Someone Should Ask Bernie,"Can You Name A Doctor Who Will Work For About 40,000 a Year" ?

[debbiedowner]

Just a heads up....it doesn't matter what socialist wins....they wont get any of that passed through congress.

I disagree. If a socialist dominated Congress is elected, they'll push it through. Even if it isn't, Crazy Bernie will just sign an executive order implementing Socialized Medicine like Obama did with DACA

Damn I thought you were smarter than that, guess not. You can not implement your so called socialized medicine by an E&O. A socialist dominated congress is decades away and you'll be dead.

The House of Reps is already socialist dominated under the De Facto leadership of AOC.

The Senate is close to the edge as well, with like 47 or 48 hard core leftists.

Do you thing that insurance companies are going to sit back and let government take over health insurance? Do you really believe AOC has any clout? Do you really believe there are not enough dems in congress and senate to stop it? If you do then you're just like chicken little.

 

[Polishprince]

Just a heads up....it doesn't matter what socialist wins....they wont get any of that passed through congress.

I disagree. If a socialist dominated Congress is elected, they'll push it through. Even if it isn't, Crazy Bernie will just sign an executive order implementing Socialized Medicine like Obama did with DACA

Damn I thought you were smarter than that, guess not. You can not implement your so called socialized medicine by an E&O. A socialist dominated congress is decades away and you'll be dead.

The House of Reps is already socialist dominated under the De Facto leadership of AOC.

The Senate is close to the edge as well, with like 47 or 48 hard core leftists.

Do you thing that insurance companies are going to sit back and let government take over health insurance? Do you really believe AOC has any clout? Do you really believe there are not enough dems in congress and senate to stop it? If you do then you're just like chicken little.

AOC forced Nervous Nancy to push through the Fake Impeachment last year, even though the old bag knew it was the wrong thing to do.

The Dems in the House and the Senate want socialized medicine, didn't you see how they marched in lockstep to jam through Obama's Risky Medical Scheme, the ACA?

 

[LeeOnLido]

actually some needs to ask bernie if he can name a city where doctors will treat patients for free

 

[Rigby5]

Bernie and his push for free medical care for all, yet Bernie never brings up how to really pay for it. But still, who are these Doctors that will be happy to treat patients for very little money? Doctors do not want to wait between 30 and 60 days to be reinbursed by a democrat run government,,,but thats if they even get reinbursed.

Silly thread because doctors who work for medicare now are satisfied with the pay.
Medicare for all would not pay doctors less, but just not pay insurance companies or medical corporations as much.
Right now the doctor only gets a third.
So if you eliminate everyone else, you can pay the doctor more.

 

[Rigby5]

actually some needs to ask bernie if he can name a city where doctors will treat patients for free

Almost every country in the world pays doctors to treat patients without billing the patient.
The US is about the only country in the world that bills patients.

 

[Rigby5]

i wonder if bernie will offer to help assist in the paper work for 300 million people seeking free health care

That is silly because people only want health care when they get sick or injured, and the number of people getting sick of injured does not change, whether or not we implement medicare for all.

It is the current private for profit insurance system that had tons of paper work.
With medicare for all, there does not have to be any paper work at all.
The government can just have a number of doctors on salary.

 

[Rigby5]

Democrats don't think this far ahead. We all know the quality of healthcare in the US would decline if we had single-payer. With "free" healthcare, the lines get longer because people come for every sniffle and cough with no co-pay. Many come just to talk out their problems(trust me, I know this). We will need more doctors and the way to get more is to lower standards. We will also have to pay them much less because the government doesn't pay as well as private insurance. Maybe single-payer means the doctors will all be government employees and governed by them. Boy, that outta go really well. I mean, just look how efficient and proficient most government run institutions are. Said nobody ever.

Single payer would absolutely destroy quality healthcare in this country. On a positive note, it may curtail illegal immigration to some extent. No reason to come to the US for quality healthcare.

