The 50 most developed countries in the world and Universal Healthcare.

[McRocket]

I spent years in Canada...I know single payer FAR better than most of you do. It is a terrible system.

I am all for government healthcare for those who need it.

But I am 100% against single payer.

Want to know what it is like to be a patient in a single payer system?
Go to the DMV (in America) and that is how you will be treated in single payer...not as a person, but STRICTLY as a number (unless you get 'lucky' and someone nice takes pity on you).
Single payer means customer satisfaction becomes TOTALLY irrelevant. All the employees will care about is doing what they are told by their superior. You could literally scream at them for help - and if it is not their responsibility - they will not lift a finger for you (unless they are young/new).
That is the DMV and THAT is single payer.

Leave government healthcare for those who need it and leave private healthcare for everyone else...that, IMO, is the best system.

Private healthcare in the United States is already like that. My brother in law broke his knee in a car accident and was taken to the hospital in Miami. After being discharged from the emergency room, he asked for wheel chair. He was told that he did not need one because "nothing was broken, and that he needed to MAN UP"! That's private health care for you. People are only there for a pay check. They are not actually there because their interested in caring for people. That's why the United States is 34th in life expectancy despite spending more per person on healthcare than any country in the world.

There are always jerks and incompetents in any business...you must know that.

The difference is your brother-in-law had a choice...he could go to another for-profit hospital (assuming he had the means/insurance). In single payer...he is trapped.
And, in a private hospital, he could document his treatment on his phone camera, put it online and get that jerk fired.
In a single payer hospital...he could whine till the cows come home...nothing would happen to that worker because customer service is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT in single-payer hospitals (again, unless you come across a kind person).

Single payer means customer satisfaction is IRRELEVANT...you are treated like a number. And you have no alternatives.

I know first hand with years of experience; you - I assume - do not.

Tell me this, please...what is wrong with full government healthcare for those who cannot afford it and private, for profit healthcare (that the government stays COMPLETELY out of, including insurance) for those who can afford it?

I am a Canadian living in Canada, and I have never been treated "like a number" at any time. McRocket sounds like he used emergency rooms to provide "heath care". Yes you are treated like a number in the emergency room of a big city of hospital, because that's what you are. You are a faceless person who passes through their facility, never to be seen again.

Nope. I am talking about extended stays in hospital AND waiting lists AND one emergency story (these are all in the last 5 years - I live in both Canada and America for long stretches).

1) I was in a Canadian hospital for 6 days a few years ago getting a pacemaker (though I am only middle aged - young for a pacemaker). This hospital was the largest and the most advanced in that province.

Here is part of the nightmare that myself and others faced:

- I developed a terrible cough after a few days. I was pretty sure what it was an inner ear infection (I get those often). I asked to see a doctor on Monday. A doctor NEVER came to check on me for the last 4 days I was in hospital (nurses said they were too busy). I was in a huge hospital and I (and others in my room) could not see a doctor for days?!? This cough was so bad that they made me have a chest x-ray to make sure it was not pneumonia before the operation (which went fine, btw).
When I left the hospital, the next day I went to a clinic, the doctor looked at my ear for 5 seconds and said it was an inner ear infection and gave me antibiotics...which cleared it up in a few days.
So, this advanced, Canadian hospital could not spare a doctor to look at me (or anyone else) for days, but instead gave me a chest x-ray. That is ridiculous.

- It gets worse...MUCH worse -

- we were not allowed to leave the floor (cardiac floor). NONE OF US PATIENTS. Hell, we were not even allowed to stand on the elevator. If we did - they threatened to move us down the waiting list for our operations. The reason is they don't care about the patients misery...they just are watching their legal butts because if we go home and wait for our operations and croak - they might get in some trouble.
So there were dozens of patients - most of them not hooked up to machines or receiving special medication or anything - trapped in hospital....waiting for their surgeries. For days, weeks, over a month. All the time with no idea when their operation would happen because as someone with a more serious condition - even slightly - came in, they were bumped down the list. Over and over.
I had three others in my room. All had been waiting weeks for bypass operations and had NO IDEA when their operation would come. ALL of them were not allowed off the floor...not even to go for a walk on another floor. None of them were hooked up to machines or taking special meds (I was hooked up to a portable monitoring device - but I could walk around with it...though I felt almost fine...except for my cough). We were all trapped.
And almost no one gave a shit. The younger nurses were kinder - because the system had not weighed them down yet. But the more senior ones treated us like numbers...like we were annoyances. Not one or two...ALL of them.
This isn't the Soviet Union or Cuba...this is a modern, large CANADIAN hospital.
I asked my excellent Canadian GP about it. She said that is just the way the system works, basically. SOP (more or less).

- the guy next to me was waiting for a triple bypass. Nice guy, soft spoken. He was waiting for over a month with NO IDEA when his operation was coming. He should have been waiting at home. He was not hooked up to a machine, not taking special medication - he could walk around perfectly fine. He was just waiting....and waiting...and waiting. And he was COMPLETELY miserable (as all of us were becoming).
Finally, his operation came (I had left the hospital by then, but a mutual friend told me what happened), he went in. came out. A problem. He went back in - they cut his leg off. He came back out. Another problem. He went back in...he died on the operating table.
Let's assume that all this was not the doctor's fault - that it was inevitable for some reason. That guy should have been allowed to wait - in comfort - at home for his operation. There was NOTHING they were doing for him in hospital while he waited...NOTHING. He felt FINE. So his final weeks were spent in misery when he could have spent them surrounded by friends and family.

- BTW - because many of these patients who were waiting for operations were feeling fine/in no pain...they clogged up the cardiac ward. Result, people who actually NEEDED to go to the cardiac ward had to wait in Emergency for a bed to open up on the ward. That was going to be my situation when I first entered the hospital. But someone ahead of me got much worse, was transferred to ICU and thus I got a bed on the ward (thank goodness).

- a male nurse told me that for one patient on that ward to stay one day cost $2200 (Canadian). That is over 2 grand for people who largely feel fine, just sitting around waiting for operations...when they could do it at home and save taxpayers that money.
But no one cares because it is government run. Waste means little to bureaucrats...so long as the money is there.

NO WAY that happens in a for profit hospital.

They would NEVER allow people sitting in their hospitals when they can be at home waiting. NO WAY.
And if that awful story of my friend next to me got out in a for profit hospital...it would be a disaster. No one would go to that hospital unless they had to. Their profits would fall.
Also, a doctor would have seen me for my cough. Which is more expensive? A doctor looking in my ear and me taking a few Amoxicillin capsules...or a series of chest x-rays? The latter obviously...by hundreds of dollars. So clearly a doctor would have seen me in a for profit hospital just to save money.
Finally, I guarantee you the average nurses would be nicer as well. Same reason. If the reputation of a for profit hospital is the nurses are mean...you ain't going there (unless you have no choice). So they treat you better because it is part of their job description.
In a single payer hospital - it does not matter if you are happy...there is NO OTHER game in town.


And let's talk about waiting times in the Canadian system? Surely you are aware of them?

Canada has worst ER/referral wait times in 11 developed countries: Report

- I had a good friend you asked his GP to see a shrink. He has waited over two years and (as far as I know) he has yet to see one. If he said he was suicidal - he would see one fast. But since he is low priority...he has to wait and wait and wait. He could pay to see one privately...but he says he cannot afford it. So - he is screwed.
- Wait times are HIDEOUS in Canada because the system is designed for two things...GP visits and emergencies. It is not designed for the millions of people in between (a respected doctor told me that). And it could not afford it even if it wasn't.


One final emergency room story.

I went to emergency in Canada one night (it was not an emergency - my foot was messed up and I could barely walk, but I was out in the boonies and I knew that if you want to see a doctor that way - best to go at about 5-7 am). Turns out, there was only me and an old woman and her husband...nice people. She had been waiting for hours to see a doctor (they only call a doctor in at night in this hospital if it is life threatening). She had some internal problem (I forget what it was) that she had had for years...and it was flaring up again. And she was in a LOT of pain...but not life threatening.
But the thing is, it was FAR more comfortable for her to lie down. And there was no way she could do that in the emergency ward (short of lying on the cold, hard floor).
I had been in the back - getting blood taken - and saw that there were nurses back where the beds were...but ZERO patients. Just several beds with no one in them.
After I came back out and the woman told me how much pain she was in, I went to the nurse and asked if the woman could wait in the back where the beds were. She said she was sorry but that is not the procedure?!? Only if a doctor is on duty?!?
What? You let this old, nice woman - in great pain - not lie down in the back (which was like 10 feet from the waiting room) because it was not procedure?

THAT is what single payer is like. They don't give a shit about your comfort...just so long as they follow the rules.

And that would NEVER happen in a for profit hospital because the uproar if that story ever got out would hurt their profits.

It's not that for profit healthcare professionals care more then single payer ones. It's that customer satisfaction is VERY important in a for profit hospital. it is TOTALLY irrelevant in a single payer hospital. Because the latter have ZERO competition.

And the above are just stories from ONE person over a five year span. I guarantee you there are hundreds of thousands more from Canadians.

