Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
STILL better life span than ours. They ONLY spend 8% of GDP because of THEIR a-hole conservatives- the Tories are the second worst party in the modern world. Again, we spend EIGHTEEN per cent. And you're arguing for it lol...Replace the ACA with single payer
According to Harry Reid, that was the Socialists' plan all along - total control of the health care system and the erosion of individual CHOICE.
Sen. Harry Reid: Obamacare 'Absolutely' A Step Toward A Single-Payer System
Sen. Harry Reid: Obamacare 'Absolutely' A Step Toward A Single-Payer System
Right. It's still a terrible idea. Look around the world, and all the socialized systems are failing. So let's do it here. After all the US government has tons of spare money for free health care......... idiots.
Leftards are like children. They never consider how to pay for it, they just scream like a 2-year-old "I want it!".
The UK system isn't failing. It's not failing in many places, thank you.
Ignorance again..... you don't know jack.
NHS problems 'at their worst since 1990s' - BBC News
"There is now a real risk that patient care will deteriorate as service and financial pressures become overwhelming."View attachment 103407
Waiting time targets for A&E, hospital treatment and cancer care all being missed towards the end of the parliament.
NHS may be forced to abandon free healthcare for all, says Britain's top doctor as he warns service needs radical change | Daily Mail Online
Sir Bruce told the Guardian: ‘If the NHS continues to function as it does now, it’s going to really struggle to cope because the model of delivery and service that we have at the moment is not fit for the future.’
Sir Bruce added: ‘If not, we will get to a place where the NHS becomes unaffordable and we will have to make some very difficult decisions which will get to the very heart of the principle of the NHS and its values.
He denied claims that ambulance services, A&E and GP surgeries are struggling to cope and are in crisis – despite waiting times at A&E being at their worst levels in a decade.I'll say it again. The facts are on my side. You either start learning something, or by default admit you are too ignorant to be in this discussion.
Three of the 10 ambulance trusts in England have had to declare a critical alert over the winter.
Every time you people say "oh it works great" I look it up and it doesn't. The NHS is on the brink of a major problems. Hardly an "it works great". I don't see US ambulance services claiming they are on the verge of bankruptcy. Of course, that's a Capitalist system. Thankfully they have a socialized system...... which " it works great" apparently.
Yup, we're great at cancer and plastic surgery LOL. What about infant mortality, stupid?We spend 18% of GDP on heath care, France 11%, UK 8%- and they live longer. Read something..It's amazing how arrogant people like you are. How do you know it's a waste? What if it isn't?
I've already shown numerous examples where the reason why other countries spend less on health care, is because they get less on health care.
So basically, you are complaining because our people get better health care? That's a "waste" in your book? Who are you again? Some partisan crack pot?
ALL CANCERS DEATH RATE BY COUNTRY
USA 130
Spain 127
Italy 124
New Zealand 120
So if the US has far superior healthcare, then why doesn't it have lower cancer death rates than these countries?
The UK spends half (per GDP and less per person) than the US, and yet it's cancer death rate is 140, surely it should be much higher than that.
Death rate is irrelevant.
If 200 people get cancer here, and 190 survive, that's a fantastic system.
If only 3 people get cancer somewhere else, and all 3 die, that's a terrible system.
Only a moron looks at death rate and would say the place that had all 3 die, was a better health care system, because only 3 died compared to 10 here.
Incidence rates for cancer and all illness are difference in different countries. Different diets, different cultures, even different genetics.
Because incident rates different dramatically, then death rates will also differ dramatically.
That has nothing to do with the health care system. The health care system can't be judged on how many people get a disease. Only how they are able to diagnose, treat, and cure the disease.
That is survival rate. and all the data clearly show, the US has the best survival rate in the world. There is a reason the government officials in Canada have come to the US for health care.
Ah, more insults... jeez dude, A) You tried to make a point but forgot to put in the facts to back you up, and second you insult.
No, I didn't forget. You are intentionally ignoring the facts, because it doesn't support your partisan narrative.
As if cancer is the only disease or accident that happens...We spend 18% of GDP on heath care, France 11%, UK 8%- and they live longer. Read something..It's amazing how arrogant people like you are. How do you know it's a waste? What if it isn't?
I've already shown numerous examples where the reason why other countries spend less on health care, is because they get less on health care.
So basically, you are complaining because our people get better health care? That's a "waste" in your book? Who are you again? Some partisan crack pot?
ALL CANCERS DEATH RATE BY COUNTRY
USA 130
Spain 127
Italy 124
New Zealand 120
So if the US has far superior healthcare, then why doesn't it have lower cancer death rates than these countries?
The UK spends half (per GDP and less per person) than the US, and yet it's cancer death rate is 140, surely it should be much higher than that.
Death rate is irrelevant.
If 200 people get cancer here, and 190 survive, that's a fantastic system.
If only 3 people get cancer somewhere else, and all 3 die, that's a terrible system.
Only a moron looks at death rate and would say the place that had all 3 die, was a better health care system, because only 3 died compared to 10 here.
Incidence rates for cancer and all illness are difference in different countries. Different diets, different cultures, even different genetics.
Because incident rates different dramatically, then death rates will also differ dramatically.
That has nothing to do with the health care system. The health care system can't be judged on how many people get a disease. Only how they are able to diagnose, treat, and cure the disease.
That is survival rate. and all the data clearly show, the US has the best survival rate in the world. There is a reason the government officials in Canada have come to the US for health care.
Ah, more insults... jeez dude, A) You tried to make a point but forgot to put in the facts to back you up, and second you insult.
No, I didn't forget. You are intentionally ignoring the facts, because it doesn't support your partisan narrative.
