Socialized medicine does not work...

[JQPublic1]

According to my cursory research, elderly Japanese are still vibrant and active compared to elderly Americans.

My father is 76, and he can run circles around me. He still lifts weights.

What does this have to do with the quality of health care? Do you think the elderly in Japan are only active because some doctor runs to their house every morning and forces them to be active? Come on. Grow up.

what does your anecdote have to do with reality! Am I to accept it just because of your purported "honesty?' Have you not considered that Japanese have access to healthcare without having to worry about financial ruin if they get sick? having that free access means the elderly are more likely to get regular checkups and preventative care. That is the link that you have been avoiding!

So now your are claiming that even wtih Medicare, a socialized gov-care system that applies to all the elderly in the US today, that even with that, Medicare sucks so bad, that Japanese elderly have it better?

Isn't the argument from all the left-wingers since Bernie said it, to have Medicare for all, and now your are telling me that even with Medicare and Medicaid for that matter, that they are not using any health care because they are worried about financial ruin with Medicare and Medicaid?

Can you people ever keep a consistent argument that doesn't flip flop every time you are presented with new evidence?

MEDICARE is only available to those who are eligible to draw social security and then it only covers 80 % of most procedures. The patient is liable for the rest.Further, some hospitals and doctors started refusing to accept MEDICARE because they could not overcharge the patient on that platform. Further, if I remember correctly, time limits on hospital admittances. Medicare will only pay for about 20 days. I will have to double check that but off the top of my head I remember that happening to my mother. My point is that MEDICARE, is not so all encompassing and wonderful as you may think. But I would think that in a totally socialized medical environment, the attention to a patients health isn't rushed by financial worries or profit margins.

No, that's my point. I never said Medicare is so wonderful. Everything you said, is exactly my point.

Here you have a socialized system, and even after all the limitations you just mentioned.... it's still going broke. It's funded by taxes payers, it's funded by general revenue, it's funded by medicare premiums, it only covers a % of most procedures, it has limits on admittance, it will only pay for 20 days or whatever....

Everything you mentioned.... and yet..... IT IS STILL GOING BROKE.

This is socialism. This is how it works. This is what happens. No matter what system you put in place... eventually you run out of other people's money.

You shifted the narrative a bit. We were talking about Japanese healthcare compared to our Medicare . You were lecturing me about flip flopping about medicare in the face of your purported "new evidence."

: Have you not considered that Japanese have access to healthcare without having to worry about financial ruin if they get sick? having that free access means the elderly are more likely to get regular checkups and preventative care. That is the link that you have been avoiding.

:"So now your are claiming that even wtih Medicare, a socialized gov-care system that applies to all the elderly in the US today, that even with that, Medicare sucks so bad, that Japanese elderly have it better?"

I responded by showing how MEDICARE is not totally socialized and that either additional GAP insurance had to be obtained to make up the difference. or the patient would have to Use personal assets. In either case that impact on fixed incomes of poorer people could become a serious hardship. And for younger working people, not yet old enough for medicare but with employee benefits, co-pays could disrupt their budgets for years. In Japan, apparently your age wouldn't matter and with "free" healthcare, I would expect that preventative medicine would be utilized far more frequently among younger Japanese. That would translate into a population that lives longer on average.

 

[Rustic]

It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…

Um. You do know that the first example of socialized healthcare was in the 1880's in Germany right?

Socialized medicine makes life an living hell...

You must have a hell of a hammer to get that square peg in that round hole.

Top 10 Countries with the Best Health Care in 2016 - The Gazette Review

fuck the nanny state it's no way to live

 

[SavannahMann]

It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…

Um. You do know that the first example of socialized healthcare was in the 1880's in Germany right?

Socialized medicine makes life an living hell...

You must have a hell of a hammer to get that square peg in that round hole.

Top 10 Countries with the Best Health Care in 2016 - The Gazette Review

fuck the nanny state it's no way to live

So you have no evidence to support your contention?

Would you like to know how Obamacare could have worked? Let's use Blue Cross as an example. Blue Cross has doctors in every state that are in one network or another. Yet if I have Blue Cross in Georgia then doctors in Alabama are out of network, even if they are in a Blue Cross network in Alabama.

The answer is national networks. All Doctors in the Blue Cross network are in network. When I was young the businesses had stickers in the window showing what credit cards they accepted. Visa, Master Card, American Express, and Diners Club were the big ones.

Imagine how easy it would be if you went to a Doctor and saw similar stickers showing what insurances they are in network for.

This would have made medical treatment easier and cheaper. Would that have been nanny state bullshit?

You are like Sam. You don't like green eggs and ham. You won't even consider it. Nations with it have better medical care, longer life expectancy, and less infant mortality. But they totally suck. Because you said so.

 

[Rustic]

It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…

Um. You do know that the first example of socialized healthcare was in the 1880's in Germany right?

Socialized medicine makes life an living hell...

You must have a hell of a hammer to get that square peg in that round hole.

Top 10 Countries with the Best Health Care in 2016 - The Gazette Review

fuck the nanny state it's no way to live

So you have no evidence to support your contention?

