue with you. I posted directly from the text of the WHO report, with page numbers as citation.

If you are so stupid.... so mentally challenged, that you can't think logically and rationally for yourself without someone somewhere telling you what is true....

Then you are too stupid of a ideological idiot for an intelligent person like me to talk to you.

You obviously have nothing of any value to add to this conversation, because you have in this one paragraph, admitted that you are nothing more than a parrot that can only mindlessly repeat what other people have said.

I've give you the facts. You have responded with ignorance, hearsay, and arrogance. You are hereby discredited as a rational thinking person.

Of course in other countries you don't lose everything when you go bankrupt under the old GOP scam system...brilliant. Not much diff in cancer cures either...probably just the rich doing better here...

Oh my----> here you have FRANKENSTEIN trying to misdirect all of you about what happens in other countries. We are NOT interested in what happens in other countries, we are interested in what happens HERE FRANKY!

You want to make it like somewhere else? Fine! Hows about this------------>we give you and your chumps a little power that you have lost, lolol. And in return, we get the prices of gas in the Middle East, which you seem to love-) 50 cents a gallon anyone? Or has it risen to 75 cents there Franky!

TY, ugly American ignoramus/fool. It's pretty simple here- going to ruin under pander to the rich GOP idiocy.

After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVER, and in the modern world!!

Franky enstein, I got a buck 3.80 that says your own people will listen to me, long before they listen to an incompetent boob like you. It is not that I am so brilliant, but rather just like Hilly, you are that incompetent!

Everyone can post, and I would never try to stop someone from doing it. BUT! You people are done for the next 2 to 12 years. You can cry, whine, moan, and groan, it won't get you anywhere. You have ZERO power in the federal government, and I personally hope they hose you.........in fact, I am going to PUSH that they hose all public sector unions. The American people negotiating against themselves is ridiculous.

As far as private sector unions--------->they can demand, and get EVERYTHING they want, and I am behind them 100%. It is they who reap the rewards, or the loss when others undercut them. We as humans either buy their products, or ignore their products.

You, FRANKENSTEIN, are done-) The theory you have lived your life on is over. Our job is to PROVE that your theory no longer works, and now how are we going to deal with it! Doesn't mean our solution delivers more money or benefits, but what it does do is deliver a job. Of course, at 4.6% unemployment, your side is in the catbird seat, isn't it! LOLOLOLOL, let us see how all your propaganda works out for you in the end!

We don't have propaganda. We have real news media and facts. dupe. I hope Trump is a genius NYC Dem, because he's certainly not as misinformed as you dupes are...And yes, I'm happily retired. Great job, Putin and Comey! The US only gets better when Dems have total control- FDR, LBJ. and Obama for 2 weeks.

 

[francoHFW]

I'm sorry what exactly are our cancer survivor statistics? You didn't make that clear. Are you saying that among people who actually get treatment, the cancer survivor rate is high? Yeah that's not hard to believe. Of course, this stat refers to people who actually get the full treatment. As in people are able to AFFORD it. I don't deny that American healthcare is state of the art. The obvious problem is that very few people can actually afford adequate treatment.

Also, how could their be drug unavailability in these nations if American drug companies sell their products in those companies? You're just making shit up.

You also don't know jack shit about the WHO report. You are calling it "100% crap" based on no information whatsoever. You just like the idea of me taking your word for it I guess.

This is one of those strange questions that I've never understood.

Cancer survival is pretty straight forward. A 5-year-survival rate is, when you get cancer, in five years, are you alive? Does it matter if you get treated? No. If you get cancer, and you don't get any treatment, after five years... are you alive? If no, then that lowers the 5-year cancer survival rate.

The survival statistic cover everyone. Poor, or rich, medicaid, or private insurance, from the swamps of Louisiana, to the towers of New York city.

View attachment 102442
Of course this is before Obama Care, which proves that before Obama Care we had the highest survival rates in the world.

I have about 6 or 7 different graphs from various research, all showing the same.

You have a better chance of surviving in the US, rich or poor, than anywhere else in the world.

Also, how could their be drug unavailability in these nations if American drug companies sell their products in those companies? You're just making shit up.

What are you talking about? This is the simplest concept possible..... how are you not getting this.

In France... the government run health care system, negotiates with companies on drugs. You admitted this yourself. Right? You said they place price caps on drugs.... right? You said this.

Well what happens if the price cap on the drug is too law, for the drug company to make a profit?

They simply.... don't..... sell.... the.... drug....! *gasp*..... What part of this concept are you not able to grasp? The French public simply doesn't have access to the drug. They simply don't get it. It's not a shortage... they simply are not able to get that drug at all.

The report I was reading pointed to a medication for arthritis, that in the US was obsolete and replaced by a more effective medication that had far fewer side effects. The elderly in France simply used the less effective older pill that had all the side effects. ..... but it's cheaper! Yay!

Most of the elderly in France didn't even know the newer and better medication existed, because doctors didn't even tell them. Why tell them about a drug they can't get? But remember... it's cheaper.

You also don't know jack shit about the WHO report. You are calling it "100% crap" based on no information whatsoever. You just like the idea of me taking your word for it I guess

No, I know EVERYTHING about the WHO report. I have the report saved on my computer, and I have read nearly every single page. Have you even read ONE page of it?