Today, for-profit corporations make the decisions that would be transferred to the government.Also, you clearly have not taken a look at any of the other industrialized nations in the world, which ALL use payment systems that are not like ours, as they are variants on the "single payer" theme.
And they are examples of, to one degree or another, state socialism. Equivocating on terminology won't change that.
Nope. The power that single-payer grants to government is the power force everyone into buying insurance from the same 'company'.
As we see, for-profit insurers have been fully willing to dump people who get sick, to fail to address those of limited means, refuse to serve those with existing medical problems, etc., etc.
So far, we patch over these problems by making more and more regulations. (Remembering that before the ACA, there were numerous regulations on health care insurers - just not enough to solve some of these problems we see as so serious.)
If the government made those decisions, WE (or our representatives) would vote on them, rather than having to pass regulations in the hopes of requiring corporations to deliver what we need.
Yep. And if your preferences in health care or insurance aren't in line with the majority, you're stuck with whatever they decide. In a free market, if your insurance company pisses you off, you can look for another. Or find some other way to pay for your health care. If the government takes over, you're stuck with whatever they think you ought to have - or be force to buy, rather.
It's not a gov takeover ! It's a single payer for those who buy into the gov plan because they don't have a private plan available .
What would be your system if you were king of America ?
How about we replace the ACA with nothing?
Today, for-profit corporations make the decisions that would be transferred to the government.Also, you clearly have not taken a look at any of the other industrialized nations in the world, which ALL use payment systems that are not like ours, as they are variants on the "single payer" theme.
And they are examples of, to one degree or another, state socialism. Equivocating on terminology won't change that.
Nope. The power that single-payer grants to government is the power force everyone into buying insurance from the same 'company'.
As we see, for-profit insurers have been fully willing to dump people who get sick, to fail to address those of limited means, refuse to serve those with existing medical problems, etc., etc.
So far, we patch over these problems by making more and more regulations. (Remembering that before the ACA, there were numerous regulations on health care insurers - just not enough to solve some of these problems we see as so serious.)
If the government made those decisions, WE (or our representatives) would vote on them, rather than having to pass regulations in the hopes of requiring corporations to deliver what we need.
Yep. And if your preferences in health care or insurance aren't in line with the majority, you're stuck with whatever they decide. In a free market, if your insurance company pisses you off, you can look for another. Or find some other way to pay for your health care. If the government takes over, you're stuck with whatever they think you ought to have - or be force to buy, rather.
It's not a gov takeover ! It's a single payer for those who buy into the gov plan because they don't have a private plan available .
What would be your system if you were king of America ?
True and not true. I used to work for a British company. We used to see our British counterparts a few times a year. They stated it is a 22% tax after the income tax. It is expensive. You pay the tax whether you have private insurance or not. Most well to do Brits get private insurance and pay the premiums on top of that. They also stated with if you don't have private insurance the long lines are a reality, esp for elective procedures.
The left will never see these downfalls, but the right will never see the positive aspects. No one goes BK over medical bills. You always have access to a doctor even when you are out of work, between jobs or below the poverty line. The many on the right do not view that as a plus, but most people do. Drugs cost next to nothing over there. There are also no co-pays or deductibles.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Having greater need is a justification for ending it?in fact, we need to ABOLISH Medicaid & Medicare.
when Medicaid was enacted in 1965, it served 1 out of every 50 citizens. today it serves 1 out of every 5!
I don't have to "offer" anything. It's a stupid idea which has been a spectacular failure everywhere it has been introduced. Furthermore, even if it has succeeded somewhere else, I'm protected from idiot marxism by the U.S. Constitution.So, that's what you have to offer on the topic of single payer?
I don't want any part of the idiotic "single payer". So how do you propose such an ignorant idea? Where do you derive the power to force me into anything?Bring on the Single Payer.
Maybe your repsonse is evidence that the public school system is failing the American people.Having greater need is a justification for ending it? Maybe that is a sign we should be looking for a different solution. But, greater need means there is MORE reason to have a solution, not less.in fact, we need to ABOLISH Medicaid & Medicare. when Medicaid was enacted in 1965, it served 1 out of every 50 citizens. today it serves 1 out of every 5!
Well guess what, nitwit? The U.S. Constitution and our entire structure of government permits state legislatures to do what they feel is in the best interest of their state. If you idiot progressives and your idiotic ACA didn't account for what you consider "obstructionism" then that is just another illustration of your stupidity and the failure of the legislation you people crafted.Only in stupid, ex-scam happy, obstructionist red states, dupe.
"It's lying having a bell on a cat". Best. Line. Ever.But....don't stop lying, simpleton.....it's like having a bell on the cat: at least we know where you are.example, superdupe?
Way to not quote the argument, dingbat. Obstruction has never been this bad, or cheating...Well guess what, nitwit? The U.S. Constitution and our entire structure of government permits state legislatures to do what they feel is in the best interest of their state. If you idiot progressives and your idiotic ACA didn't account for what you consider "obstructionism" then that is just another illustration of your stupidity and the failure of the legislation you people crafted.Only in stupid, ex-scam happy, obstructionist red states, dupe.
You nitwits knew that conservatives staunchly opposed Obamacare and wanted the government out of the healthcare system. If you couldn't craft legislation knowing in advance that something would be in opposition, then progressives are not the least bit qualified to be crafting legislation and your entire excuse for why Obamacare was such a catastrophic failure simply proves our entire point to begin with.
No evidence of that. EXAMPLE, shyttehead?"It's lying having a bell on a cat". Best. Line. Ever.But....don't stop lying, simpleton.....it's like having a bell on the cat: at least we know where you are.example, superdupe?