Would you like to know how Obamacare could have worked? Let's use Blue Cross as an example. Blue Cross has doctors in every state that are in one network or another. Yet if I have Blue Cross in Georgia then doctors in Alabama are out of network, even if they are in a Blue Cross network in Alabama.

The answer is national networks. All Doctors in the Blue Cross network are in network. When I was young the businesses had stickers in the window showing what credit cards they accepted. Visa, Master Card, American Express, and Diners Club were the big ones.

Imagine how easy it would be if you went to a Doctor and saw similar stickers showing what insurances they are in network for.

This would have made medical treatment easier and cheaper. Would that have been nanny state bullshit?

You are like Sam. You don't like green eggs and ham. You won't even consider it. Nations with it have better medical care, longer life expectancy, and less infant mortality. But they totally suck. Because you said so.

Well I just pay out-of-pocket for what I need, and I don't expect anyone else to pay for my shit.

 

[Political Junky]

Um. You do know that the first example of socialized healthcare was in the 1880's in Germany right?

Socialized medicine makes life an living hell...

You must have a hell of a hammer to get that square peg in that round hole.

Top 10 Countries with the Best Health Care in 2016 - The Gazette Review

fuck the nanny state it's no way to live

So you have no evidence to support your contention?

Would you like to know how Obamacare could have worked? Let's use Blue Cross as an example. Blue Cross has doctors in every state that are in one network or another. Yet if I have Blue Cross in Georgia then doctors in Alabama are out of network, even if they are in a Blue Cross network in Alabama.

The answer is national networks. All Doctors in the Blue Cross network are in network. When I was young the businesses had stickers in the window showing what credit cards they accepted. Visa, Master Card, American Express, and Diners Club were the big ones.

Imagine how easy it would be if you went to a Doctor and saw similar stickers showing what insurances they are in network for.

This would have made medical treatment easier and cheaper. Would that have been nanny state bullshit?

You are like Sam. You don't like green eggs and ham. You won't even consider it. Nations with it have better medical care, longer life expectancy, and less infant mortality. But they totally suck. Because you said so.

Well I just pay out-of-pocket for what I need, and I don't expect anyone else to pay for my shit.

Good luck when you spend a week in intensive care. You must be very rich.

 

[NoNukes]

There is no way It can work in the US... there are too many parasites in society

What do you call parasites?

Me? The insurance companies are the parasites...

They don't demand you pay them. And they don't owe you a damn thing. How amazing leftist entitlement is.

Yeah, like they expect a job so that they can support themselves, which they cannot get. The ones who want to work sell drugs.

What is this guy talking about?

Try to find an intelligent person to explain it to you.

 

[Rustic]

Socialized medicine makes life an living hell...

You must have a hell of a hammer to get that square peg in that round hole.

Top 10 Countries with the Best Health Care in 2016 - The Gazette Review

fuck the nanny state it's no way to live

So you have no evidence to support your contention?

Would you like to know how Obamacare could have worked? Let's use Blue Cross as an example. Blue Cross has doctors in every state that are in one network or another. Yet if I have Blue Cross in Georgia then doctors in Alabama are out of network, even if they are in a Blue Cross network in Alabama.

The answer is national networks. All Doctors in the Blue Cross network are in network. When I was young the businesses had stickers in the window showing what credit cards they accepted. Visa, Master Card, American Express, and Diners Club were the big ones.

Imagine how easy it would be if you went to a Doctor and saw similar stickers showing what insurances they are in network for.

This would have made medical treatment easier and cheaper. Would that have been nanny state bullshit?

You are like Sam. You don't like green eggs and ham. You won't even consider it. Nations with it have better medical care, longer life expectancy, and less infant mortality. But they totally suck. Because you said so.

Well I just pay out-of-pocket for what I need, and I don't expect anyone else to pay for my shit.

Good luck when you spend a week in intensive care. You must be very rich.

Spend less than you make in life… And you'll be fine - easiest thing in the world to do.

 

[Andylusion]

My father is 76, and he can run circles around me. He still lifts weights.

What does this have to do with the quality of health care? Do you think the elderly in Japan are only active because some doctor runs to their house every morning and forces them to be active? Come on. Grow up.

what does your anecdote have to do with reality! Am I to accept it just because of your purported "honesty?' Have you not considered that Japanese have access to healthcare without having to worry about financial ruin if they get sick? having that free access means the elderly are more likely to get regular checkups and preventative care. That is the link that you have been avoiding!

So now your are claiming that even wtih Medicare, a socialized gov-care system that applies to all the elderly in the US today, that even with that, Medicare sucks so bad, that Japanese elderly have it better?

Isn't the argument from all the left-wingers since Bernie said it, to have Medicare for all, and now your are telling me that even with Medicare and Medicaid for that matter, that they are not using any health care because they are worried about financial ruin with Medicare and Medicaid?

Can you people ever keep a consistent argument that doesn't flip flop every time you are presented with new evidence?