 

[Dragonlady]

There must be some pay off I suppose.

American health insurance must be the biggest scam ever perpetrated on the people.

Government is the biggest scam ever perpetrated on the people.

So move to a jurisidction where there is no government. They do exist. Mynamar has no real government. Youll need enough money for a private security team to keep you safe 24/7. Also a source of clean drinking water for your personal residence. And you'd better be able to feed yourself, and never need medical care, but there's no government and no taxes.

There is also no personal safety, no jobs, no food, and the entire country is one of the most dangerous shitholes on earth, but they're completely free of government.

Mynamar has a government, moron.

Why is a Canadian telling an American to leave his country?

She is helping you to find a place that is free of government. Isnt that what you want ?

They aren't free of government. Morons like you try to equate especially bad government with no government. No one is fooled.

A Trump voter saying "No one is fooled".

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Government is the biggest scam ever perpetrated on the people.

So move to a jurisidction where there is no government. They do exist. Mynamar has no real government. Youll need enough money for a private security team to keep you safe 24/7. Also a source of clean drinking water for your personal residence. And you'd better be able to feed yourself, and never need medical care, but there's no government and no taxes.

There is also no personal safety, no jobs, no food, and the entire country is one of the most dangerous shitholes on earth, but they're completely free of government.

Mynamar has a government, moron.

Why is a Canadian telling an American to leave his country?

She is helping you to find a place that is free of government. Isnt that what you want ?

They aren't free of government. Morons like you try to equate especially bad government with no government. No one is fooled.

A Trump voter saying "No one is fooled".

This generalization of Trump voters makes you look weak. I voted for him and will gladly compare resumes with anyone on this site.

 

[Dragonlady]

I spent years in Canada...I know single payer FAR better than most of you do. It is a terrible system.

I am all for government healthcare for those who need it.

But I am 100% against single payer.

Want to know what it is like to be a patient in a single payer system?
Go to the DMV (in America) and that is how you will be treated in single payer...not as a person, but STRICTLY as a number (unless you get 'lucky' and someone nice takes pity on you).
Single payer means customer satisfaction becomes TOTALLY irrelevant. All the employees will care about is doing what they are told by their superior. You could literally scream at them for help - and if it is not their responsibility - they will not lift a finger for you (unless they are young/new).
That is the DMV and THAT is single payer.

Leave government healthcare for those who need it and leave private healthcare for everyone else...that, IMO, is the best system.

Private healthcare in the United States is already like that. My brother in law broke his knee in a car accident and was taken to the hospital in Miami. After being discharged from the emergency room, he asked for wheel chair. He was told that he did not need one because "nothing was broken, and that he needed to MAN UP"! That's private health care for you. People are only there for a pay check. They are not actually there because their interested in caring for people. That's why the United States is 34th in life expectancy despite spending more per person on healthcare than any country in the world.

There are always jerks and incompetents in any business...you must know that.

The difference is your brother-in-law had a choice...he could go to another for-profit hospital (assuming he had the means/insurance). In single payer...he is trapped.
And, in a private hospital, he could document his treatment on his phone camera, put it online and get that jerk fired.
In a single payer hospital...he could whine till the cows come home...nothing would happen to that worker because customer service is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT in single-payer hospitals (again, unless you come across a kind person).

Single payer means customer satisfaction is IRRELEVANT...you are treated like a number. And you have no alternatives.

I know first hand with years of experience; you - I assume - do not.

Tell me this, please...what is wrong with full government healthcare for those who cannot afford it and private, for profit healthcare (that the government stays COMPLETELY out of, including insurance) for those who can afford it?

I am a Canadian living in Canada, and I have never been treated "like a number" at any time. McRocket sounds like he used emergency rooms to provide "heath care". Yes you are treated like a number in the emergency room of a big city of hospital, because that's what you are. You are a faceless person who passes through their facility, never to be seen again.

Nope. I am talking about extended stays in hospital AND waiting lists AND one emergency story (these are all in the last 5 years - I live in both Canada and America for long stretches).

1) I was in a Canadian hospital for 6 days a few years ago getting a pacemaker (though I am only middle aged - young for a pacemaker). This hospital was the largest and the most advanced in that province.

Here is part of the nightmare that myself and others faced:

- I developed a terrible cough after a few days. I was pretty sure what it was an inner ear infection (I get those often). I asked to see a doctor on Monday. A doctor NEVER came to check on me for the last 4 days I was in hospital (nurses said they were too busy). I was in a huge hospital and I (and others in my room) could not see a doctor for days?!? This cough was so bad that they made me have a chest x-ray to make sure it was not pneumonia before the operation (which went fine, btw).
When I left the hospital, the next day I went to a clinic, the doctor looked at my ear for 5 seconds and said it was an inner ear infection and gave me antibiotics...which cleared it up in a few days.
So, this advanced, Canadian hospital could not spare a doctor to look at me (or anyone else) for days, but instead gave me a chest x-ray. That is ridiculous.

- It gets worse...MUCH worse -

- we were not allowed to leave the floor (cardiac floor). NONE OF US PATIENTS. Hell, we were not even allowed to stand on the elevator. If we did - they threatened to move us down the waiting list for our operations. The reason is they don't care about the patients misery...they just are watching their legal butts because if we go home and wait for our operations and croak - they might get in some trouble.
So there were dozens of patients - most of them not hooked up to machines o r receiving special medication or anything - trapped in hospital....waiting for their surgeries. For days, weeks over a month. All the time with no idea when their operation would happen because as someone with a more serious condition - even slightly - came in, they were bumped down the list. Over and over.
I had three others in my room. All had been waiting weeks and had NO IDEA when their operation would come. ALL of them were not allowed off the floor...not even to go for a walk on another floor. We were all trapped.
And almost no one gave a shit. The younger nurses were kinder - because the system had not weighed them down yet. But the more senior ones treated us like numbers...like we were annoyances. Not one or two...ALL of them.
This isn't the Soviet Union or Cuba...this is a modern, large CANADIAN hospital.
I asked my excellent Canadian GP about it. She said that is just the way the system works, basically. SOP (more or less).

- the guy next to me was waiting for a triple bypass. Nice guy, soft spoken. He was waiting for over a month with NO IDEA when his operation was coming. He should have been waiting at home. He was not hooked up to a machine, not taking special medication - he could walk around perfectly fine. He was just waiting....and waiting...and waiting. And he was COMPLETELY miserable (as all of us were becoming).
Finally, his operation came (I had left the hospital by then, but a mutual friend told me what happened), he went in. came out. A problem. He went back in - they cut his leg off. He came back out. Another problem. He went back in...he died on the operating table.
Let's assume that all this was not the doctor's fault - that it was inevitable for some reason. That guy should have been allowed to wait - in comfort - at home for his operation. There was NOTHING they were doing for him in hospital while he waited...NOTHING. He felt FINE. So his final weeks were spent in misery when he could have spent them surrounded by friends and family.

- BTW - because many of these patients who were waiting for operation were feeling fine/in no pain...they clogged up the cardiac ward. Result, people who actually NEEDED to go to the cardiac ward had to wait in Emergency for a bed to open up on the ward. That was going to be my situation when I first entered the hospital. But someone ahead of me got much worse, was transferred to ICU and thus I got a bed on the ward.

- a male nurse told me that for one patient on that ward to stay one day cost $2200 (Canadian). That is over 2 grand for people who largely feel fine, just sitting around waiting for operations...when they could do it at home and save taxpayers that money.
But no one cares because it is government run.

NO WAY that happens in a for profit hospital.

They would NEVER allow people sitting in their hospitals when they can be at home waiting. NO WAY.
And if that awful story of my friend next to me got out in a for profit hospital...it would be a disaster. No one would go to that hospital unless they had to. Their profits would fall.
Also, a doctor would have seen me for my cough. Which is more expensive? A doctor looking in my ear and me taking a few Amoxicillin capsules...or a series of chest x-rays? The latter obviously. So clearly a doctor would have seen me in a for profit hospital just to save money.
Finally, I bet you the nurses would be nicer as well. Same reason. If the reputation of a for profit hospital is the nurses are mean...you ain't going there (unless you have no choice). So they treat you better because it is part of their job description.
In a single payer hospital - it does not matter if you are happy...there is NO OTHER game in town.


And let's talk about waiting times in the Canadian system? Surely you are aware of them?

Canada has worst ER/referral wait times in 11 developed countries: Report

- I had a good friend you asked his GP to see a shrink. He has waited over two years and (as far as I know) he has yet to see one. If he said he was suicidal - he would see one fast. But since he is low priority...he has to wait and wait and wait. He could pay to see one privately...but he says he cannot afford it. So - he is screwed.
- Wait times are HIDEOUS in Canada because the system is designed for two things...GP visits and emergencies. It is not designed for the millions of people in between (a respected doctor told me that). And it could not afford it even if it wasn't.