The WHO report doesn't look at the quality of care.

They look at nearly everything else, but not the quality of the care.

Page 54, section "Weighting the achievements that go into overall attainment"
Countries were graded on Three main aspects

Health

Overall Average- 25%
Equality- 25%

Responsiveness was divided into:

Overall Average- 12.5%
Equality- 12.5%

Fairness in Contribution

Distribution- 25%

Now..... notice a pattern here? Equality in health.... was 25% of the score. Equality in responsiveness..... was 12.5% of the score. Fairness in payment.... was 25% of the score.

Hello? Before we do ANYTHING.... right at face value, 62.5% of the entire score..... is simply how socialized it was! 62.5% of the score had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CARE.

I could rent a basket ball stadium, and give all the patients equal care of a wet wipe, and puke bucket, and charge them an equal price of $10 a day, and give them equal responsiveness and accomodation of a TV to watch.... as long as it's equal and fair, and everyone gets the same treatment and pays the same price, and has the same quality bed.......

Even if half of them die.... according to the standards of evaluation by the WHO......... IS IT EQUAL AND FAIR AND THUS I GET 62.5% OF THE SCORE YOU TOTAL AND COMPLETE IDIOT!

How dumb do you have to be?!?

But wait sparky.... there's more!

Let's look at how they rated Responsiveness.

Page 47.... let's see.....

Respect for dignity.... As long as I get respect.... my health care scores high.... even if I die. Or spend the rest of my incapacitated life in a bed.... but I have respect! That's not as important has treatment and healing.

Confidentiality..... because as long as no one knows what I'm dying of.... it doesn't matter if I die.... I score big on the WHO ranking.

Autonomy.... because when I die without treatment... I want to do it autonomously.

Quality of amenities.... because having a new TV set to watch is more important than being healed.

Access to social support networks.... As long as someone holds my hand while I die... WHO gives my country a big score.

Choice of provider.... because choosing where I die, is more important than.... you know... GETTING HEALED?

Which of these aspects of "Responsiveness" has anything at all to do with the quality of the care? You know, actually being diagnosed, treated, and healed?

Nothing.

Let's look at what they used to come up with the Health score....
Page 27.

Let's look at how they look at the quality of treatment, the ability to diagnose problems, the level of care, the percentage who are healed and cured........

Nope..... no.... they look at one thing.... life expectancy. That's it.
Life expectancy at birth
Life expectancy between 15 and 59
and Life expectancy under age 5.

That's it.

First, infant death.
Cuba doctors have already admitted that they simply don't record if an infant dies, because they know if they record too many, the government will fire them from one of the few good jobs there is.

Moreover, unlike the US, other countries, notably the UK, simply don't count a child as even being born, if it dies too early. In fact, by law, doctors are not even allowed to help a child born too early.

Premature baby 'left to die' by doctors after mother gives birth just two days before 22-week care limit | Daily Mail Online

We have better care than either one. But according to WHO, the countries that don't record a child dying, have better care.

The other two, have the exact same problem. Life expectancy doesn't tell you jack about the quality of care.

If you shoot me dead.... is that proof that health care in America is bad? According to this idiotic WHO report, it is.

If you drive down the highway, and get hit by a truck and killed, or you are living streaming on facebook like that idiot in the other thread was, and crash into a truck..... is that proof US care is bad? According to WHO it is.

View attachment 102473

Unless you believe that doctors should run out on the highway to prevent auto fatalities, and doctors should run at criminals and steal their guns so they can't shoot anyone..... clearly life expectancy isn't a reflection on the health care system.

In summary.... Absolutely nothing in the WHO report actually looked at the ability of the health care system to diagnose a patient, then treat that patient, and then heal, cure, and release that patient.

They didn't look at survival rates for anything. The entire report is utter trash. If you doubt that, simply look at Cuba. The average Cuban at the time of this ranking, couldn't even get Aspirin. Let alone any real health care. Yet it was ranked 39th. A country, where the average Cuban hospital doesn't even have sheets for the hospital beds, is ranked 39th?

The entire thing, from beginning to end, was 100% crap. Even the biggest dimwitted fool on this forum, should be able to grasp this report is trash.

There is no context to your graph. It doesn't say anything about whether or not those people received treatment or not. It makes no comparison between the people who get treatment vs survivors that don't. Obviously the survival rate is high among people who get it. Again, i don't deny the quality of our nation's healthcare.

Also, you still haven't provided any proof there is little drug availability in those European nations. And again, you aren't taking into account the egregious profit that these drug companies make. So yeah, the prices for these drugs is sky high in this country because of greed. These companies still make plenty of profit from their drugs when they sell in other countries. Think about it, why would they bother trying to sell those drugs if no one was buying them?

And...once again you have provided no independent evidence that the WHO report is flawed. You're just making shit up. You're cherry picking certain information in and pretending you some expert on the subject. Don't be ridiculous. How about you let actual medical experts decide if the report is flawed.

The graph doesn't need to make a comparison.

The graph covers everyone entirely. Every single person in the country, rich or poor, treated or not treated.... the 5-year-survival rate for Breast Cancer is 84%. That is higher than any other country in the world. The UK, has a 70% survival rate.