MEDICARE is only available to those who are eligible to draw social security and then it only covers 80 % of most procedures. The patient is liable for the rest.Further, some hospitals and doctors started refusing to accept MEDICARE because they could not overcharge the patient on that platform. Further, if I remember correctly, time limits on hospital admittances. Medicare will only pay for about 20 days. I will have to double check that but off the top of my head I remember that happening to my mother. My point is that MEDICARE, is not so all encompassing and wonderful as you may think. But I would think that in a totally socialized medical environment, the attention to a patients health isn't rushed by financial worries or profit margins.

No, that's my point. I never said Medicare is so wonderful. Everything you said, is exactly my point.

Here you have a socialized system, and even after all the limitations you just mentioned.... it's still going broke. It's funded by taxes payers, it's funded by general revenue, it's funded by medicare premiums, it only covers a % of most procedures, it has limits on admittance, it will only pay for 20 days or whatever....

Everything you mentioned.... and yet..... IT IS STILL GOING BROKE.

This is socialism. This is how it works. This is what happens. No matter what system you put in place... eventually you run out of other people's money.

Where did you get the notion that Social Security is going broke? Did you bother to go to thatSSA website and seek the truth. Apparently you did not or you would have seen this: click the spoier to learn why!

Spoiler: SS is not going broke

As a result of changes to Social Security enacted in 1983, benefits are now expected to be payable in full on a timely basis until 2037, when the trust fund reserves are projected to become exhausted.1 At the point where the reserves are used up, continuing taxes are expected to be enough to pay 76 percent of scheduled benefits. Thus, the Congress will need to make changes to the scheduled benefits and revenue sources for the program in the future. The Social Security Board of Trustees project that changes equivalent to an immediate reduction in benefits of about 13 percent, or an immediate increase in the combined payroll tax rate from 12.4 percent to 14.4 percent, or some combination of these changes, would be sufficient to allow full payment of the scheduled benefits for the next 75 years.

Since the inception of the Social Security program in 1935, scheduled benefits have always been paid on a timely basis through a series of modifications in the law that will continue. Social Security provides a basic level of monthly income to workers and their families after the workers have reached old age, become disabled, or died. The program now provides benefits to over 50 million people and is financed with the payroll taxes from over 150 million workers and their employers. Further modifications of the program are a certainty as the Congress continues to evolve and shape this program, reflecting the desires of each new generation.

This article describes the financial status of the Social Security program, including an analysis of the concepts of solvency and sustainability and the relationship of Social Security to the overall federal unified budget. The future is uncertain in many respects, and based on new information, projections of the financial status of the Social Security program vary somewhat over time. What is virtually certain is that the benefits that almost all Americans become entitled to and most depend on will be continued into the future with modifications deemed appropriate by their elected representatives in the Congress.

First off, look back through the last dozen posts, where do you see Social Security even mentioned? When did I ever say "social security is going broke"?

Are we talking about Medicare or Social Security? Because up until this last post of yours, I said Medicare over and over.

Second, you posted information that directly contradicts your own claim.

You posted "SS is not going broke" and then the very next sentence... "until 2037, when the trust fund reserves are projected to become exhausted"

What do you think "reserves become exhausted" means?

I know public schools suck.... but you are telling me that you can't logically understand the concept that "reserves become exhausted" means it's running out of money, and running out of money, means it's "going broke"?

How can you come on this forum, and posted a statement, and then post as support of that very statement, information that directly contradicts the statement made?

And worse.... so other idiot 'thumbed up' that post?

This.... this right here.... this is why American will destroy itself. People this stupid, are determining the direction of the country. It's no wonder everything is getting worse year after year.

 

[Andylusion]

Socialized medicine makes life an living hell...

You must have a hell of a hammer to get that square peg in that round hole.

Top 10 Countries with the Best Health Care in 2016 - The Gazette Review

fuck the nanny state it's no way to live

So you have no evidence to support your contention?

Would you like to know how Obamacare could have worked? Let's use Blue Cross as an example. Blue Cross has doctors in every state that are in one network or another. Yet if I have Blue Cross in Georgia then doctors in Alabama are out of network, even if they are in a Blue Cross network in Alabama.

The answer is national networks. All Doctors in the Blue Cross network are in network. When I was young the businesses had stickers in the window showing what credit cards they accepted. Visa, Master Card, American Express, and Diners Club were the big ones.

Imagine how easy it would be if you went to a Doctor and saw similar stickers showing what insurances they are in network for.

This would have made medical treatment easier and cheaper. Would that have been nanny state bullshit?

You are like Sam. You don't like green eggs and ham. You won't even consider it. Nations with it have better medical care, longer life expectancy, and less infant mortality. But they totally suck. Because you said so.

Well I just pay out-of-pocket for what I need, and I don't expect anyone else to pay for my shit.

Good luck when you spend a week in intensive care. You must be very rich.

But here's the other option. Spend 6 months on a waiting list, and die before getting the care you need.

I can recover from bankruptcy. I can't recover from death.

 

[Dr Grump]

[

Some of the biggest names in health insurance, are non-profit.

Kaiser
Blue Cross
Medical Mutual
Premera Blue Cross
State Farm Insurance
Kaleida Health
EmblemHealth

Just for kicks, I punched in my information into several of these non-profit insurance companies, and sure enough they were more expensive than my for-profit policy.