One final emergency room story.
I went to emergency in Canada one night (it was not an emergency - my foot was messed up and I could barely walk, but I was out in the boonies and I knew that if you want to see a doctor that way - best to go at about 5-7 am). Turns out, there was only me and an old woman and her husband...nice people. She had been waiting for hours to see a doctor (they only call a doctor in at night in this hospital if it is life threatening). She had some internal problem (I forget what it was) that she had had for years...and it was flaring up again. And she was in a LOT of pain...but not life threatening.
But the thing is, it was FAR more comfortable for her to lie down. And there was no way she could do that in the emergency ward (short of lying on the cold, hard floor).
I had been in the back - getting blood taken - and saw that there were nurses back where the beds were...but ZERO patients.
After I came back out and the woman told me how much pain she was in, I went to the nurse and asked if the woman could wait in the back where the beds were. She said she was sorry but that is not the procedure?!? Only if a doctor is on duty?!?
What? You let this old, nice woman - in great pain - not lie down in the back (which was like 10 feet from the waiting room) because it was not procedure?

THAT is what single payer is like. They don;t give a shit about your comfort...just so long as they follow the rules.

And that would NEVER happen in a for profit hospital because the uproar if that story ever got out would hurt their profits.

It's not that for profit healthcare professionals care more then single payer ones. It's that customer satisfaction is VERY important in a for profit hospital. it is TOTALLY irrelevant in a single payer hospital.


And the above are just stories from ONE person over a five year span.

A don't believe a word you posted about your hospital stay. For one thing NO ONE WAITS FOR OPERATIONS IN HOSPITALS. Never happens. You go to hospital the day before surgery and you go home within days.

I you are awaiting a pacemaker, you wait at home. My ex got one recently. He was in and out the same day. Only those in danger of dying are kept in hospital. That is a REAL issue here. People being sent home too soon.

If you are so sick you are in hospital - there is no wait for surgery. Your treatment is immediate.

You don't even mention which hospital you supposedly stay at, or provide links of where these waits take place.

There are no people waiting for weeks for surgery in hospital.

 

[Dragonlady]

So move to a jurisidction where there is no government. They do exist. Mynamar has no real government. Youll need enough money for a private security team to keep you safe 24/7. Also a source of clean drinking water for your personal residence. And you'd better be able to feed yourself, and never need medical care, but there's no government and no taxes.

There is also no personal safety, no jobs, no food, and the entire country is one of the most dangerous shitholes on earth, but they're completely free of government.

Mynamar has a government, moron.

Why is a Canadian telling an American to leave his country?

She is helping you to find a place that is free of government. Isnt that what you want ?

They aren't free of government. Morons like you try to equate especially bad government with no government. No one is fooled.

A Trump voter saying "No one is fooled".

This generalization of Trump voters makes you look weak. I voted for him and will gladly compare resumes with anyone on this site.

Anyone who voted for the lying con man is a fool. No exceptions.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Mynamar has a government, moron.

Why is a Canadian telling an American to leave his country?

She is helping you to find a place that is free of government. Isnt that what you want ?

They aren't free of government. Morons like you try to equate especially bad government with no government. No one is fooled.

A Trump voter saying "No one is fooled".

This generalization of Trump voters makes you look weak. I voted for him and will gladly compare resumes with anyone on this site.

Anyone who voted for the lying con man is a fool. No exceptions.

Only dictators and awful people deal in absolutes. The worst kind of people. You’re in great company.

 

[McRocket]

I spent years in Canada...I know single payer FAR better than most of you do. It is a terrible system.

I am all for government healthcare for those who need it.

But I am 100% against single payer.

Want to know what it is like to be a patient in a single payer system?
Go to the DMV (in America) and that is how you will be treated in single payer...not as a person, but STRICTLY as a number (unless you get 'lucky' and someone nice takes pity on you).
Single payer means customer satisfaction becomes TOTALLY irrelevant. All the employees will care about is doing what they are told by their superior. You could literally scream at them for help - and if it is not their responsibility - they will not lift a finger for you (unless they are young/new).
That is the DMV and THAT is single payer.

Leave government healthcare for those who need it and leave private healthcare for everyone else...that, IMO, is the best system.

Private healthcare in the United States is already like that. My brother in law broke his knee in a car accident and was taken to the hospital in Miami. After being discharged from the emergency room, he asked for wheel chair. He was told that he did not need one because "nothing was broken, and that he needed to MAN UP"! That's private health care for you. People are only there for a pay check. They are not actually there because their interested in caring for people. That's why the United States is 34th in life expectancy despite spending more per person on healthcare than any country in the world.

There are always jerks and incompetents in any business...you must know that.

The difference is your brother-in-law had a choice...he could go to another for-profit hospital (assuming he had the means/insurance). In single payer...he is trapped.
And, in a private hospital, he could document his treatment on his phone camera, put it online and get that jerk fired.
In a single payer hospital...he could whine till the cows come home...nothing would happen to that worker because customer service is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT in single-payer hospitals (again, unless you come across a kind person).

Single payer means customer satisfaction is IRRELEVANT...you are treated like a number. And you have no alternatives.

I know first hand with years of experience; you - I assume - do not.

Tell me this, please...what is wrong with full government healthcare for those who cannot afford it and private, for profit healthcare (that the government stays COMPLETELY out of, including insurance) for those who can afford it?

I am a Canadian living in Canada, and I have never been treated "like a number" at any time. McRocket sounds like he used emergency rooms to provide "heath care". Yes you are treated like a number in the emergency room of a big city of hospital, because that's what you are. You are a faceless person who passes through their facility, never to be seen again.

Nope. I am talking about extended stays in hospital AND waiting lists AND one emergency story (these are all in the last 5 years - I live in both Canada and America for long stretches).

1) I was in a Canadian hospital for 6 days a few years ago getting a pacemaker (though I am only middle aged - young for a pacemaker). This hospital was the largest and the most advanced in that province.

Here is part of the nightmare that myself and others faced:

- I developed a terrible cough after a few days. I was pretty sure what it was an inner ear infection (I get those often). I asked to see a doctor on Monday. A doctor NEVER came to check on me for the last 4 days I was in hospital (nurses said they were too busy). I was in a huge hospital and I (and others in my room) could not see a doctor for days?!? This cough was so bad that they made me have a chest x-ray to make sure it was not pneumonia before the operation (which went fine, btw).
When I left the hospital, the next day I went to a clinic, the doctor looked at my ear for 5 seconds and said it was an inner ear infection and gave me antibiotics...which cleared it up in a few days.
So, this advanced, Canadian hospital could not spare a doctor to look at me (or anyone else) for days, but instead gave me a chest x-ray. That is ridiculous.

- It gets worse...MUCH worse -

- we were not allowed to leave the floor (cardiac floor). NONE OF US PATIENTS. Hell, we were not even allowed to stand on the elevator. If we did - they threatened to move us down the waiting list for our operations. The reason is they don't care about the patients misery...they just are watching their legal butts because if we go home and wait for our operations and croak - they might get in some trouble.
So there were dozens of patients - most of them not hooked up to machines o r receiving special medication or anything - trapped in hospital....waiting for their surgeries. For days, weeks over a month. All the time with no idea when their operation would happen because as someone with a more serious condition - even slightly - came in, they were bumped down the list. Over and over.
I had three others in my room. All had been waiting weeks and had NO IDEA when their operation would come. ALL of them were not allowed off the floor...not even to go for a walk on another floor. We were all trapped.
And almost no one gave a shit. The younger nurses were kinder - because the system had not weighed them down yet. But the more senior ones treated us like numbers...like we were annoyances. Not one or two...ALL of them.
This isn't the Soviet Union or Cuba...this is a modern, large CANADIAN hospital.
I asked my excellent Canadian GP about it. She said that is just the way the system works, basically. SOP (more or less).

- the guy next to me was waiting for a triple bypass. Nice guy, soft spoken. He was waiting for over a month with NO IDEA when his operation was coming. He should have been waiting at home. He was not hooked up to a machine, not taking special medication - he could walk around perfectly fine. He was just waiting....and waiting...and waiting. And he was COMPLETELY miserable (as all of us were becoming).
Finally, his operation came (I had left the hospital by then, but a mutual friend told me what happened), he went in. came out. A problem. He went back in - they cut his leg off. He came back out. Another problem. He went back in...he died on the operating table.
Let's assume that all this was not the doctor's fault - that it was inevitable for some reason. That guy should have been allowed to wait - in comfort - at home for his operation. There was NOTHING they were doing for him in hospital while he waited...NOTHING. He felt FINE. So his final weeks were spent in misery when he could have spent them surrounded by friends and family.

- BTW - because many of these patients who were waiting for operation were feeling fine/in no pain...they clogged up the cardiac ward. Result, people who actually NEEDED to go to the cardiac ward had to wait in Emergency for a bed to open up on the ward. That was going to be my situation when I first entered the hospital. But someone ahead of me got much worse, was transferred to ICU and thus I got a bed on the ward.

- a male nurse told me that for one patient on that ward to stay one day cost $2200 (Canadian). That is over 2 grand for people who largely feel fine, just sitting around waiting for operations...when they could do it at home and save taxpayers that money.
But no one cares because it is government run.

NO WAY that happens in a for profit hospital.