So rich or poor.... you have a better chance of surviving cancer in the US, than anywhere else in the world.

Even the poorest people in this country, still have a better chance of surviving cancer here, than in the UK.

Additionally, there's a reason why you don't see a comparison between untreated, and treated cancer patients...... because it's illegal to not treat someone who shows up at a hospital.

What you are talking about, is impossible. I worked at a dealership back in 2002. The cleaning guy, was this hourly worker. He got cancer, likely because he drank alcohol all the time, and smoked 5 packs a day. He didn't insurance, because he would blow all his money gambling. You'd see him out in the back, smoking and scratching off those lottery cards, 20 a day.

Regardless, this guy got cancer, and went to the hospital. I went and visited him. No money, no insurance, and he was getting treated with Chemo.

This mythology that you people make up, that all the ill poor people of this country, are sitting on street corners dying, is not just wrong, it's intellectually dishonest. You all are just a bunch of liars.

And...once again you have provided no independent evidence that the WHO report is flawed. You're just making shit up. You're cherry picking certain information in and pretending you some expert on the subject. Don't be ridiculous. How about you let actual medical experts decide if the report is flawed.

Ok, I'm not going to argue with you. I posted directly from the text of the WHO report, with page numbers as citation.

If you are so stupid.... so mentally challenged, that you can't think logically and rationally for yourself without someone somewhere telling you what is true....

Then you are too stupid of a ideological idiot for an intelligent person like me to talk to you.

You obviously have nothing of any value to add to this conversation, because you have in this one paragraph, admitted that you are nothing more than a parrot that can only mindlessly repeat what other people have said.

I've give you the facts. You have responded with ignorance, hearsay, and arrogance. You are hereby discredited as a rational thinking person.

Uhh no I don't buy that in the least. The graph clearly only covers those that undergo long term cancer treatment over the span of time. lol and hospitals would only treat complications from cancer treatment that result in emergencies to save their lives in the immediate future. It's not like they could just stay in the hospital for months on end to get rid of the tumor.

And you quoting the report means jack shit if all you are doing is cherry picking information and then make broad conclusions about the report. Its completely absurd. You aren't an expert. Quit pretending you are.

Like I said, I'm not going to spoon feed a foolish moron. I read the report. I read the entire report. Not just one section. I read how they came up with their ranking. Not one thing I said was untrue, nor unsupported by the citation I gave.

You are simply a complete moron, doing the 5-year-old "lalalala" with your fingers in your ears. I'm not going to argue with a 5-year-old. Grow up.... or get of the forum. You are waste of space.

The graph covers everyone who gets cancer. If you go into a hospital and have cancer, you are recorded as having cancer. No matter what happens, if you die from cancer, you are recorded as having died of cancer. If you are alive 5 years after getting cancer, you are recorded as having been alive 5 years after having cancer.

Those numbers create a 5-year-survival rate.

You are either bright enough to grasp this, are you are too dumb to be on this thread.

You tell me which you are... I'm fine either way. I seen dumb people that couldn't get it, and seen smart people which might still support single-payer, but at least grasped that you have a better chance of surviving, rich or poor, in the US.

Are too dumb to get it? You tell me.

So why do their health systems cost 40-60% as much as ours, their life spans are longer, and approval is much higher? Nobody's arguing , our system is fantastic for high cost help for the desperate mega rich you dupes are so worried about lol...

 

[Pumpkin Row]

one of the reasons that obamacare is failing is because so far the majority of those that signed up are the ones that get subsidies, those that would not get subsidies, and in fact would be paying more to cover those with subsidies, have not signed up in great enough numbers to cover the losses.
obamacare needs to be shut down before it becomes too much of a loss. Those that signed up for it can go and get insurance in the same places the rest of us do, there are no laws that stop them from doing this.
Insurance has always been out there, all people have to do is buy a policy that fits their needs.

Um ... no ... socialism is central economic planning, control over the economy. The military is in no way socialism. Basically you're making it an irrelevant word, it's bull shit

Cons always use a definition in which socialism is where industry is owned or regulated by the community. Today REGULATED is the key word, and socialism is also defined as always democratic, while communism is NEVER democratic. Breaking for cold war dinosaur dupes...

Except its not, because it's defined by Social Ownership, hence the name, which encompasses Government Ownership. The Nordic Nations implement a type of "Democratic" Socialism, but surprise, they don't define the word. You can't find a single source that defines it that way. On the other hand, the Communist Manifesto, and Wikipedia, and all of its sources for the page, follow my definition.

I'm fairly certain Kaz is a Libertarian, not a Conservative.

Communism isn't Democratic, because they have no government, you dense Fopdoodle.

BULLLSHYTTE!!! Forget the communist Manifesto- totally moot. Let's see that wiki definition then. Socialism is always democratic, communism NEVER. Get that through your head and cut the cold war dinosaur bs.

The Communist Manifesto created the movement in the first place, and defined the system for everyone for the following years. Everyone who advocated the systems had read the Communist Manifesto, and understood what they were and how they (didn't) work. One doesn't talk about Light Bulbs and say "Thomas Edison is irrelevant", one doesn't talk about electricity and say "Ben Franklin is irrelevant", as they invented those. The Communist Manifesto has everything to do with this.