No, I am not saying that insurance companies in the US are not in the profit game. They are. What I am telling you is, all insurance companies are in the profit game, including the insurance company you listed.

All companies period.... are in the profit game. All of them. They may play games, and use slick advertising, and make grand statements, and get non-profit 'status', but all of them... every single last one of them... is in it for profit.

The only ones that are not in it for profit, are the companies that no longer exist. The Obama administration tried this, if you didn't know. They created as part of Obama-care, non-profit Co-Ops. These truly 'not for profit' co-op insurance companies were the only companies that truly did not have a profit motivation at all. And guess what happened....

Another ObamaCare co-op folds, leaving only 6 remaining

After Obama Care past, 23 co-op insurance companies opened across the country, that had absolutely no profit motive whatsoever. Today, only 6 remain. 17 of them closed, a complete failure. Keep in mind, that tax payer funded "loans", none of which will be paid back.... funded these government created co-ops, at a cost of over $100 Million per.

I don't know why this is difficult for you to grasp. I'm not arguing that US insurance companies are not profit minded. I'm arguing that ALL INSURANCE COMPANIES THE WORLD OVER....... are Profit minded. All of them.

That insurance company you pointed to, with all it's non-profit marketing jargon..... All those bold claims of being non-profit minded.... I'm telling you, that they are profit motivated. What do you think that 15% profit margin is all about? PROFIT.

And lastly about the dividends and crap. You people get hung up on that all the time. I don't get it. First off, the amount of money paid in dividends is typically very small relative to the amount of profit the company makes.

Second, you fail to grasp that, the investors are often the ones that allow the company to serve more people.

Where do you think that hospital came from? You think it just magically appeared? You think a bunch of people around the corner, all said "hey let's build a hospital Thursday!", and boom there it is?

Investors create the hospitals. Nearly all of them. If it wasn't for investors, you wouldn't have a hospital to even go to. So when the investors who gave hundreds of billions to hospital care around the world, get back 5% of the profits..... grow up. Stop whining. You wouldn't' have diddly jack if not for investors. You likely wouldn't have a job right now if not for investors.

You are seeing my point and being deliberately misleading. My dad can play basketball, doesn't mean he should be in the NBA. Couple of things - no the govt built our hospitals. You do know I am a NZer, right? And when I lived there I was SC policy holder? Of course they are for profit in the sense they need to expand etc, but they don't use the AWFUL model that the US uses, which is why all the US posters on this board - in the 10 years I've been here - constantly bitch and moan about their system. The non US posters never moan about their's. Gee, why is that.

In the case of SC, the INVESTORs are the policy holders. I have never had a problem with investors. Ever. Only when it comes to a health, and to a lesser degree private educational institutes.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

They don't demand you pay them. And they don't owe you a damn thing. How amazing leftist entitlement is.

They set the rates. They are the parasites. How come your premiums are so expensive? Because they have to make a profit. Health is one of the few industries that should not be for profit (I'm talking about the hospital side of things, not the drugs and all the peripheral stuff)

so doctors, nurses, the janitors, food prep people, all of those that develop, build, sell and maintain the equipment should all work for free? hospitals should never upgrade in order to keep up with technology?
interesting

"Not for profit" doesn't mean that health care workers should work for free. It means hospitals should be owned by their communities and not run as commercial businesses.

OK....if all hospitals are run this way, then where does the innovation come from?

Only the Right is motivated strictly by money.

Maybe because generally speaking its the right that end up paying taxes so that those claiming that dont care about money can scream and cry for the taxpayers on the right to give them more of that money they dont seem to care about.
Its not that only the right is motivated by money, its just that the left is equally motivated in not providing for themselves. Maybe if the left was a bit more responsible and actually took care of themselves for a change, the Right might not have to be so stingy when it comes to the constant new freebie programs that they in the end have to pay for.

 

[SavannahMann]

Um. You do know that the first example of socialized healthcare was in the 1880's in Germany right?

Socialized medicine makes life an living hell...

You must have a hell of a hammer to get that square peg in that round hole.

Top 10 Countries with the Best Health Care in 2016 - The Gazette Review

fuck the nanny state it's no way to live

So you have no evidence to support your contention?

Would you like to know how Obamacare could have worked? Let's use Blue Cross as an example. Blue Cross has doctors in every state that are in one network or another. Yet if I have Blue Cross in Georgia then doctors in Alabama are out of network, even if they are in a Blue Cross network in Alabama.

The answer is national networks. All Doctors in the Blue Cross network are in network. When I was young the businesses had stickers in the window showing what credit cards they accepted. Visa, Master Card, American Express, and Diners Club were the big ones.

Imagine how easy it would be if you went to a Doctor and saw similar stickers showing what insurances they are in network for.

This would have made medical treatment easier and cheaper. Would that have been nanny state bullshit?

You are like Sam. You don't like green eggs and ham. You won't even consider it. Nations with it have better medical care, longer life expectancy, and less infant mortality. But they totally suck. Because you said so.

Well I just pay out-of-pocket for what I need, and I don't expect anyone else to pay for my shit.

