The MAJOR difference between Medicare and Private Insurance...

[Flash]

The Medicare / Medicare Supplement / Medicare Advantage system is very popular and efficient, because it includes an excellent blend of public foundation and free market competition & innovation. It could be easily scaled up, with a few tweaks, for all.

The right wingers can't support it because they're told not to, and the left wingers are LYING to the voters, calling Single Payer "Medicare for All".

As usual, the wings are slowing down progress and causing harm.
.

Yea dumbass, put government bueracrats, whose bosses are corrupt politicians elected by special interest groups, in charge of paying your health care bills. What could possibly go wrong?

Unlike you, I don't view the world through a political/ideological lens.

Play with someone who does, thanks.
.

Trust the government to take care of your every need including taxing you and controlling your health care. What could possibly go wrong?

Unlike you I am not an idiot that trust the government to look after my best interest.

I think that finding efficient & effective equilibrium between free market dynamics and public resources is the smartest approach, depending on the issue being addressed.

But I'm not going to try to explain that to you.
.

The very first thing that is wrong with that stupid idea is universal health care regardless of how much you pay.

I don't know about you Moon Bat but I sure as hell don't want to get taxed to pay somebody else's health care bills.

I don't mind being in a private insurance pool with other paying customers but I don't want the filthy welfare queens sucking off the teat of free tax payed health care.

The second thing that is wrong with it is government interference. Government fucks up everything it touches and I sure as hell don't want some idiot bureaucrat, who doesn't give a shit about me, whose boss is a corrupt politicians, elected by special interest groups, having a say so in my health care. Health care is too important to trust to the filthy government.

You may trust the government because you are a moron that thinks the government gives a shit about you or a welfare queen expecting to get other people to pay your bills but not all of us are that dumb.

 

[Mac1958]

The Medicare / Medicare Supplement / Medicare Advantage system is very popular and efficient, because it includes an excellent blend of public foundation and free market competition & innovation. It could be easily scaled up, with a few tweaks, for all.

The right wingers can't support it because they're told not to, and the left wingers are LYING to the voters, calling Single Payer "Medicare for All".

As usual, the wings are slowing down progress and causing harm.
.

Yea dumbass, put government bueracrats, whose bosses are corrupt politicians elected by special interest groups, in charge of paying your health care bills. What could possibly go wrong?

Unlike you, I don't view the world through a political/ideological lens.

Play with someone who does, thanks.
.

Trust the government to take care of your every need including taxing you and controlling your health care. What could possibly go wrong?

Unlike you I am not an idiot that trust the government to look after my best interest.

I think that finding efficient & effective equilibrium between free market dynamics and public resources is the smartest approach, depending on the issue being addressed.

But I'm not going to try to explain that to you.
.

The very first thing that is wrong with that stupid idea is universal health care regardless of how much you pay.

I don't know about you Moon Bat but I sure as hell don't want to get taxed to pay somebody else's health care bills.

I don't mind being in a private insurance pool with other paying customers but I don't want the filthy welfare queens sucking off the teat of free tax payed health care.

The second thing that is wrong with it is government interference. Government fucks up everything it touches and I sure as hell don't want some idiot bureaucrat, who doesn't give a shit about me, whose boss is a corrupt politicians, elected by special interest groups, having a say so in my health care. Health care is too important to trust to the filthy government.

You may trust the government because you are a moron that thinks the government gives a shit about you or a welfare queen expecting to get other people to pay your bills but not all of us are that dumb.

Well, there's certainly no one smarter than a Trumpster, so you've got me there.
.

 

[Flash]

Newsflash for stupid Moon Bats

"Free" healthcare ain't free.

If somebody else is not paying that means you will have to pay more.

 

[Flopper]

2018 Medicare Trustee Report...page 7
The estimated depletion date for the HI trust fund is 2026, 3 years earlier than in last year’s report.
As in past years, the Trustees have determined that the fund is not adequately financed over the next 10 years.
https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statis...eports/ReportsTrustFunds/Downloads/TR2018.pdf
So this means there are no reserves. It will be depleted in 6 years.

BUT private health insurance have to BY states' laws where they companies want to sell their health insurance MUST have RESERVES to pay future claims.

In the United States and most developed nations, regulators impose required statutory capital reserve ratios on insurance companies to conduct business. There may be large differences in the nature and definition of acceptable reserves, which can make it tricky for companies, and their shareholders, that operate in multiple jurisdictions.
Most reserve requirements are established at the state level. Standard levels include 8% to 12% of the insurer's total revenue, but the actual amount needed varies depending on the types of risk a company currently assumes.
What level of reserve ratios is typical for an insurance company to protect against large losses?

So those people mouthing "Medicare for All" means that 1,400 private health insurance companies that employ over 500,000 people and pay over $100 billion a year in taxes would be no longer in business.

Has that cost i.e. these insurance companies going out of business AND their reserves for future claims...are these claims going to be paid by Medicare for All?

As it is with most ideas spouted by people who are economically challenged they do not understand
the elementary aspects of arithmetic! If "Medicare for All" replaces private health insurance this would throw American industries including health insurance companies completely for a loss.

Finally... remember when Obama said.."46 million Americans are uninsured and over half of all Americans have pre-existing conditions"?