Communism - Wikipedia
The USSR, therefor, was not Communist.

As I said.

Socialism- "DEMOCRATIC control" of production. = REGULATION in the real world, Cold War dinosaur/dupe. Ok, duh, true communism never existed- but what the USSR etc was, it wasn't what is called socialism now. NOT DEMOCRATIC. You're terminally brainwashed/ignorant/confused.

I included the meaning of Democratic control in the link so you would read it, not ignore it. Good grief.

Hence why I'm telling you the word is used incorrectly. You're also using the word incorrectly. However, you wouldn't be you if you were correct about anything.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I quoted a previous post, you can even go back and look. I've been saying the exact same thing the entire thread, you just have severe reading comprehension issues.

No, that's not an example of Socialism, as said program must be either redistributing wealth, or taking control of the means of production. "Funded my taxpayer money" is not always one of those two things.

No, it has not. That's blatantly false.

Yet you don't seem have have received basic education or highschool education, why would I wait for college education to get back to you?

lol where in the definition of socialism does it say it's about "redistribution of wealth"?!

I thought I was the youngest member here, but you may very well be a 12 year old.

Lol do I really have to point out to you that nothing you posted here refers at all to redistribution of wealth? Do I really have to say that? There is no context pointing to this from that post. I think you're just desperate to feel like you are winning this debate.

Social control of equity, meaning that they control who has what amount of wealth. Among things you don't have to say would be that you're a dunce.

"Winning"? Nobody here is winning. I'm wasting my time talking to a brick wall. Every person on this site, regardless of whether they're proven wrong or not, will continue repeating the exact same thing as if it's profound or correct, knowing full well it's wrong. I've CLEARLY been proving you wrong for the entirety of this thread, everyone knows your definition is wrong, hell you know your definition is wrong. We also both full well know you're going to repeat the exact same things the next time someone brings up the same topic, as will Franco. I went into this discussion already fully knowing that.

Same thing goes for Matthew as well, I've proven him wrong in every topic he has posted, and just like a broken record he continues to post the exact same things. Debates here are completely pointless, because nobody here wants to learn, they're here to cure their boredom.

In fact, despite how harmless your stupidity is, I'm fairly certain most people have you, Timmy, and Franco on ignore because you're all incapable of learning or exhibiting rational thought. The only reason I don't have you guys on ignore is because you're easily proven wrong.

Oh Pumpkin. We both know you are trying way too hard. Let me put it this way. A nation like Norway is considered a social democratic nation. Despite this, it has a private economy just like the US. It also has a wealthy class of people like the US. "Equity" as referenced in your post, refers to the ownership of a program funded by its citizens. They all have the same stake in the program's function.

Of course I'm trying too hard, I'm speaking to a brick wall when I should be ignoring you. Apt comparison, because both objects in question have the same IQ.

I explained what Social ownership encompasses and you still completely miss the point. I was not off the mark when I said everything in my post would go right over your head.

No, that is not what equity means. I see you skew every definition because, well, you're an ignorant Fopdoodle and every keystroke is wasted on you.

 

[Andylusion]

lol where in the definition of socialism does it say it's about "redistribution of wealth"?!

I thought I was the youngest member here, but you may very well be a 12 year old.

Lol do I really have to point out to you that nothing you posted here refers at all to redistribution of wealth? Do I really have to say that? There is no context pointing to this from that post. I think you're just desperate to feel like you are winning this debate.

Social control of equity, meaning that they control who has what amount of wealth. Among things you don't have to say would be that you're a dunce.

"Winning"? Nobody here is winning. I'm wasting my time talking to a brick wall. Every person on this site, regardless of whether they're proven wrong or not, will continue repeating the exact same thing as if it's profound or correct, knowing full well it's wrong. I've CLEARLY been proving you wrong for the entirety of this thread, everyone knows your definition is wrong, hell you know your definition is wrong. We also both full well know you're going to repeat the exact same things the next time someone brings up the same topic, as will Franco. I went into this discussion already fully knowing that.

Same thing goes for Matthew as well, I've proven him wrong in every topic he has posted, and just like a broken record he continues to post the exact same things. Debates here are completely pointless, because nobody here wants to learn, they're here to cure their boredom.

In fact, despite how harmless your stupidity is, I'm fairly certain most people have you, Timmy, and Franco on ignore because you're all incapable of learning or exhibiting rational thought. The only reason I don't have you guys on ignore is because you're easily proven wrong.

Oh Pumpkin. We both know you are trying way too hard. Let me put it this way. A nation like Norway is considered a social democratic nation. Despite this, it has a private economy just like the US. It also has a wealthy class of people like the US. "Equity" as referenced in your post, refers to the ownership of a program funded by its citizens. They all have the same stake in the program's function.

Of course I'm trying too hard, I'm speaking to a brick wall when I should be ignoring you. Apt comparison, because both objects in question have the same IQ.

I explained what Social ownership encompasses and you still completely miss the point. I was not off the mark when I said everything in my post would go right over your head.