They would NEVER allow people sitting in their hospitals when they can be at home waiting. NO WAY.
And if that awful story of my friend next to me got out in a for profit hospital...it would be a disaster. No one would go to that hospital unless they had to. Their profits would fall.
Also, a doctor would have seen me for my cough. Which is more expensive? A doctor looking in my ear and me taking a few Amoxicillin capsules...or a series of chest x-rays? The latter obviously. So clearly a doctor would have seen me in a for profit hospital just to save money.
Finally, I bet you the nurses would be nicer as well. Same reason. If the reputation of a for profit hospital is the nurses are mean...you ain't going there (unless you have no choice). So they treat you better because it is part of their job description.
In a single payer hospital - it does not matter if you are happy...there is NO OTHER game in town.


And let's talk about waiting times in the Canadian system? Surely you are aware of them?

Canada has worst ER/referral wait times in 11 developed countries: Report

- I had a good friend you asked his GP to see a shrink. He has waited over two years and (as far as I know) he has yet to see one. If he said he was suicidal - he would see one fast. But since he is low priority...he has to wait and wait and wait. He could pay to see one privately...but he says he cannot afford it. So - he is screwed.
- Wait times are HIDEOUS in Canada because the system is designed for two things...GP visits and emergencies. It is not designed for the millions of people in between (a respected doctor told me that). And it could not afford it even if it wasn't.


One final emergency room story.
I went to emergency in Canada one night (it was not an emergency - my foot was messed up and I could barely walk, but I was out in the boonies and I knew that if you want to see a doctor that way - best to go at about 5-7 am). Turns out, there was only me and an old woman and her husband...nice people. She had been waiting for hours to see a doctor (they only call a doctor in at night in this hospital if it is life threatening). She had some internal problem (I forget what it was) that she had had for years...and it was flaring up again. And she was in a LOT of pain...but not life threatening.
But the thing is, it was FAR more comfortable for her to lie down. And there was no way she could do that in the emergency ward (short of lying on the cold, hard floor).
I had been in the back - getting blood taken - and saw that there were nurses back where the beds were...but ZERO patients.
After I came back out and the woman told me how much pain she was in, I went to the nurse and asked if the woman could wait in the back where the beds were. She said she was sorry but that is not the procedure?!? Only if a doctor is on duty?!?
What? You let this old, nice woman - in great pain - not lie down in the back (which was like 10 feet from the waiting room) because it was not procedure?

THAT is what single payer is like. They don;t give a shit about your comfort...just so long as they follow the rules.

And that would NEVER happen in a for profit hospital because the uproar if that story ever got out would hurt their profits.

It's not that for profit healthcare professionals care more then single payer ones. It's that customer satisfaction is VERY important in a for profit hospital. it is TOTALLY irrelevant in a single payer hospital.


And the above are just stories from ONE person over a five year span.

A don't believe a word you posted about your hospital stay. For one thing NO ONE WAITS FOR OPERATIONS IN HOSPITALS. Never happens. You go to hospital the day before surgery and you go home within days.

I you are awaiting a pacemaker, you wait at home. My ex got one recently. He was in and out the same day. Only those in danger of dying are kept in hospital. That is a REAL issue here. People being sent home too soon.

If you are so sick you are in hospital - there is no wait for surgery. Your treatment is immediate.

You don't even mention which hospital you supposedly stay at, or provide links of where these waits take place.

There are no people waiting for weeks for surgery in hospital.

You have not a fucking clue what you are talking about on this. You are just guessing...of hoping.

'CABG places a large burden on our limited health care resources, with resultant long waiting lists for patients. While waiting times of less than three months have been quoted for hospitals in the United States, the average waiting time for elective CABG is well over three months in Canada (14). Patients often wait in hospital after an MI for several weeks before they are allotted a date for CABG because of these backlogs, resulting in increased costs related to hospital stay.'

Timing of bypass surgery in stable patients after acute myocardial infarction

BTW - CABG - Coronary artery bypass surgery

You were saying?

 

[bripat9643]

Mynamar has a government, moron.

Why is a Canadian telling an American to leave his country?

She is helping you to find a place that is free of government. Isnt that what you want ?

They aren't free of government. Morons like you try to equate especially bad government with no government. No one is fooled.

A Trump voter saying "No one is fooled".

This generalization of Trump voters makes you look weak. I voted for him and will gladly compare resumes with anyone on this site.

Anyone who voted for the lying con man is a fool. No exceptions.

Hmmmm . . . Wrong. Voting for Hillary the criminal would have been foolish. We would have never known about the deep state criminals if it wasn't for Trump getting elected. Hillary would have rewarded them all.

 

[sparky]

So can capitalism Boe

Or have you not noted those quicky mart collection cans w/childrens faces on them?

~S~

I have no idea what you are talking about. What is a Quicky Mart Collection of Cans With Children's Faces? Are you claiming that some Capitalist has canned children as food products?

You never had a sick child in your neighborhood ?, or simply were not aware of them?

It's hard to imagine not being aware of all the fund raisers that go on , all health care related, and so many focused on a sick child

And yes, they ALL had some sort of HC policy......No, they weren't all the spawn of welfare queens & bums

But i guess we see what we want to , as well as dent what we'd like

So while you may paint universal HC with fallicous names like communist , turnaround is fair play

I get to call the insurance cabal and it supporters here heartless ,souless tools of the devil

~S~

Ah - so you're just doing a performance art rendition of the Autorantic Moonbat.

Got it.

In RealityLand:

Voluntary Charity is perfectly compatible with Capitalism, Civil Society and Human Decency.

Moi?

Dear Boe, i spent 3 decades in ems , try treating sick/injured kids for a 'performance' , and get back to me

Trust me, It's tear your heart out , even the most stoic of us

But what's worse are those that would demonize them, blame them, their parents, their teachers, whatever....

That's the 'I got mine' mentality , grand denial mechanism

Until the capitalist vultures circle their homes, and existences , looking to pick them clean

That's kickin' a man (or child far to many cases) down , for those that believe in fair play

Obviously you don't

Let us know how that works out

~S~

^^^ Sanctimonious Ass gonna Sanctimony ^^^

There is nothing I have posted here that doesn't support fair play. And I do not demonize people who have had misfortune in their lives. I do oppose those who exploit such people to pick the pockets of those who are productive.

Then you'd assumably be all over the insurance cabal Boe .

The entire reason the ADA was created was to place a bureaucratic leash on a predatory industry

It wasn't to become a communist nation via liberal rule, which is no more than their parroted whinings passed down through it's Rwing advocates.

~S~

 

[danielpalos]

So move to a jurisidction where there is no government. They do exist. Mynamar has no real government. Youll need enough money for a private security team to keep you safe 24/7. Also a source of clean drinking water for your personal residence. And you'd better be able to feed yourself, and never need medical care, but there's no government and no taxes.

There is also no personal safety, no jobs, no food, and the entire country is one of the most dangerous shitholes on earth, but they're completely free of government.

Mynamar has a government, moron.

Why is a Canadian telling an American to leave his country?

She is helping you to find a place that is free of government. Isnt that what you want ?

They aren't free of government. Morons like you try to equate especially bad government with no government. No one is fooled.

A Trump voter saying "No one is fooled".

This generalization of Trump voters makes you look weak. I voted for him and will gladly compare resumes with anyone on this site.

so what; i resort to the fewest fallacies. your support of tax cut economics make you look ignorant. want to argue about it?

 

[boedicca]

I have no idea what you are talking about. What is a Quicky Mart Collection of Cans With Children's Faces? Are you claiming that some Capitalist has canned children as food products?

You never had a sick child in your neighborhood ?, or simply were not aware of them?

It's hard to imagine not being aware of all the fund raisers that go on , all health care related, and so many focused on a sick child

And yes, they ALL had some sort of HC policy......No, they weren't all the spawn of welfare queens & bums

But i guess we see what we want to , as well as dent what we'd like

So while you may paint universal HC with fallicous names like communist , turnaround is fair play

I get to call the insurance cabal and it supporters here heartless ,souless tools of the devil

~S~

Ah - so you're just doing a performance art rendition of the Autorantic Moonbat.

Got it.

In RealityLand:

Voluntary Charity is perfectly compatible with Capitalism, Civil Society and Human Decency.

Moi?

Dear Boe, i spent 3 decades in ems , try treating sick/injured kids for a 'performance' , and get back to me

Trust me, It's tear your heart out , even the most stoic of us

But what's worse are those that would demonize them, blame them, their parents, their teachers, whatever....

That's the 'I got mine' mentality , grand denial mechanism

Until the capitalist vultures circle their homes, and existences , looking to pick them clean

That's kickin' a man (or child far to many cases) down , for those that believe in fair play

Obviously you don't

Let us know how that works out

~S~

^^^ Sanctimonious Ass gonna Sanctimony ^^^

There is nothing I have posted here that doesn't support fair play. And I do not demonize people who have had misfortune in their lives. I do oppose those who exploit such people to pick the pockets of those who are productive.

Then you'd assumably be all over the insurance cabal Boe .

The entire reason the ADA was created was to place a bureaucratic leash on a predatory industry

It wasn't to become a communist nation via liberal rule, which is no more than their parroted whinings passed down through it's Rwing advocates.