Ah the libertarian approach. So you will take care of you, and everyone else will have to take care of themselves. Sadly, the collective approach has been used for centuries. The libertarian philosophy has some good points, but you seem determined to embrace the worst aspects.

 

[NCC1701]

[

Some of the biggest names in health insurance, are non-profit.

Kaiser
Blue Cross
Medical Mutual
Premera Blue Cross
State Farm Insurance
Kaleida Health
EmblemHealth

Just for kicks, I punched in my information into several of these non-profit insurance companies, and sure enough they were more expensive than my for-profit policy.

No, I am not saying that insurance companies in the US are not in the profit game. They are. What I am telling you is, all insurance companies are in the profit game, including the insurance company you listed.

All companies period.... are in the profit game. All of them. They may play games, and use slick advertising, and make grand statements, and get non-profit 'status', but all of them... every single last one of them... is in it for profit.

The only ones that are not in it for profit, are the companies that no longer exist. The Obama administration tried this, if you didn't know. They created as part of Obama-care, non-profit Co-Ops. These truly 'not for profit' co-op insurance companies were the only companies that truly did not have a profit motivation at all. And guess what happened....

Another ObamaCare co-op folds, leaving only 6 remaining

After Obama Care past, 23 co-op insurance companies opened across the country, that had absolutely no profit motive whatsoever. Today, only 6 remain. 17 of them closed, a complete failure. Keep in mind, that tax payer funded "loans", none of which will be paid back.... funded these government created co-ops, at a cost of over $100 Million per.

I don't know why this is difficult for you to grasp. I'm not arguing that US insurance companies are not profit minded. I'm arguing that ALL INSURANCE COMPANIES THE WORLD OVER....... are Profit minded. All of them.

That insurance company you pointed to, with all it's non-profit marketing jargon..... All those bold claims of being non-profit minded.... I'm telling you, that they are profit motivated. What do you think that 15% profit margin is all about? PROFIT.

And lastly about the dividends and crap. You people get hung up on that all the time. I don't get it. First off, the amount of money paid in dividends is typically very small relative to the amount of profit the company makes.

Second, you fail to grasp that, the investors are often the ones that allow the company to serve more people.

Where do you think that hospital came from? You think it just magically appeared? You think a bunch of people around the corner, all said "hey let's build a hospital Thursday!", and boom there it is?

Investors create the hospitals. Nearly all of them. If it wasn't for investors, you wouldn't have a hospital to even go to. So when the investors who gave hundreds of billions to hospital care around the world, get back 5% of the profits..... grow up. Stop whining. You wouldn't' have diddly jack if not for investors. You likely wouldn't have a job right now if not for investors.

You are seeing my point and being deliberately misleading. My dad can play basketball, doesn't mean he should be in the NBA. Couple of things - no the govt built our hospitals. You do know I am a NZer, right? And when I lived there I was SC policy holder? Of course they are for profit in the sense they need to expand etc, but they don't use the AWFUL model that the US uses, which is why all the US posters on this board - in the 10 years I've been here - constantly bitch and moan about their system. The non US posters never moan about their's. Gee, why is that.

In the case of SC, the INVESTORs are the policy holders. I have never had a problem with investors. Ever. Only when it comes to a health, and to a lesser degree private educational institutes.

just love it when one of you lying fucking lefty welfare state assholes wants to tell us how to do things. You see you have to understand something here, a lot of us are not impressed with your little liberal 'healthcare system' as something to strive for and emulate, in fact I think it is rather something to avoid, so how about you shove your smug little healthcare system up your ass?


New Zealand’s healthcare crisis - World Socialist Web Site
A number of recent reports illustrate the growing crisis resulting from chronic underfunding of New Zealand’s public health system.

The National Party government repeatedly claims that it has made no cuts to health spending since the 2008 financial crisis. The reality is that public hospitals and other medical services throughout the country have been subject to severe austerity measures. Along with cuts to welfare and education, the underfunding of the health system is designed to transfer the burden of the economic crisis onto the backs of the working class, particularly the most vulnerable and in need of care.



WHO | New Zealand cuts health spending to control costs
New Zealand’s health-care system is undergoing a series of cutbacks to reduce costs, but critics are concerned that the health of people on low incomes and in some population groups may suffer. Rebecca Lancashire reports in our series on health financing.

Challenges and opportunities
The cost of providing health services through the current model is unsustainable in the long term.

 

[JQPublic1]

what does your anecdote have to do with reality! Am I to accept it just because of your purported "honesty?' Have you not considered that Japanese have access to healthcare without having to worry about financial ruin if they get sick? having that free access means the elderly are more likely to get regular checkups and preventative care. That is the link that you have been avoiding!

So now your are claiming that even wtih Medicare, a socialized gov-care system that applies to all the elderly in the US today, that even with that, Medicare sucks so bad, that Japanese elderly have it better?

Isn't the argument from all the left-wingers since Bernie said it, to have Medicare for all, and now your are telling me that even with Medicare and Medicaid for that matter, that they are not using any health care because they are worried about financial ruin with Medicare and Medicaid?

Can you people ever keep a consistent argument that doesn't flip flop every time you are presented with new evidence?