No, that is not what equity means. I see you skew every definition because, well, you're an ignorant Fopdoodle and every keystroke is wasted on you.

Yeah, I've seen some raccoons that would give billy a run.

 

[kaz]

I thought I was the youngest member here, but you may very well be a 12 year old.

Lol do I really have to point out to you that nothing you posted here refers at all to redistribution of wealth? Do I really have to say that? There is no context pointing to this from that post. I think you're just desperate to feel like you are winning this debate.

Social control of equity, meaning that they control who has what amount of wealth. Among things you don't have to say would be that you're a dunce.

"Winning"? Nobody here is winning. I'm wasting my time talking to a brick wall. Every person on this site, regardless of whether they're proven wrong or not, will continue repeating the exact same thing as if it's profound or correct, knowing full well it's wrong. I've CLEARLY been proving you wrong for the entirety of this thread, everyone knows your definition is wrong, hell you know your definition is wrong. We also both full well know you're going to repeat the exact same things the next time someone brings up the same topic, as will Franco. I went into this discussion already fully knowing that.

Same thing goes for Matthew as well, I've proven him wrong in every topic he has posted, and just like a broken record he continues to post the exact same things. Debates here are completely pointless, because nobody here wants to learn, they're here to cure their boredom.

In fact, despite how harmless your stupidity is, I'm fairly certain most people have you, Timmy, and Franco on ignore because you're all incapable of learning or exhibiting rational thought. The only reason I don't have you guys on ignore is because you're easily proven wrong.

Oh Pumpkin. We both know you are trying way too hard. Let me put it this way. A nation like Norway is considered a social democratic nation. Despite this, it has a private economy just like the US. It also has a wealthy class of people like the US. "Equity" as referenced in your post, refers to the ownership of a program funded by its citizens. They all have the same stake in the program's function.

Of course I'm trying too hard, I'm speaking to a brick wall when I should be ignoring you. Apt comparison, because both objects in question have the same IQ.

I explained what Social ownership encompasses and you still completely miss the point. I was not off the mark when I said everything in my post would go right over your head.

No, that is not what equity means. I see you skew every definition because, well, you're an ignorant Fopdoodle and every keystroke is wasted on you.

Yeah, I've seen some raccoons that would give billy a run.

I'm sure. Growing up in Michigan, raccoons were clever buggers getting in the trash. I've never seen billy be that clever. He just sits and says gimme

 

[Billy000]

Lol do I really have to point out to you that nothing you posted here refers at all to redistribution of wealth? Do I really have to say that? There is no context pointing to this from that post. I think you're just desperate to feel like you are winning this debate.

Social control of equity, meaning that they control who has what amount of wealth. Among things you don't have to say would be that you're a dunce.

"Winning"? Nobody here is winning. I'm wasting my time talking to a brick wall. Every person on this site, regardless of whether they're proven wrong or not, will continue repeating the exact same thing as if it's profound or correct, knowing full well it's wrong. I've CLEARLY been proving you wrong for the entirety of this thread, everyone knows your definition is wrong, hell you know your definition is wrong. We also both full well know you're going to repeat the exact same things the next time someone brings up the same topic, as will Franco. I went into this discussion already fully knowing that.

Same thing goes for Matthew as well, I've proven him wrong in every topic he has posted, and just like a broken record he continues to post the exact same things. Debates here are completely pointless, because nobody here wants to learn, they're here to cure their boredom.

In fact, despite how harmless your stupidity is, I'm fairly certain most people have you, Timmy, and Franco on ignore because you're all incapable of learning or exhibiting rational thought. The only reason I don't have you guys on ignore is because you're easily proven wrong.

Oh Pumpkin. We both know you are trying way too hard. Let me put it this way. A nation like Norway is considered a social democratic nation. Despite this, it has a private economy just like the US. It also has a wealthy class of people like the US. "Equity" as referenced in your post, refers to the ownership of a program funded by its citizens. They all have the same stake in the program's function.

Of course I'm trying too hard, I'm speaking to a brick wall when I should be ignoring you. Apt comparison, because both objects in question have the same IQ.

I explained what Social ownership encompasses and you still completely miss the point. I was not off the mark when I said everything in my post would go right over your head.

No, that is not what equity means. I see you skew every definition because, well, you're an ignorant Fopdoodle and every keystroke is wasted on you.

Yeah, I've seen some raccoons that would give billy a run.

I'm sure. Growing up in Michigan, raccoons were clever buggers getting in the trash. I've never seen billy be that clever. He just sits and says gimme

You all know I'm right.

 

[Kosh]

Social control of equity, meaning that they control who has what amount of wealth. Among things you don't have to say would be that you're a dunce.

"Winning"? Nobody here is winning. I'm wasting my time talking to a brick wall. Every person on this site, regardless of whether they're proven wrong or not, will continue repeating the exact same thing as if it's profound or correct, knowing full well it's wrong. I've CLEARLY been proving you wrong for the entirety of this thread, everyone knows your definition is wrong, hell you know your definition is wrong. We also both full well know you're going to repeat the exact same things the next time someone brings up the same topic, as will Franco. I went into this discussion already fully knowing that.