No, everyone admits that single payer greatly increases the quality of health care.
That is because right now the insurance company will pay the doctors regardless of the quality.
They could totally screw up, and the insurance company does not care and will pay up.
The ONLY way to regain control over quality of care is to remove the insurance 3rd party payer.
The US has some of the worst health care in the world.
The US is number 37.
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/best-healthcare-in-the-world/
We are below Costa Rica, and right next to Cuba in national health care quality rating.

 

[Rigby5]

Just a heads up....it doesn't matter what socialist wins....they wont get any of that passed through congress.

I disagree. If a socialist dominated Congress is elected, they'll push it through. Even if it isn't, Crazy Bernie will just sign an executive order implementing Socialized Medicine like Obama did with DACA

Damn I thought you were smarter than that, guess not. You can not implement your so called socialized medicine by an E&O. A socialist dominated congress is decades away and you'll be dead.

The House of Reps is already socialist dominated under the De Facto leadership of AOC.

The Senate is close to the edge as well, with like 47 or 48 hard core leftists.

Do you thing that insurance companies are going to sit back and let government take over health insurance? Do you really believe AOC has any clout? Do you really believe there are not enough dems in congress and senate to stop it? If you do then you're just like chicken little.

And what right do insurance companies have to say anything at all about health care?
They are the ones who screwed it all up, so if they complain they can be sued or imprisoned.
But the easiest way is to just end what screwed it all up originally in 1957.
Just recind the tax exemption for employer benefits to employees.
That would instantly end all health insurance programs.

 

[Slyhunter]

does bernie actually think that the average wait time to see a doctor will be about 30 minutes with his plan?

What's the wait time for people who can not afford to see a doctor because of high deductible plans or no insurance at all?

Our country would be better off if we didn't support the poor.

 

[debbiedowner]

Here's that Medicare-for-all study Bernie Sanders keeps bringing up

A new analysis published in the journal Lancet adds some empirical heft to an argument many progressives have been making for years: A national single-payer health-care system would save tens of thousands of lives each year — and hundreds of billions of dollars.

f you watched last night’s Democratic debate in Nevada you might have heard Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) cite “a major study [that] came out from Yale epidemiologist in Lancet, one of the leading medical publications in the world” in support of his Medicare-for-all plan. He was talking about this study, which was just published last week.

The study’s lead author, Alison Galvani, is the director of Yale University’s Center for Infectious Disease Modeling and Analysis. The paper discloses that Galvani served as an “informal, unpaid advisor” to Sanders’s Senate office as it developed the Medicare For All Act. None of the other authors disclosed any outside or competing interests.

All told, the study concludes, a single-payer system akin to Sanders’s plan would slash the nation’s health-care expenditures by 13 percent, or more than $450 billion, each year. Not only that, “ensuring health-care access for all Americans would save more than 68,000 lives.”

Subscribe to the Post Most newsletter: Today’s most popular stories on The Washington Post

In their breakdown of the numbers, researchers applied the existing Medicare fee structure across the entire health-care system and found it would save about $100 billion annually. Keep in mind that this basically represents less money going to doctors and hospitals, a major sticking point for medical groups that oppose Medicare-for-all. But those declines would be more than offset by several hundred billions in savings from reduced administrative and billing costs, Galvani and her colleagues estimate. The lack of patient billing under a Medicare-for-all system would also eliminate the roughly $35 billion a year that hospitals now pay to chase down unpaid bills.

Etc​

 

[Norman]

Here's that Medicare-for-all study Bernie Sanders keeps bringing up

A new analysis published in the journal Lancet adds some empirical heft to an argument many progressives have been making for years: A national single-payer health-care system would save tens of thousands of lives each year — and hundreds of billions of dollars.

f you watched last night’s Democratic debate in Nevada you might have heard Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) cite “a major study [that] came out from Yale epidemiologist in Lancet, one of the leading medical publications in the world” in support of his Medicare-for-all plan. He was talking about this study, which was just published last week.