MEDICARE is only available to those who are eligible to draw social security and then it only covers 80 % of most procedures. The patient is liable for the rest.Further, some hospitals and doctors started refusing to accept MEDICARE because they could not overcharge the patient on that platform. Further, if I remember correctly, time limits on hospital admittances. Medicare will only pay for about 20 days. I will have to double check that but off the top of my head I remember that happening to my mother. My point is that MEDICARE, is not so all encompassing and wonderful as you may think. But I would think that in a totally socialized medical environment, the attention to a patients health isn't rushed by financial worries or profit margins.

No, that's my point. I never said Medicare is so wonderful. Everything you said, is exactly my point.

Here you have a socialized system, and even after all the limitations you just mentioned.... it's still going broke. It's funded by taxes payers, it's funded by general revenue, it's funded by medicare premiums, it only covers a % of most procedures, it has limits on admittance, it will only pay for 20 days or whatever....

Everything you mentioned.... and yet..... IT IS STILL GOING BROKE.

This is socialism. This is how it works. This is what happens. No matter what system you put in place... eventually you run out of other people's money.

Where did you get the notion that Social Security is going broke? Did you bother to go to thatSSA website and seek the truth. Apparently you did not or you would have seen this: click the spoier to learn why!

Spoiler: SS is not going broke

As a result of changes to Social Security enacted in 1983, benefits are now expected to be payable in full on a timely basis until 2037, when the trust fund reserves are projected to become exhausted.1 At the point where the reserves are used up, continuing taxes are expected to be enough to pay 76 percent of scheduled benefits. Thus, the Congress will need to make changes to the scheduled benefits and revenue sources for the program in the future. The Social Security Board of Trustees project that changes equivalent to an immediate reduction in benefits of about 13 percent, or an immediate increase in the combined payroll tax rate from 12.4 percent to 14.4 percent, or some combination of these changes, would be sufficient to allow full payment of the scheduled benefits for the next 75 years.

Since the inception of the Social Security program in 1935, scheduled benefits have always been paid on a timely basis through a series of modifications in the law that will continue. Social Security provides a basic level of monthly income to workers and their families after the workers have reached old age, become disabled, or died. The program now provides benefits to over 50 million people and is financed with the payroll taxes from over 150 million workers and their employers. Further modifications of the program are a certainty as the Congress continues to evolve and shape this program, reflecting the desires of each new generation.

This article describes the financial status of the Social Security program, including an analysis of the concepts of solvency and sustainability and the relationship of Social Security to the overall federal unified budget. The future is uncertain in many respects, and based on new information, projections of the financial status of the Social Security program vary somewhat over time. What is virtually certain is that the benefits that almost all Americans become entitled to and most depend on will be continued into the future with modifications deemed appropriate by their elected representatives in the Congress.

First off, look back through the last dozen posts, where do you see Social Security even mentioned? When did I ever say "social security is going broke"?

Are we talking about Medicare or Social Security? Because up until this last post of yours, I said Medicare over and over.

Second, you posted information that directly contradicts your own claim.

You posted "SS is not going broke" and then the very next sentence... "until 2037, when the trust fund reserves are projected to become exhausted"

What do you think "reserves become exhausted" means?

I know public schools suck.... but you are telling me that you can't logically understand the concept that "reserves become exhausted" means it's running out of money, and running out of money, means it's "going broke"?

How can you come on this forum, and posted a statement, and then post as support of that very statement, information that directly contradicts the statement made?

And worse.... so other idiot 'thumbed up' that post?

This.... this right here.... this is why American will destroy itself. People this stupid, are determining the direction of the country. It's no wonder everything is getting worse year after year.

FICA is the Social security and Medicare taxes combined. And, indeed they are handled by two different Trust funds. But according to the information I posted under the spoiler tag, the use of the phrase"going broke" to describe the future of either program is not an accurate assessment. Again, in your haste you overlooked the word "reserves." That has meaning: the term is describing excess funds. That means in 2037 the SS fund will temporarily break even when the reserves are exhausted. IN other words the fund will be paying out as much as it is taking in. That doesn't mean it will be bankrupt since, as stated, enough funds will be available from payroll taxes to make 76% of its obligations. It would be incumbent upon Congress to either reduce the benefit by 13% or increase payroll taxes to make up the difference. If , OTOH, the GOP tries to privatize either SS or Medicare, there will be a civil uprising so severe they may never recover from it. Middle men would be perceived as thieves robbing beneficiaries to bolster profits.

The Medicare fund is no different, it isn't going broke either:

Claims by some policymakers that the Medicare program is nearing “bankruptcy” are highly misleading. Although Medicare faces financing challenges, the program is not on the verge of bankruptcy or ceasing to operate. Such charges represent misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of Medicare’s finances.

Medicare’s financing challenges would be much greater without the health reform law (the Affordable Care Act, or ACA), which substantially improved the program’s financial outlook. Repealing the ACA, a course of action promoted by some who simultaneously claim that the program is approaching “bankruptcy,” would worsen Medicare’s financial situation.