~S~

B'loney. The ADA was created to loot taxpayers, as are most regulations. It may have started based on a well-intentioned concept (gee where do those generally lead?)...but once the bureaucratic apparatus reaches critical mass, it exists for the Lawyers and Rent Seekers. The bigger the spread of Government Control, the more Socialism-Communism-Totalitarian our system becomes.

 

[U2Edge]

In the UK, the NHS exterminates expensive to care for elderly:

Top doctor's chilling claim: The NHS kills off 130,000 elderly patients every year | Daily Mail Online

Thousands of elderly patients may have died prematurely due to faulty opiate syringe pumps | Daily Mail Online

Yet, people in the UK on average live longer than people in the United States!

Yes because they have better eating habits overall in Europe. Nothing to do with healthcare. Mutually exclusive. Have you ever traveled?

About that myth that people in the UK are healthier: they're getting tubbier too.

The term "obese" describes a person who's very overweight, with a lot of body fat.

It's a common problem in the UK that's estimated to affect around one in every four adults.

In 2016 according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development nearly 27 per cent of adults in the United Kingdom were obese, the highest proportion in Western Europe and a 92 per cent increase since 1996.

It's claimed that by 2030, half of the UK could be obese if the trends continue.

In September 2018, a UN study reported the UK was the third-fattest nation in Europe - behind just Turkey and Malta with an obesity rate of 27.8 per cent.

And in December the UK was crowned the 26th fattest country in the world.

What is the obesity crisis, how does alcohol affect your weight and how can childhood obesity be prevented?

People in the UK on average live longer than people in the United States. They spend less on healthcare and everyone is provided healthcare.

Your posts make me think of an equivalent I heard lately regarding the difference between a million and a billion (or millionaires and billionaires). 1 million seconds is about 11 days, 1 billion seconds is about 30 years. So yes, I agree that taxing the ultra-wealthy more is probably what is best for our society, that said raising taxes on anyone else traditionally stifles economic growth in virtually all sectors other than public employees. I don’t feel as confident as you seem to, that vast government spending and large government agencies to deliver health care will automatically improve the care being delivered to those who need it most, though. In all fairness, attempts at communism (socialism’s extreme cousin) have all resulted in direct and indirect carnage for populations. Not to say you’re advocating communism, but in order for the federal government to take over health care in this country we would have to allow our government to completely control that sector of the economy, no?

Again, 45 out of the 50 most developed countries in the world are already providing Universal Healthcare for all their citizens Employers in these countries don't have to worry about providing healthcare for their employees. So that actually helps business, especially many small business's.

A for profit healthcare system that allows and industry to profit off of people being sick and ill is not a good system. Its why healthcare cost grow over year and it is bankrupting the country. Healthcare cost right now are on an annual basis are over 22% of annual GDP. Compare that to spending on the military which is only 4% of GDP.

Its time that the United States adopt a healthcare system that is ubiquitous in the developed world. The evidence shows that such a system increases life expectancy, covers everyone, and on average cost about half as much as our system. Its one sector of the economy, not the entire economy by any means.

As far as taxes go, when IKE was President, the top federal tax rate each year he was President was 80% or more. Today its only 37%. In 1990, the top federal tax rate was 28%. This was increase by Bush and then increased by Clinton up to 40%. After that you had the ECONOMIC BOOM of the late 1990s. Raising taxes on the rich at these levels does not hurt the economy. The evidence for that is widespread. Yes, keep taxes low for the 90% of the workers who make less than $100,000 a year. But over that level, it needs to be gradually increased, especially once you get to the millionaire and billionaire levels. From 1945 to 1980, the top federal tax rate every year was always above 70%. U.S. economic growth from 1945 to 1980 was much stronger then, than it has been since then, especially since the year 2000.

The top 20% of income earners in the country have 80% of the wealth. The bottom 80% have only 20% of the wealth. Yet, most consumer spending is done by the bottom 80% of income earners. That is why you want to keep the bottom 80% of income earners taxes low. Consumer spending is 70% of what drives real quarterly GDP growth. The lower class and middle class do most of the consumer spending. That's why their taxes need to remain low or even cut. The Rich though typically don't change their level of consumer spending based on their tax rate, another great benefit of being rich. The rich don't go to the movies and out to eat less when their taxes get raised. That's why you can increase tax rates on the rich without hurting the economy.

 

[Blues Man]

Yet, people in the UK on average live longer than people in the United States!

Yes because they have better eating habits overall in Europe. Nothing to do with healthcare. Mutually exclusive. Have you ever traveled?

About that myth that people in the UK are healthier: they're getting tubbier too.

The term "obese" describes a person who's very overweight, with a lot of body fat.

It's a common problem in the UK that's estimated to affect around one in every four adults.

In 2016 according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development nearly 27 per cent of adults in the United Kingdom were obese, the highest proportion in Western Europe and a 92 per cent increase since 1996.

It's claimed that by 2030, half of the UK could be obese if the trends continue.

In September 2018, a UN study reported the UK was the third-fattest nation in Europe - behind just Turkey and Malta with an obesity rate of 27.8 per cent.

And in December the UK was crowned the 26th fattest country in the world.

What is the obesity crisis, how does alcohol affect your weight and how can childhood obesity be prevented?

People in the UK on average live longer than people in the United States. They spend less on healthcare and everyone is provided healthcare.

Your posts make me think of an equivalent I heard lately regarding the difference between a million and a billion (or millionaires and billionaires). 1 million seconds is about 11 days, 1 billion seconds is about 30 years. So yes, I agree that taxing the ultra-wealthy more is probably what is best for our society, that said raising taxes on anyone else traditionally stifles economic growth in virtually all sectors other than public employees. I don’t feel as confident as you seem to, that vast government spending and large government agencies to deliver health care will automatically improve the care being delivered to those who need it most, though. In all fairness, attempts at communism (socialism’s extreme cousin) have all resulted in direct and indirect carnage for populations. Not to say you’re advocating communism, but in order for the federal government to take over health care in this country we would have to allow our government to completely control that sector of the economy, no?

Again, 45 out of the 50 most developed countries in the world are already providing Universal Healthcare for all their citizens Employers in these countries don't have to worry about providing healthcare for their employees. So that actually helps business, especially many small business's.

A for profit healthcare system that allows and industry to profit off of people being sick and ill is not a good system. Its why healthcare cost grow over year and it is bankrupting the country. Healthcare cost right now are on an annual basis are over 22% of annual GDP. Compare that to spending on the military which is only 4% of GDP.

Its time that the United States adopt a healthcare system that is ubiquitous in the developed world. The evidence shows that such a system increases life expectancy, covers everyone, and on average cost about half as much as our system. Its one sector of the economy, not the entire economy by any means.

As far as taxes go, when IKE was President, the top federal tax rate each year he was President was 80% or more. Today its only 37%. In 1990, the top federal tax rate was 28%. This was increase by Bush and then increased by Clinton up to 40%. After that you had the ECONOMIC BOOM of the late 1990s. Raising taxes on the rich at these levels does not hurt the economy. The evidence for that is widespread. Yes, keep taxes low for the 90% of the workers who make less than $100,000 a year. But over that level, it needs to be gradually increased, especially once you get to the millionaire and billionaire levels. From 1945 to 1980, the top federal tax rate every year was always above 70%. U.S. economic growth from 1945 to 1980 was much stronger then, than it has been since then, especially since the year 2000.

The top 20% of income earners in the country have 80% of the wealth. The bottom 80% have only 20% of the wealth. Yet, most consumer spending is done by the bottom 80% of income earners. That is why you want to keep the bottom 80% of income earners taxes low. Consumer spending is 70% of what drives real quarterly GDP growth. The lower class and middle class do most of the consumer spending. That's why their taxes need to remain low or even cut. The Rich though typically don't change their level of consumer spending based on their tax rate, another great benefit of being rich. The rich don't go to the movies and out to eat less when their taxes get raised. That's why you can increase tax rates on the rich without hurting the economy.

How are you defining wealth?

Wealth s not a zero sum game and anyone can increase their wealth without decreasing the wealth of someone else.

If you pay off a debt you have just increased your wealth by increasing your net worth. So tell me who has less wealth now that you have more?

 

[boedicca]

Yet, people in the UK on average live longer than people in the United States!

Yes because they have better eating habits overall in Europe. Nothing to do with healthcare. Mutually exclusive. Have you ever traveled?

About that myth that people in the UK are healthier: they're getting tubbier too.

The term "obese" describes a person who's very overweight, with a lot of body fat.

It's a common problem in the UK that's estimated to affect around one in every four adults.

In 2016 according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development nearly 27 per cent of adults in the United Kingdom were obese, the highest proportion in Western Europe and a 92 per cent increase since 1996.

It's claimed that by 2030, half of the UK could be obese if the trends continue.

In September 2018, a UN study reported the UK was the third-fattest nation in Europe - behind just Turkey and Malta with an obesity rate of 27.8 per cent.

And in December the UK was crowned the 26th fattest country in the world.

What is the obesity crisis, how does alcohol affect your weight and how can childhood obesity be prevented?