Same thing goes for Matthew as well, I've proven him wrong in every topic he has posted, and just like a broken record he continues to post the exact same things. Debates here are completely pointless, because nobody here wants to learn, they're here to cure their boredom.

In fact, despite how harmless your stupidity is, I'm fairly certain most people have you, Timmy, and Franco on ignore because you're all incapable of learning or exhibiting rational thought. The only reason I don't have you guys on ignore is because you're easily proven wrong.

Oh Pumpkin. We both know you are trying way too hard. Let me put it this way. A nation like Norway is considered a social democratic nation. Despite this, it has a private economy just like the US. It also has a wealthy class of people like the US. "Equity" as referenced in your post, refers to the ownership of a program funded by its citizens. They all have the same stake in the program's function.

Of course I'm trying too hard, I'm speaking to a brick wall when I should be ignoring you. Apt comparison, because both objects in question have the same IQ.

I explained what Social ownership encompasses and you still completely miss the point. I was not off the mark when I said everything in my post would go right over your head.

No, that is not what equity means. I see you skew every definition because, well, you're an ignorant Fopdoodle and every keystroke is wasted on you.

Yeah, I've seen some raccoons that would give billy a run.

I'm sure. Growing up in Michigan, raccoons were clever buggers getting in the trash. I've never seen billy be that clever. He just sits and says gimme

You all know I'm right.

Typical elitist far left mentality, post known lies and bunk and demand that everyone claim you are correct!

Silly far left drone!

 

[kaz]

Social control of equity, meaning that they control who has what amount of wealth. Among things you don't have to say would be that you're a dunce.

"Winning"? Nobody here is winning. I'm wasting my time talking to a brick wall. Every person on this site, regardless of whether they're proven wrong or not, will continue repeating the exact same thing as if it's profound or correct, knowing full well it's wrong. I've CLEARLY been proving you wrong for the entirety of this thread, everyone knows your definition is wrong, hell you know your definition is wrong. We also both full well know you're going to repeat the exact same things the next time someone brings up the same topic, as will Franco. I went into this discussion already fully knowing that.

Same thing goes for Matthew as well, I've proven him wrong in every topic he has posted, and just like a broken record he continues to post the exact same things. Debates here are completely pointless, because nobody here wants to learn, they're here to cure their boredom.

In fact, despite how harmless your stupidity is, I'm fairly certain most people have you, Timmy, and Franco on ignore because you're all incapable of learning or exhibiting rational thought. The only reason I don't have you guys on ignore is because you're easily proven wrong.

Oh Pumpkin. We both know you are trying way too hard. Let me put it this way. A nation like Norway is considered a social democratic nation. Despite this, it has a private economy just like the US. It also has a wealthy class of people like the US. "Equity" as referenced in your post, refers to the ownership of a program funded by its citizens. They all have the same stake in the program's function.

Of course I'm trying too hard, I'm speaking to a brick wall when I should be ignoring you. Apt comparison, because both objects in question have the same IQ.

I explained what Social ownership encompasses and you still completely miss the point. I was not off the mark when I said everything in my post would go right over your head.

No, that is not what equity means. I see you skew every definition because, well, you're an ignorant Fopdoodle and every keystroke is wasted on you.

Yeah, I've seen some raccoons that would give billy a run.

I'm sure. Growing up in Michigan, raccoons were clever buggers getting in the trash. I've never seen billy be that clever. He just sits and says gimme

You all know I'm right.

Well, you are right for you. I'm right for me. I want opportunity. You want to be taken care of. Government is your Sugar Daddy

 

[kaz]

Oh Pumpkin. We both know you are trying way too hard. Let me put it this way. A nation like Norway is considered a social democratic nation. Despite this, it has a private economy just like the US. It also has a wealthy class of people like the US. "Equity" as referenced in your post, refers to the ownership of a program funded by its citizens. They all have the same stake in the program's function.

Of course I'm trying too hard, I'm speaking to a brick wall when I should be ignoring you. Apt comparison, because both objects in question have the same IQ.

I explained what Social ownership encompasses and you still completely miss the point. I was not off the mark when I said everything in my post would go right over your head.

No, that is not what equity means. I see you skew every definition because, well, you're an ignorant Fopdoodle and every keystroke is wasted on you.

Yeah, I've seen some raccoons that would give billy a run.

I'm sure. Growing up in Michigan, raccoons were clever buggers getting in the trash. I've never seen billy be that clever. He just sits and says gimme

You all know I'm right.

Typical elitist far left mentality, post known lies and bunk and demand that everyone claim you are correct!

Silly far left drone!

Raccoons are certainly more ambitious than he his

 

[emilynghiem]

We did it that way under W. Costs doubled just under him. The cost rise bent down under ACA and now Trump can fix it- since the GOP obstructed any of that under Obama. It is going to be tinkered with forever....

Dear francoHFW have you thought how we could fix and fund health per state by addressing
Billions spent on Failed mental health and prison costs?
Why go after law abiding taxpayers who don't commit crimes, and make us pay double or triple for the crimes of others given a free ride?

If the cost of crime were assigned to each citizen, who signs an agreement through the state to either follow laws or the get help for criminal abuse addiction or illness preventing compliance with law or have a legal guardian and sponsor cosign for the costs of crime, then why not require insurance to pay for that if people cannot afford to pay the debts and damages they actually incur themselves!