The 2016 report of Medicare’s trustees finds that Medicare’s Hospital Insurance (HI) trust fund will remain solvent — that is, able to pay 100 percent of the costs of the hospital insurance coverage that Medicare provides — through 2028. Even in 2028, when the HI trust fund is projected for exhaustion, incoming payroll taxes and other revenue will still be sufficient to pay 87 percent of Medicare hospital insurance costs.[1] The share of costs covered by dedicated revenues will decline slowly to 79 percent in 2040 and then rise gradually to 86 percent in 2090. This shortfall will need to be closed through raising revenues, slowing the growth in costs, or most likely both. But the Medicare hospital insurance program will not run out of all financial resources and cease to operate after 2028, as the “bankruptcy” term may suggest.

The 2028 date does not apply to Medicare coverage for physician and outpatient costs or to the Medicare prescription drug benefit; these parts of Medicare do not face insolvency and cannot run short of funds. These parts of Medicare are financed through the program’s Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) trust fund, which consists of two separate accounts — one for Medicare Part B, which pays for physician and other outpatient health services, and one for Part D, which pays for outpatient prescription drugs. Premiums for Part B and Part D are set each year at levels that cover about 25 percent of costs; general revenues pay the remaining 75 percent of costs.[2] The trustees’ report does not project that these parts of Medicare will become insolvent at any point — because they can’t. The SMI trust fund always has sufficient financing to cover Part B and Part D costs, because the beneficiary premiums and general revenue contributions are specifically set at levels to assure this is the case. SMI cannot go “bankrupt.”

 

[Dr Grump]

just love it when one of you lying fucking lefty welfare state assholes wants to tell us how to do things. You see you have to understand something here, a lot of us are not impressed with your little liberal 'healthcare system' as something to strive for and emulate, in fact I think it is rather something to avoid, so how about you shove your smug little healthcare system up your ass?


New Zealand’s healthcare crisis - World Socialist Web Site
A number of recent reports illustrate the growing crisis resulting from chronic underfunding of New Zealand’s public health system.

The National Party government repeatedly claims that it has made no cuts to health spending since the 2008 financial crisis. The reality is that public hospitals and other medical services throughout the country have been subject to severe austerity measures. Along with cuts to welfare and education, the underfunding of the health system is designed to transfer the burden of the economic crisis onto the backs of the working class, particularly the most vulnerable and in need of care.



WHO | New Zealand cuts health spending to control costs
New Zealand’s health-care system is undergoing a series of cutbacks to reduce costs, but critics are concerned that the health of people on low incomes and in some population groups may suffer. Rebecca Lancashire reports in our series on health financing.

Challenges and opportunities
The cost of providing health services through the current model is unsustainable in the long term.

Shit links. The first is from the World socialist website. The last one, you have cherrypicked one sentence from what is a generally optimistic piece....we can all do that. Try harder.

 

[NCC1701]

just love it when one of you lying fucking lefty welfare state assholes wants to tell us how to do things. You see you have to understand something here, a lot of us are not impressed with your little liberal 'healthcare system' as something to strive for and emulate, in fact I think it is rather something to avoid, so how about you shove your smug little healthcare system up your ass?


New Zealand’s healthcare crisis - World Socialist Web Site
A number of recent reports illustrate the growing crisis resulting from chronic underfunding of New Zealand’s public health system.

The National Party government repeatedly claims that it has made no cuts to health spending since the 2008 financial crisis. The reality is that public hospitals and other medical services throughout the country have been subject to severe austerity measures. Along with cuts to welfare and education, the underfunding of the health system is designed to transfer the burden of the economic crisis onto the backs of the working class, particularly the most vulnerable and in need of care.



WHO | New Zealand cuts health spending to control costs
New Zealand’s health-care system is undergoing a series of cutbacks to reduce costs, but critics are concerned that the health of people on low incomes and in some population groups may suffer. Rebecca Lancashire reports in our series on health financing.

Challenges and opportunities
The cost of providing health services through the current model is unsustainable in the long term.

Shit links. The first is from the World socialist website. The last one, you have cherrypicked one sentence from what is a generally optimistic piece....we can all do that. Try harder.

I picked the socialists since no body is better to critique socialized medicine than the socilaists. I picked the second one to show you have critics within your own country. I picked the third to highlight the obvious, your system didn't work, cuts had to be made, and even now it is projected to not work in the fiscal sense which means it doesn't work period.

You have a shit mind, shove your smug little healthcare system up your ass.

 

[danielpalos]

They set the rates. They are the parasites. How come your premiums are so expensive? Because they have to make a profit. Health is one of the few industries that should not be for profit (I'm talking about the hospital side of things, not the drugs and all the peripheral stuff)

so doctors, nurses, the janitors, food prep people, all of those that develop, build, sell and maintain the equipment should all work for free? hospitals should never upgrade in order to keep up with technology?
interesting

"Not for profit" doesn't mean that health care workers should work for free. It means hospitals should be owned by their communities and not run as commercial businesses.

OK....if all hospitals are run this way, then where does the innovation come from?

Only the Right is motivated strictly by money.