People in the UK on average live longer than people in the United States. They spend less on healthcare and everyone is provided healthcare.

Your posts make me think of an equivalent I heard lately regarding the difference between a million and a billion (or millionaires and billionaires). 1 million seconds is about 11 days, 1 billion seconds is about 30 years. So yes, I agree that taxing the ultra-wealthy more is probably what is best for our society, that said raising taxes on anyone else traditionally stifles economic growth in virtually all sectors other than public employees. I don’t feel as confident as you seem to, that vast government spending and large government agencies to deliver health care will automatically improve the care being delivered to those who need it most, though. In all fairness, attempts at communism (socialism’s extreme cousin) have all resulted in direct and indirect carnage for populations. Not to say you’re advocating communism, but in order for the federal government to take over health care in this country we would have to allow our government to completely control that sector of the economy, no?

Again, 45 out of the 50 most developed countries in the world are already providing Universal Healthcare for all their citizens Employers in these countries don't have to worry about providing healthcare for their employees. So that actually helps business, especially many small business's.

A for profit healthcare system that allows and industry to profit off of people being sick and ill is not a good system. Its why healthcare cost grow over year and it is bankrupting the country. Healthcare cost right now are on an annual basis are over 22% of annual GDP. Compare that to spending on the military which is only 4% of GDP.

Its time that the United States adopt a healthcare system that is ubiquitous in the developed world. The evidence shows that such a system increases life expectancy, covers everyone, and on average cost about half as much as our system. Its one sector of the economy, not the entire economy by any means.

As far as taxes go, when IKE was President, the top federal tax rate each year he was President was 80% or more. Today its only 37%. In 1990, the top federal tax rate was 28%. This was increase by Bush and then increased by Clinton up to 40%. After that you had the ECONOMIC BOOM of the late 1990s. Raising taxes on the rich at these levels does not hurt the economy. The evidence for that is widespread. Yes, keep taxes low for the 90% of the workers who make less than $100,000 a year. But over that level, it needs to be gradually increased, especially once you get to the millionaire and billionaire levels. From 1945 to 1980, the top federal tax rate every year was always above 70%. U.S. economic growth from 1945 to 1980 was much stronger then, than it has been since then, especially since the year 2000.

The top 20% of income earners in the country have 80% of the wealth. The bottom 80% have only 20% of the wealth. Yet, most consumer spending is done by the bottom 80% of income earners. That is why you want to keep the bottom 80% of income earners taxes low. Consumer spending is 70% of what drives real quarterly GDP growth. The lower class and middle class do most of the consumer spending. That's why their taxes need to remain low or even cut. The Rich though typically don't change their level of consumer spending based on their tax rate, another great benefit of being rich. The rich don't go to the movies and out to eat less when their taxes get raised. That's why you can increase tax rates on the rich without hurting the economy.

Misery loves company. Most of the countries in the world do not have free speech, gays and women are oppressed, and the masses live in poverty. Should we do those things too?

 

[U2Edge]

U2Edge you must have conveniently missed my post from yesterday. Hopefully it doesn’t destroy your narrative.

“Why does the United States, the wealthiest country in the world and the 3rd wealthiest per captia country, still not provide Universal Healthcare for its citizens?"
A few other questions you may have an interest in.....
Do other nations steal from their best citizens to pay for tens of millions of illegal third-world wetbacks and their litters of anchor babies?
What are the average income tax rates in those nations you speak of?
Why do so many folks from those nations you speak of travel to the U.S. for healthcare?
How large is their bottom feeding class that contributes nothing and takes the most?

Yes, other nations properly tax their rich unlike the United States which is a GOOD THING!
The United States needs more latin American immigrants to achieve consistent 3% real GDP growth per year. There is a labor shortage in this country. 7.3 million jobs unfilled. We need more people from Central America to be crossing the border. Immigrants commit less crime than citizens, work harder and are more productive than citizens, tend to be more religious, have more children and are more devoted to family, and serve in the U.S. military in higher percentages than upper income American citizens.

The average income tax rates in Europe are about 50% to 150% more than in the United States. The tax rates are progressive weighted towards the rich. Its how taxes should be done here in the United States.

Most Europeans don't travel to the United States for healthcare.

Okay cool...thanks for the transparency...it seemed like you were disguising your motive a little bit....I just wanted to expose you as yet another beggar...just another beggar who firmly believes he’s entitled to others shit because he breathes oxygen in a wealthy nation. Cool, carry on with your discreet begging.

The rich in the United States were born into the country. They were born into the market that made the rich. Its the U.S. market that decides what their paid and the value of their house and estates, not them. If they had been born in Somalia their fate would be much the same as people born in Somalia today. Because the rich benefit the most from being born into the U.S. market, they must pay a much higher percentage of their gains in taxes to help protect that market and continue to build it. Again, without the U.S. market, the rich would not have what they have today.

When the rich are not paying large percentages in taxes, they are essentially stealing from the country they were born into and profit from.

ROFL! Sorry, but the government is where tax money goes, and I see no reason that taxes should not be based on the cost of the services you use. The gas station doesn't charge the rich 10 times the price it charges the poor, so why should government?

Anything else is organized plunder.

The rich benefit from working hard and producing products that people want to buy. Government did nothing.

The reason you keep taxes low on the lower class and middle class is because they do the vast majority of consumer spending. Consumer spending is 70% of what drives real GDP growth. So you want to keep the taxes low on people who do the most to drive economic growth through their consumer spending. The rich typically don't change their consumer spending, eating out, going to the movies etc, when their taxes are raised. One of the benefits of being rich. So you can raise taxes significantly on the rich without hurting the economy. A consumption tax is a terrible idea because consumer spending is 70% of what drives economic growth.

The rich don't produce anything unless there is demand for it first. The rich exploit that demand. The rich exploit the market they were born into. But they did not create that market. That market which makes the rich, rich, was created by having a strong military to defend it and a stable government with laws which creates a stable environment where there can be thriving market that can then make certain people rich or wealthy.

Just look at Somalia. No government there at all. How many billionaires or millionaires live in Somalia. No Billionaires and probably not any millionaires either. The market there is terrible. There is chaos throughout the country. No law and order. That's the type of environment you get without a military, police force, and a government. Terrible place to do business. If Trump had been born in Somalia, based on the averages, he would have likely been dead by 1990. He would have spent much of his life starving and likely would not have any money. He would have spent most of his time looking for food and water. That's what its like when you don't have a government. No law and order, and definitely no thriving market for business.

 

[U2Edge]

Yes because they have better eating habits overall in Europe. Nothing to do with healthcare. Mutually exclusive. Have you ever traveled?

About that myth that people in the UK are healthier: they're getting tubbier too.

The term "obese" describes a person who's very overweight, with a lot of body fat.

It's a common problem in the UK that's estimated to affect around one in every four adults.

In 2016 according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development nearly 27 per cent of adults in the United Kingdom were obese, the highest proportion in Western Europe and a 92 per cent increase since 1996.

It's claimed that by 2030, half of the UK could be obese if the trends continue.

In September 2018, a UN study reported the UK was the third-fattest nation in Europe - behind just Turkey and Malta with an obesity rate of 27.8 per cent.

And in December the UK was crowned the 26th fattest country in the world.

What is the obesity crisis, how does alcohol affect your weight and how can childhood obesity be prevented?

People in the UK on average live longer than people in the United States. They spend less on healthcare and everyone is provided healthcare.

Your posts make me think of an equivalent I heard lately regarding the difference between a million and a billion (or millionaires and billionaires). 1 million seconds is about 11 days, 1 billion seconds is about 30 years. So yes, I agree that taxing the ultra-wealthy more is probably what is best for our society, that said raising taxes on anyone else traditionally stifles economic growth in virtually all sectors other than public employees. I don’t feel as confident as you seem to, that vast government spending and large government agencies to deliver health care will automatically improve the care being delivered to those who need it most, though. In all fairness, attempts at communism (socialism’s extreme cousin) have all resulted in direct and indirect carnage for populations. Not to say you’re advocating communism, but in order for the federal government to take over health care in this country we would have to allow our government to completely control that sector of the economy, no?

Again, 45 out of the 50 most developed countries in the world are already providing Universal Healthcare for all their citizens Employers in these countries don't have to worry about providing healthcare for their employees. So that actually helps business, especially many small business's.

A for profit healthcare system that allows and industry to profit off of people being sick and ill is not a good system. Its why healthcare cost grow over year and it is bankrupting the country. Healthcare cost right now are on an annual basis are over 22% of annual GDP. Compare that to spending on the military which is only 4% of GDP.

Its time that the United States adopt a healthcare system that is ubiquitous in the developed world. The evidence shows that such a system increases life expectancy, covers everyone, and on average cost about half as much as our system. Its one sector of the economy, not the entire economy by any means.

As far as taxes go, when IKE was President, the top federal tax rate each year he was President was 80% or more. Today its only 37%. In 1990, the top federal tax rate was 28%. This was increase by Bush and then increased by Clinton up to 40%. After that you had the ECONOMIC BOOM of the late 1990s. Raising taxes on the rich at these levels does not hurt the economy. The evidence for that is widespread. Yes, keep taxes low for the 90% of the workers who make less than $100,000 a year. But over that level, it needs to be gradually increased, especially once you get to the millionaire and billionaire levels. From 1945 to 1980, the top federal tax rate every year was always above 70%. U.S. economic growth from 1945 to 1980 was much stronger then, than it has been since then, especially since the year 2000.