Wouldn't that encourage reduction prevention and deference of crime so those same tax dollars and facilities and resources can be used to pay for general health care medical education and services for the greater population. And not blow billions on prisons making people sicker and staying addicted.

What not fund health care by deterring crimes instead of charging taxpayers several times over for the costs?

 

[emilynghiem]

It's not a scam policy if it actually works. My youngest brother was born prematurely and needed absurd amounts of expensive surgery and treatments in order to survive and live a normal life, and our insurance covered more than half of the cost, as well as our dental bills. We're lucky this happened before the ACA was implemented or he'd have likely died.

Half ain't great. How long ago?

I just confirmed with my mother, they paid "Roughly 95%", the company was Aetna. The only things they didn't cover amounted to a few thousand, but they did cover surgeries amounting to millions of dollars, like open heart surgery. My youngest brothers, who are twins, were "Million dollar babies".

So your pre Obamacare plan was over $1000. Not $150.

Prove it. Post proof that you know my family's bill better than me. Do it.

My family paid $150 per month. You will either prove your statement or you'll go back to the Flame Zone where brain dead Liberals belong.

You paid $150, but that's not the COST of the plan. The employer through in another $1000.

But you come here and blame the ACA when premiums were already too high for an average family .

Then you pay for this plan Timmy
If just you and others who support it create your own health plan cooperatives, you are free to lobby and negotiate whatever discount rates you want to offer your own members.

I bet you can get a better deal by cutting out the middleman and DIY. Obama cheated and cut several corners to ram this through federal govt where it doesn't follow but broke many rules.

If you do it through private business agreements you are free to fund under terms that your members agree to that don't have to represent nonmembers.

So do it. That's fully legal to set up your own health share or insurance plan.

No need to force anyone else to pay or join who doesn't believe in it.

Look at Doctors Without Borders,
The Nurturing Network. Americares.
(Heck, look at Habitat for Humanity and ask yourself why can't the same be done for local clinics hospitals and medical training programs. ALL developed locally by free choice to invest and own and participate, NOT forced by govt to fund and it still works.)

The business model of cost effective services for maximum investment of dollars CAN work on a *nonprofit basis* and DOES work better by free choice instead of ramming it through govt.

 

[kaz]

Half ain't great. How long ago?

I just confirmed with my mother, they paid "Roughly 95%", the company was Aetna. The only things they didn't cover amounted to a few thousand, but they did cover surgeries amounting to millions of dollars, like open heart surgery. My youngest brothers, who are twins, were "Million dollar babies".

So your pre Obamacare plan was over $1000. Not $150.

Prove it. Post proof that you know my family's bill better than me. Do it.

My family paid $150 per month. You will either prove your statement or you'll go back to the Flame Zone where brain dead Liberals belong.

You paid $150, but that's not the COST of the plan. The employer through in another $1000.

But you come here and blame the ACA when premiums were already too high for an average family .

Then you pay for this plan Timmy
If just you and others who support it create your own health plan cooperatives, you are free to lobby and negotiate whatever discount rates you want to offer your own members.

I bet you can get a better deal by cutting out the middleman and DIY. Obama cheated and cut several corners to ram this through federal govt where it doesn't follow but broke many rules.

If you do it through private business agreements you are free to fund under terms that your members agree to that don't have to represent nonmembers.

So do it. That's fully legal to set up your own health share or insurance plan.

No need to force anyone else to pay or join who doesn't believe in it.

Look at Doctors Without Borders,
The Nurturing Network. Americares.
(Heck, look at Habitat for Humanity and ask yourself why can't the same be done for local clinics hospitals and medical training programs. ALL developed locally by free choice to invest and own and participate, NOT forced by govt to fund and it still works.)

The business model of cost effective services for maximum investment of dollars CAN work on a *nonprofit basis* and DOES work better by free choice instead of ramming it through govt.

That's the whole point. Timmy wants to not pay for his healthcare plan

 

[francoHFW]

Half ain't great. How long ago?

I just confirmed with my mother, they paid "Roughly 95%", the company was Aetna. The only things they didn't cover amounted to a few thousand, but they did cover surgeries amounting to millions of dollars, like open heart surgery. My youngest brothers, who are twins, were "Million dollar babies".

So your pre Obamacare plan was over $1000. Not $150.

Prove it. Post proof that you know my family's bill better than me. Do it.

My family paid $150 per month. You will either prove your statement or you'll go back to the Flame Zone where brain dead Liberals belong.

You paid $150, but that's not the COST of the plan. The employer through in another $1000.

But you come here and blame the ACA when premiums were already too high for an average family .

Then you pay for this plan Timmy
If just you and others who support it create your own health plan cooperatives, you are free to lobby and negotiate whatever discount rates you want to offer your own members.

I bet you can get a better deal by cutting out the middleman and DIY. Obama cheated and cut several corners to ram this through federal govt where it doesn't follow but broke many rules.

If you do it through private business agreements you are free to fund under terms that your members agree to that don't have to represent nonmembers.

So do it. That's fully legal to set up your own health share or insurance plan.

No need to force anyone else to pay or join who doesn't believe in it.