The study’s lead author, Alison Galvani, is the director of Yale University’s Center for Infectious Disease Modeling and Analysis. The paper discloses that Galvani served as an “informal, unpaid advisor” to Sanders’s Senate office as it developed the Medicare For All Act. None of the other authors disclosed any outside or competing interests.

All told, the study concludes, a single-payer system akin to Sanders’s plan would slash the nation’s health-care expenditures by 13 percent, or more than $450 billion, each year. Not only that, “ensuring health-care access for all Americans would save more than 68,000 lives.”

Subscribe to the Post Most newsletter: Today’s most popular stories on The Washington Post

In their breakdown of the numbers, researchers applied the existing Medicare fee structure across the entire health-care system and found it would save about $100 billion annually. Keep in mind that this basically represents less money going to doctors and hospitals, a major sticking point for medical groups that oppose Medicare-for-all. But those declines would be more than offset by several hundred billions in savings from reduced administrative and billing costs, Galvani and her colleagues estimate. The lack of patient billing under a Medicare-for-all system would also eliminate the roughly $35 billion a year that hospitals now pay to chase down unpaid bills.

Etc​

Socialists always lie.

 

[kiwiman127]

Bernie and his push for free medical care for all, yet Bernie never brings up how to really pay for it. But still, who are these Doctors that will be happy to treat patients for very little money? Doctors do not want to wait between 30 and 60 days to be reinbursed by a democrat run government,,,but thats if they even get reinbursed.

Bernie has explained his methodology. It’s the citizen’s tax will increase paying for his Medicare-For-All, but the new taxes will be much less than their healthcare insurance premiums, which the consumer would not being paying private insurance premiums.
I don’t like Bernie’s plan because like Obamacare, it forces American citizens to have no choice.
However, we must do something about the runaway increasing cost of healthcare and those costs are a threat to this one of the biggest threats to the American economy.
The above statement is not just a liberal train of thought. Here’s a link to the very conservative Heritage Foundation, which echos exactly what I just said:
A Major Threat to Our Economy – Health Care Spending
I think America needs to do something big. Look, no one has done one thing about the crazy cost of healthcare and this whole thing a major threat to our economy and that would be terrible for a huge majority of Americans. But I think we need to still keep giving Americans to make their own decisions. Thus I believe the best solution is Public Option.

 

[debbiedowner]

Here's that Medicare-for-all study Bernie Sanders keeps bringing up

A new analysis published in the journal Lancet adds some empirical heft to an argument many progressives have been making for years: A national single-payer health-care system would save tens of thousands of lives each year — and hundreds of billions of dollars.

f you watched last night’s Democratic debate in Nevada you might have heard Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) cite “a major study [that] came out from Yale epidemiologist in Lancet, one of the leading medical publications in the world” in support of his Medicare-for-all plan. He was talking about this study, which was just published last week.

The study’s lead author, Alison Galvani, is the director of Yale University’s Center for Infectious Disease Modeling and Analysis. The paper discloses that Galvani served as an “informal, unpaid advisor” to Sanders’s Senate office as it developed the Medicare For All Act. None of the other authors disclosed any outside or competing interests.

All told, the study concludes, a single-payer system akin to Sanders’s plan would slash the nation’s health-care expenditures by 13 percent, or more than $450 billion, each year. Not only that, “ensuring health-care access for all Americans would save more than 68,000 lives.”

Subscribe to the Post Most newsletter: Today’s most popular stories on The Washington Post

In their breakdown of the numbers, researchers applied the existing Medicare fee structure across the entire health-care system and found it would save about $100 billion annually. Keep in mind that this basically represents less money going to doctors and hospitals, a major sticking point for medical groups that oppose Medicare-for-all. But those declines would be more than offset by several hundred billions in savings from reduced administrative and billing costs, Galvani and her colleagues estimate. The lack of patient billing under a Medicare-for-all system would also eliminate the roughly $35 billion a year that hospitals now pay to chase down unpaid bills.

Etc​

Socialists always lie.

You're an idiot and before you spout out from your shit hole do some fucking research.