The top 20% of income earners in the country have 80% of the wealth. The bottom 80% have only 20% of the wealth. Yet, most consumer spending is done by the bottom 80% of income earners. That is why you want to keep the bottom 80% of income earners taxes low. Consumer spending is 70% of what drives real quarterly GDP growth. The lower class and middle class do most of the consumer spending. That's why their taxes need to remain low or even cut. The Rich though typically don't change their level of consumer spending based on their tax rate, another great benefit of being rich. The rich don't go to the movies and out to eat less when their taxes get raised. That's why you can increase tax rates on the rich without hurting the economy.

Misery loves company. Most of the countries in the world do not have free speech, gays and women are oppressed, and the masses live in poverty. Should we do those things too?

Ahhhh, but were not talking about most countries. WERE TALKING ABOUT THE 50 MOST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD. The 50 most developed countries in the world have the greatest freedoms in the world and life is far better for gays and women there. Poverty is very low in most of the 50 most developed countries in the world. 45 of the 50 most developed countries in the world also provide Universal Healthcare for their citizens. Unfortunately the United States is not one of them. The United States also has one of the highest poverty rates among the 50 most developed countries. The poverty rate in the United States is rather unusual, unusually high, when compared to other countries in the 50 most developed countries in the world.

 

[U2Edge]

Yet, people in the UK on average live longer than people in the United States!

Yes because they have better eating habits overall in Europe. Nothing to do with healthcare. Mutually exclusive. Have you ever traveled?

About that myth that people in the UK are healthier: they're getting tubbier too.

The term "obese" describes a person who's very overweight, with a lot of body fat.

It's a common problem in the UK that's estimated to affect around one in every four adults.

In 2016 according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development nearly 27 per cent of adults in the United Kingdom were obese, the highest proportion in Western Europe and a 92 per cent increase since 1996.

It's claimed that by 2030, half of the UK could be obese if the trends continue.

In September 2018, a UN study reported the UK was the third-fattest nation in Europe - behind just Turkey and Malta with an obesity rate of 27.8 per cent.

And in December the UK was crowned the 26th fattest country in the world.

What is the obesity crisis, how does alcohol affect your weight and how can childhood obesity be prevented?

People in the UK on average live longer than people in the United States. They spend less on healthcare and everyone is provided healthcare.

Your posts make me think of an equivalent I heard lately regarding the difference between a million and a billion (or millionaires and billionaires). 1 million seconds is about 11 days, 1 billion seconds is about 30 years. So yes, I agree that taxing the ultra-wealthy more is probably what is best for our society, that said raising taxes on anyone else traditionally stifles economic growth in virtually all sectors other than public employees. I don’t feel as confident as you seem to, that vast government spending and large government agencies to deliver health care will automatically improve the care being delivered to those who need it most, though. In all fairness, attempts at communism (socialism’s extreme cousin) have all resulted in direct and indirect carnage for populations. Not to say you’re advocating communism, but in order for the federal government to take over health care in this country we would have to allow our government to completely control that sector of the economy, no?

The target of increased taxes is always the Kulaks (successful middle class) because there just aren't enough Uber Rich to pay for everything:

Feed Your Family on $10 Billion a Day
Seems like these days I hear a lot of whiney whiners whining about "out of control government spending" and "insane deficits" and such, trying to make hay out of a bunch of pointy-head boring finance hooey. Sure, $3.7 trillion of spending sounds like a big number. "Oh, boo-hoo, how are we going to get $3.7 trillion dollars? We're broke, boo-hoo-hoo," whine the whiners. What these skinflint crybabies fail to realize is that $3.7 trillion is for an entire year - which translates into only a measly $10 billion per day!

Mister, I call that a bargain. Especially since it pays for all of us - you and me, the whole American family. Like all families, we Americas have to pay for things - health, food, safety, uncle Dave America with his drinking problem. And when little Billy America wants that new quad runner they promised, do Mom and Dad America deny him? No, they get a second job at Circle K, because they know little Billy might have one of his episodes and burn down the house.

So let's all sit down together as an American family with a calendar and make a yearly budget. First, let's lock in the $3.7 trillion of critical family spending priorities; now let's get to work on collecting the pay-as-we-go $10 billion daily cash flow we need.

12:01 AM, January 1
Let's start the year out right by going after some evil corporations and their obscene profits. And who is more evil than those twin spawns of Lucifer himself, Exxon Mobil and Walmart? Together these two largest American industrial behemoths raked in, between them, $34 billion in 2010 global profits. Let's teach 'em both a lesson and confiscate it for the public good. This will get us through...

9:52 AM January 4
Okay, maybe I underestimated our take. But we shouldn't let Exxon and Walmart distract us from all those other corporate profiteers out there worth shaking down. In fact, why don't we grab every cent of 2010 profit made by the other 498 members of the Fortune 500? That will net us another, let's see, $357 billion! Enough to get us to...

2:00 AM February 9
So we're running out of corporate cash, but look - it's Super Bowl time! As we all know, the game has become a crass disgusting festival of commercialism. So let's take all the TV ad money spent on stupid Super Bowl ads, and apply that to government needs. That would be $250 million, enough to fund us for, let's see... 36 minutes. The half time show, at least. But why stop there? Let's take every cent of ad money spent on all 45 Super Bowls, a cool $5 billion, which would cover us until...

2:00 PM February 9
Speaking of sports, why should the players be immune to our pressing public needs? Lord knows professional athletes make obscene salaries for playing a dumb game. So let's take the combined salaries of all players in the NFL, Major League Baseball, the NBA, and the NHL. Hey, they've got endorsement deals, they'll hardly miss it. Throw in the total winnings of everybody on the PGA tour and NASCAR, and we get $9.4 billion, enough to get us through until...

1:00 PM February 10
Okay, it's time to stop messing around. Athletes aren't the only ones greedily raking it in. What about America's rich - those fancy pants fat cats living the high life in the above-$250,000 income bracket? According to IRS statistics, these 1.93% of US households are hogging 25% of US income. And why do they need it? For crying out loud, they probably stole it anyway. I say let's take 100% of every penny they make above $250,000. They can use the rest to pay their state and local taxes. Now we're talking big bucks, brother. How much? Let's see...

A: Number of US households: 116,000,000
B: Average US household income: $68,000 (median = $52,000)
C: Total US household income (A * B): $7.89 trillion
D: Percent of households above $250k income: 1.93%
E: Number of households above $250k income (A*D): 2,238,800
F: Percent of national income earned by households making $250k or more = 25%
G: Total income of households making $250k or more (C*F): $1.97 trillion
H: Total income of households in excess of $250k (G - E*$250,000) = $1.412 trillion

Feed Your Family on $10 Billion a Day

The rich derive their wealth not just from annual income. Its also there in form of capital gains, estate, property etc. The top 20% of income earners have 80% of the wealth, wealth here being far more than just annual income. The bottom 80% of only 20% of the wealth. So yes, the rich can afford to pay a lot more in taxes and it won't hurt the economy and will greatly benefit the country.

You also need to factor in how much consumer spending do households with an income of 250K or more do. Consumer spending is 70% of economic growth. These 2,238,000 households probably do go to the movies, out to eat, shopping, and other basic things that drive most economic growth. But their consumer spending on these things is a tiny fraction of what the other 113,000,000 households who make less than 250K are doing. You want to keep the taxes low on those doing the most consumer spending which in this case is the 113,000,000 households making less than 250K a year. You can gradually increase taxes on the group making over 250K a year for two reasons: 1. they typically don't reduce their consumer spending when their taxes are increased unlike the middle and lower classes. 2. Even if they did, their contribution to basic consumer spending is much less than the 113,000,000 million households making less than 250K.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Yet, people in the UK on average live longer than people in the United States!

Yes because they have better eating habits overall in Europe. Nothing to do with healthcare. Mutually exclusive. Have you ever traveled?

About that myth that people in the UK are healthier: they're getting tubbier too.

The term "obese" describes a person who's very overweight, with a lot of body fat.

It's a common problem in the UK that's estimated to affect around one in every four adults.

In 2016 according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development nearly 27 per cent of adults in the United Kingdom were obese, the highest proportion in Western Europe and a 92 per cent increase since 1996.

It's claimed that by 2030, half of the UK could be obese if the trends continue.

In September 2018, a UN study reported the UK was the third-fattest nation in Europe - behind just Turkey and Malta with an obesity rate of 27.8 per cent.

And in December the UK was crowned the 26th fattest country in the world.

What is the obesity crisis, how does alcohol affect your weight and how can childhood obesity be prevented?

People in the UK on average live longer than people in the United States. They spend less on healthcare and everyone is provided healthcare.