Look at Doctors Without Borders,
The Nurturing Network. Americares.
(Heck, look at Habitat for Humanity and ask yourself why can't the same be done for local clinics hospitals and medical training programs. ALL developed locally by free choice to invest and own and participate, NOT forced by govt to fund and it still works.)

The business model of cost effective services for maximum investment of dollars CAN work on a *nonprofit basis* and DOES work better by free choice instead of ramming it through govt.

Our "system'' was such a mess SOMETHING had to be done. This GOP type ACA is a start, works already. BREAKING: This is how much our care actually costs! Now Trump will tinker- this will be tinkered with forever.

 

[Norman]

This thread condensed into one picture to save reading 50+ pages.

 

[francoHFW]

This thread condensed into one picture to save reading 50+ pages.

Thanks, dupe, for the hate spam. ACTUALLY, we want help for the unfortunate and poor workers. We recognize you can't see past the end of your nose, but we can. ACA actually cuts costs and will get even better.

 

[Norman]

This thread condensed into one picture to save reading 50+ pages.

Thanks, dupe, for the hate spam. ACTUALLY, we want help for the unfortunate and poor workers. We recognize you can't see past the end of your nose, but we can. ACA actually cuts costs and will get even better.

No, you want to help YOURSELVES, by taking things from others.

If you would want to help others you would do it with your OWN wallet, not mine. Oh, but that would require getting a job, an surmountable difficulty to be subverted in order to help others.

 

[Timmy]

You idiots don't realize that we pay for health care anyway! Might as well make it efficient .

 

[emilynghiem]

I just confirmed with my mother, they paid "Roughly 95%", the company was Aetna. The only things they didn't cover amounted to a few thousand, but they did cover surgeries amounting to millions of dollars, like open heart surgery. My youngest brothers, who are twins, were "Million dollar babies".

So your pre Obamacare plan was over $1000. Not $150.

Prove it. Post proof that you know my family's bill better than me. Do it.

My family paid $150 per month. You will either prove your statement or you'll go back to the Flame Zone where brain dead Liberals belong.

You paid $150, but that's not the COST of the plan. The employer through in another $1000.

But you come here and blame the ACA when premiums were already too high for an average family .

Then you pay for this plan Timmy
If just you and others who support it create your own health plan cooperatives, you are free to lobby and negotiate whatever discount rates you want to offer your own members.

I bet you can get a better deal by cutting out the middleman and DIY. Obama cheated and cut several corners to ram this through federal govt where it doesn't follow but broke many rules.

If you do it through private business agreements you are free to fund under terms that your members agree to that don't have to represent nonmembers.

So do it. That's fully legal to set up your own health share or insurance plan.

No need to force anyone else to pay or join who doesn't believe in it.

Look at Doctors Without Borders,
The Nurturing Network. Americares.
(Heck, look at Habitat for Humanity and ask yourself why can't the same be done for local clinics hospitals and medical training programs. ALL developed locally by free choice to invest and own and participate, NOT forced by govt to fund and it still works.)

The business model of cost effective services for maximum investment of dollars CAN work on a *nonprofit basis* and DOES work better by free choice instead of ramming it through govt.

Our "system'' was such a mess SOMETHING had to be done. This GOP type ACA is a start, works already. BREAKING: This is how much our care actually costs! Now Trump will tinker- this will be tinkered with forever.

Dear francoHFW:
If people don't agree with how to get it done,
then just like with free choice of religion,
can every group organize and follow their own way?

If "something had to be done about abortions"
would you agree to just BAN them across the board?

If "something had to be done about gun violence"
would you agree to BAN ALL GUNS across the nation?

Do you see how this is NOT A GOOD PRECEDENT TO SET.

If it concerns national defense, and Emergency War Powers, that's one thing.

But "being too LAZY to figure out how to fund health care
without mandating insurance" does NOT CONSTITUTE AN EMERGENCY!

TOO LAZY to figure out how to get criminals to pay costs,
how to get people who INCUR public health costs to pay for their OWN costs,
does NOT JUSTIFY DEPRIVING ALL AMERICANS OF LIBERTY
who didn't commit any such violations or abuses to INCUR ANY SUCH COSTS.

Just because OTHER PEOPLE can't figure it out,
you mean that justifies DEPRIVING ALL OTHER CITIZENS OF LIBERTY?

Should DRUNK DRIVING BE STOPPED BY
BANNING ALCOHOL AND CARS. Because that might reduce it overnight.
Is that justification??

Why should I BE PUNISHED by losing liberty because PEOPLE
like YOU and OBAMA can't figure out how to fund health care
by STOPPING the actual abuses and crimes COSTING taxpayers.
Because of they way you think. That's how criminals think:
"Since I'm too lazy to work it out the right way, I'll just take
from someone else because that's faster!"

so why do you think you and Obama HAVEN'T considered
holding criminals accountable for costs to the public.
IF YOU THINK THE SAME WAY, THAT IT'S FASTER AND
JUSTIFIED TO TAKE RESOURCES FROM PEOPLE WHO HAVE THEM.

Can you see how you have formed a vicious cycle of victimhood.
This is how criminals think. "I'll just go after the easy targets...."