Maybe because generally speaking its the right that end up paying taxes so that those claiming that dont care about money can scream and cry for the taxpayers on the right to give them more of that money they dont seem to care about.
Its not that only the right is motivated by money, its just that the left is equally motivated in not providing for themselves. Maybe if the left was a bit more responsible and actually took care of themselves for a change, the Right might not have to be so stingy when it comes to the constant new freebie programs that they in the end have to pay for.

don't complain about taxes; be Patriotic.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…

So what do you suggest? You flamers just post complaints and like to bitch. But you NEVER come up with answers. Just whining.

 

[danielpalos]

[

Some of the biggest names in health insurance, are non-profit.

Kaiser
Blue Cross
Medical Mutual
Premera Blue Cross
State Farm Insurance
Kaleida Health
EmblemHealth

Just for kicks, I punched in my information into several of these non-profit insurance companies, and sure enough they were more expensive than my for-profit policy.

No, I am not saying that insurance companies in the US are not in the profit game. They are. What I am telling you is, all insurance companies are in the profit game, including the insurance company you listed.

All companies period.... are in the profit game. All of them. They may play games, and use slick advertising, and make grand statements, and get non-profit 'status', but all of them... every single last one of them... is in it for profit.

The only ones that are not in it for profit, are the companies that no longer exist. The Obama administration tried this, if you didn't know. They created as part of Obama-care, non-profit Co-Ops. These truly 'not for profit' co-op insurance companies were the only companies that truly did not have a profit motivation at all. And guess what happened....

Another ObamaCare co-op folds, leaving only 6 remaining

After Obama Care past, 23 co-op insurance companies opened across the country, that had absolutely no profit motive whatsoever. Today, only 6 remain. 17 of them closed, a complete failure. Keep in mind, that tax payer funded "loans", none of which will be paid back.... funded these government created co-ops, at a cost of over $100 Million per.

I don't know why this is difficult for you to grasp. I'm not arguing that US insurance companies are not profit minded. I'm arguing that ALL INSURANCE COMPANIES THE WORLD OVER....... are Profit minded. All of them.

That insurance company you pointed to, with all it's non-profit marketing jargon..... All those bold claims of being non-profit minded.... I'm telling you, that they are profit motivated. What do you think that 15% profit margin is all about? PROFIT.

And lastly about the dividends and crap. You people get hung up on that all the time. I don't get it. First off, the amount of money paid in dividends is typically very small relative to the amount of profit the company makes.

Second, you fail to grasp that, the investors are often the ones that allow the company to serve more people.

Where do you think that hospital came from? You think it just magically appeared? You think a bunch of people around the corner, all said "hey let's build a hospital Thursday!", and boom there it is?

Investors create the hospitals. Nearly all of them. If it wasn't for investors, you wouldn't have a hospital to even go to. So when the investors who gave hundreds of billions to hospital care around the world, get back 5% of the profits..... grow up. Stop whining. You wouldn't' have diddly jack if not for investors. You likely wouldn't have a job right now if not for investors.

You are seeing my point and being deliberately misleading. My dad can play basketball, doesn't mean he should be in the NBA. Couple of things - no the govt built our hospitals. You do know I am a NZer, right? And when I lived there I was SC policy holder? Of course they are for profit in the sense they need to expand etc, but they don't use the AWFUL model that the US uses, which is why all the US posters on this board - in the 10 years I've been here - constantly bitch and moan about their system. The non US posters never moan about their's. Gee, why is that.

In the case of SC, the INVESTORs are the policy holders. I have never had a problem with investors. Ever. Only when it comes to a health, and to a lesser degree private educational institutes.

just love it when one of you lying fucking lefty welfare state assholes wants to tell us how to do things. You see you have to understand something here, a lot of us are not impressed with your little liberal 'healthcare system' as something to strive for and emulate, in fact I think it is rather something to avoid, so how about you shove your smug little healthcare system up your ass?


New Zealand’s healthcare crisis - World Socialist Web Site
A number of recent reports illustrate the growing crisis resulting from chronic underfunding of New Zealand’s public health system.

The National Party government repeatedly claims that it has made no cuts to health spending since the 2008 financial crisis. The reality is that public hospitals and other medical services throughout the country have been subject to severe austerity measures. Along with cuts to welfare and education, the underfunding of the health system is designed to transfer the burden of the economic crisis onto the backs of the working class, particularly the most vulnerable and in need of care.



WHO | New Zealand cuts health spending to control costs
New Zealand’s health-care system is undergoing a series of cutbacks to reduce costs, but critics are concerned that the health of people on low incomes and in some population groups may suffer. Rebecca Lancashire reports in our series on health financing.

Challenges and opportunities
The cost of providing health services through the current model is unsustainable in the long term.

do they have a drug war they can end?

 

[WaitingFor2020]

Millions that live in urban areas expecting something for nothing

Depends if they work or not...

The fact remains any sort of socialism socialist medicine happens to be dozens of people taking out as compared to only one to a few paying in. No socialist entitlement program has worked in the history of the United States… Long-term

You ask ANYBODY on Medicare if they want to give it up. Go ahead. I know many people on Medicare or who have elderly parents on Medicare: Republicans, Dems, Independents and they love it. To the last person.

But you just keep a bitchin' and offer no solutions. You're a monkey for the GOP.