Your posts make me think of an equivalent I heard lately regarding the difference between a million and a billion (or millionaires and billionaires). 1 million seconds is about 11 days, 1 billion seconds is about 30 years. So yes, I agree that taxing the ultra-wealthy more is probably what is best for our society, that said raising taxes on anyone else traditionally stifles economic growth in virtually all sectors other than public employees. I don’t feel as confident as you seem to, that vast government spending and large government agencies to deliver health care will automatically improve the care being delivered to those who need it most, though. In all fairness, attempts at communism (socialism’s extreme cousin) have all resulted in direct and indirect carnage for populations. Not to say you’re advocating communism, but in order for the federal government to take over health care in this country we would have to allow our government to completely control that sector of the economy, no?

Again, 45 out of the 50 most developed countries in the world are already providing Universal Healthcare for all their citizens Employers in these countries don't have to worry about providing healthcare for their employees. So that actually helps business, especially many small business's.

A for profit healthcare system that allows and industry to profit off of people being sick and ill is not a good system. Its why healthcare cost grow over year and it is bankrupting the country. Healthcare cost right now are on an annual basis are over 22% of annual GDP. Compare that to spending on the military which is only 4% of GDP.

Its time that the United States adopt a healthcare system that is ubiquitous in the developed world. The evidence shows that such a system increases life expectancy, covers everyone, and on average cost about half as much as our system. Its one sector of the economy, not the entire economy by any means.

As far as taxes go, when IKE was President, the top federal tax rate each year he was President was 80% or more. Today its only 37%. In 1990, the top federal tax rate was 28%. This was increase by Bush and then increased by Clinton up to 40%. After that you had the ECONOMIC BOOM of the late 1990s. Raising taxes on the rich at these levels does not hurt the economy. The evidence for that is widespread. Yes, keep taxes low for the 90% of the workers who make less than $100,000 a year. But over that level, it needs to be gradually increased, especially once you get to the millionaire and billionaire levels. From 1945 to 1980, the top federal tax rate every year was always above 70%. U.S. economic growth from 1945 to 1980 was much stronger then, than it has been since then, especially since the year 2000.

The top 20% of income earners in the country have 80% of the wealth. The bottom 80% have only 20% of the wealth. Yet, most consumer spending is done by the bottom 80% of income earners. That is why you want to keep the bottom 80% of income earners taxes low. Consumer spending is 70% of what drives real quarterly GDP growth. The lower class and middle class do most of the consumer spending. That's why their taxes need to remain low or even cut. The Rich though typically don't change their level of consumer spending based on their tax rate, another great benefit of being rich. The rich don't go to the movies and out to eat less when their taxes get raised. That's why you can increase tax rates on the rich without hurting the economy.

How would you pay for it. Of those 45 countries how many have even close to the population of the US?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Yes because they have better eating habits overall in Europe. Nothing to do with healthcare. Mutually exclusive. Have you ever traveled?

About that myth that people in the UK are healthier: they're getting tubbier too.

The term "obese" describes a person who's very overweight, with a lot of body fat.

It's a common problem in the UK that's estimated to affect around one in every four adults.

In 2016 according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development nearly 27 per cent of adults in the United Kingdom were obese, the highest proportion in Western Europe and a 92 per cent increase since 1996.

It's claimed that by 2030, half of the UK could be obese if the trends continue.

In September 2018, a UN study reported the UK was the third-fattest nation in Europe - behind just Turkey and Malta with an obesity rate of 27.8 per cent.

And in December the UK was crowned the 26th fattest country in the world.

What is the obesity crisis, how does alcohol affect your weight and how can childhood obesity be prevented?

People in the UK on average live longer than people in the United States. They spend less on healthcare and everyone is provided healthcare.

Your posts make me think of an equivalent I heard lately regarding the difference between a million and a billion (or millionaires and billionaires). 1 million seconds is about 11 days, 1 billion seconds is about 30 years. So yes, I agree that taxing the ultra-wealthy more is probably what is best for our society, that said raising taxes on anyone else traditionally stifles economic growth in virtually all sectors other than public employees. I don’t feel as confident as you seem to, that vast government spending and large government agencies to deliver health care will automatically improve the care being delivered to those who need it most, though. In all fairness, attempts at communism (socialism’s extreme cousin) have all resulted in direct and indirect carnage for populations. Not to say you’re advocating communism, but in order for the federal government to take over health care in this country we would have to allow our government to completely control that sector of the economy, no?

The target of increased taxes is always the Kulaks (successful middle class) because there just aren't enough Uber Rich to pay for everything:

Feed Your Family on $10 Billion a Day
Seems like these days I hear a lot of whiney whiners whining about "out of control government spending" and "insane deficits" and such, trying to make hay out of a bunch of pointy-head boring finance hooey. Sure, $3.7 trillion of spending sounds like a big number. "Oh, boo-hoo, how are we going to get $3.7 trillion dollars? We're broke, boo-hoo-hoo," whine the whiners. What these skinflint crybabies fail to realize is that $3.7 trillion is for an entire year - which translates into only a measly $10 billion per day!

Mister, I call that a bargain. Especially since it pays for all of us - you and me, the whole American family. Like all families, we Americas have to pay for things - health, food, safety, uncle Dave America with his drinking problem. And when little Billy America wants that new quad runner they promised, do Mom and Dad America deny him? No, they get a second job at Circle K, because they know little Billy might have one of his episodes and burn down the house.

So let's all sit down together as an American family with a calendar and make a yearly budget. First, let's lock in the $3.7 trillion of critical family spending priorities; now let's get to work on collecting the pay-as-we-go $10 billion daily cash flow we need.

12:01 AM, January 1
Let's start the year out right by going after some evil corporations and their obscene profits. And who is more evil than those twin spawns of Lucifer himself, Exxon Mobil and Walmart? Together these two largest American industrial behemoths raked in, between them, $34 billion in 2010 global profits. Let's teach 'em both a lesson and confiscate it for the public good. This will get us through...

9:52 AM January 4
Okay, maybe I underestimated our take. But we shouldn't let Exxon and Walmart distract us from all those other corporate profiteers out there worth shaking down. In fact, why don't we grab every cent of 2010 profit made by the other 498 members of the Fortune 500? That will net us another, let's see, $357 billion! Enough to get us to...

2:00 AM February 9
So we're running out of corporate cash, but look - it's Super Bowl time! As we all know, the game has become a crass disgusting festival of commercialism. So let's take all the TV ad money spent on stupid Super Bowl ads, and apply that to government needs. That would be $250 million, enough to fund us for, let's see... 36 minutes. The half time show, at least. But why stop there? Let's take every cent of ad money spent on all 45 Super Bowls, a cool $5 billion, which would cover us until...

2:00 PM February 9
Speaking of sports, why should the players be immune to our pressing public needs? Lord knows professional athletes make obscene salaries for playing a dumb game. So let's take the combined salaries of all players in the NFL, Major League Baseball, the NBA, and the NHL. Hey, they've got endorsement deals, they'll hardly miss it. Throw in the total winnings of everybody on the PGA tour and NASCAR, and we get $9.4 billion, enough to get us through until...

1:00 PM February 10
Okay, it's time to stop messing around. Athletes aren't the only ones greedily raking it in. What about America's rich - those fancy pants fat cats living the high life in the above-$250,000 income bracket? According to IRS statistics, these 1.93% of US households are hogging 25% of US income. And why do they need it? For crying out loud, they probably stole it anyway. I say let's take 100% of every penny they make above $250,000. They can use the rest to pay their state and local taxes. Now we're talking big bucks, brother. How much? Let's see...

A: Number of US households: 116,000,000
B: Average US household income: $68,000 (median = $52,000)
C: Total US household income (A * B): $7.89 trillion
D: Percent of households above $250k income: 1.93%
E: Number of households above $250k income (A*D): 2,238,800
F: Percent of national income earned by households making $250k or more = 25%
G: Total income of households making $250k or more (C*F): $1.97 trillion
H: Total income of households in excess of $250k (G - E*$250,000) = $1.412 trillion

Feed Your Family on $10 Billion a Day

The rich derive their wealth not just from annual income. Its also there in form of capital gains, estate, property etc. The top 20% of income earners have 80% of the wealth, wealth here being far more than just annual income. The bottom 80% of only 20% of the wealth. So yes, the rich can afford to pay a lot more in taxes and it won't hurt the economy and will greatly benefit the country.

You also need to factor in how much consumer spending do households with an income of 250K or more do. Consumer spending is 70% of economic growth. These 2,238,000 households probably do go to the movies, out to eat, shopping, and other basic things that drive most economic growth. But their consumer spending on these things is a tiny fraction of what the other 113,000,000 households who make less than 250K are doing. You want to keep the taxes low on those doing the most consumer spending which in this case is the 113,000,000 households making less than 250K a year. You can gradually increase taxes on the group making over 250K a year for two reasons: 1. they typically don't reduce their consumer spending when their taxes are increased unlike the middle and lower classes. 2. Even if they did, their contribution to basic consumer spending is much less than the 113,000,000 million households making less than 250K.

You're a LIAR!

List of Countries with Universal Healthcare

 

[basquebromance]

just because abortion is legal doesnt make it right. REMEMBER SLAVERY?!