Both are lies.
View attachment 297094

This report can very misleading if you do not understand Medicare funding. The HI Fund is the Part A, Hospital Costs which does not Include Part B, nor a separate fund for Medicare Advantage. In the year where asset depletion begins, which is projected to be 2026 in this report, HI revenues are projected to cover only 91 percent of program costs. Total depletion of Medicare Funds are still projected for 2048, however as the report states, "Projections of Medicare costs are highly uncertain, especially when looking out more than several decades." There is no doubt that Medicare rates need to be increased. An increase from 1.45% to 1.5% and removing the limit that protects high income earners over $250,000 is needed to really solve the problem.

 

[Seawytch]

No, without the last vestiges of our slave owning past, we would have an actual small d democracy. One voter, one vote. Every voter's vote having equal weight.

Just remember, those four places may not always be left wing strongholds, or they may lose their number advantage since people are leaving those high tax places in droves.

the founders got it right when they set up the EC, and it had nothing to do with slavery. your obsession with a delusion about early
America is another sign of minimal intelligence.

Of course it did.

Because there won’t always be “distinguished characters” with national recognition who could win a majority of votes, “the people will be sure to vote for some man in their own State, and the largest State will be sure to succeed.” But this will not be Virginia, “since her slaves will have no suffrage.” ~ Hugh Williamson of North Carolina
​

Not a single reason for the EC exists today...except to keep conservative white men in power. That part still holds true...

It depends on which facet of the "EC" you're talking about. The distribution of electoral votes that compensates less populous states is still perfectly valid. It punishes politicians and parties who think they can ignore the "flyover states". I didn't like the outcome, but the EC worked as intended in 2016. Democrats decided they could just focus on dense population centers and ignore the rednecks. They were wrong. I still don't think they've absorbed this lesson yet. They're still in denial.

Bullshit. The "flyover" states have voters and when every single vote counts, every single voter matters. As it is now, only a half dozen States matter. Democrats in Birmingham want their votes to count as much as Republicans in Fresno.

The EC has never worked the way it was intended...except to keep white men in power.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...nt-work-the-way-the-founding-fathers-intended

Here’s Every Defense of the Electoral College — and Why They’re All Wrong

Presidential candidates don’t campaign in rural areas no matter what system is used, simply because there are not a lot of votes to be gained in those areas. Data from the 2016 campaign indicate that 53 percent of campaign events for Trump, Hillary Clinton, Mike Pence and Tim Kaine in the two months before the November election were in only four states: Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Ohio. During that time, 87 percent of campaign visits by the four candidates were in 12 battleground states, and none of the four candidates ever went to 27 states, which includes almost all of rural America.
​

you are such a partisan brainwashed idiot. If we didn't have the EC the candidates would ONLY campaign in 4 places---------LA county, NYC, Houston metro, and Miami/Dade.

2016 campaigning proves your claim to be BS. Trump campaigned in Mich, Minn, NH, Montana, and did not visit Cal.

they campaigned in ohio, fla, NC, and Penn because they are swing states. It continues to amaze me how ignorant you are.

I am partisan...but I'm not ashamed of it like you are. You are as, if not more, partisan than I am.

I already gave you the facts, which you ignore as usual.

Presidential candidates don’t campaign in rural areas no matter what system is used, simply because there are not a lot of votes to be gained in those areas. Data from the 2016 campaign indicate that 53 percent of campaign events for Trump, Hillary Clinton, Mike Pence and Tim Kaine in the two months before the November election were in only four states: Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Ohio. During that time, 87 percent of campaign visits by the four candidates were in 12 battleground states, and none of the four candidates ever went to 27 states, which includes almost all of rural America.
​

The entire state of California comprises 12% of the US population, idiot.

 

[Flopper]

I saw it's effects first hand when it was needed for SERIOUS medical problems. It failed miserably when my family needed it the most.

So, yeah.....fuck off with that nonsense.

I would need the details before I believed that.
.

I offered a brief explanation above.
The system only allowed an in home nurse visit 3 days a week when she was released after open heart surgery. We begged for more assistance but ultimately were forced to put her in a home with a TERRIBLE quality of life.

And that was just one asinine decision that expedited her death.

So why didn't you pay for a private plan that covered that...oh, right, because private insurance does the same thing.

Because I was fresh out of prison and struggling to take care of my kids and wife.
And yes she had a supplemental plan. Even with that her out of pocket just for scripts was over 600 a month for what she could afford to buy.

If government insurance was so good she wouldn't have needed a supplemental

Medicare Advantage plans function essentially like an HMO or PPO. With rules and restrictions. Medicare Supplement plans cover a lot more but still have restrictions. The drug components for either plan have standard formularies, costs and restrictions.

So what she had was no worse than what she would have had from the free market, only the coverage she did have cost her significantly less.
.

I agree except Medicare Part D formularies vary widely among part d providers. For example, I have a plan that cost $14/mo which does not cover several drugs which I purchase from Canada. My wife has a plan that cost about $50 a month which covers those same drugs and a lot more. Medicare has an excellent tool for seniors for selecting drug and medical plans. You just enter your prescriptions and your pharmacies and it compares all part d plans available in your area showing you total cost of each plan, including, premiums, deductibles, and copay's.

Under Medicare you pay $1408 for up to 60 days in the hospital. That charge increases as the number of days increase. Medicare has a 20% copay for Part B services (those not in the hospital) and a small deductible. There is also NO cap on your out of pocket costs. Unless you plan to end up on Medicaid, most everyone will need either a Medicare Supplement or a MediAdvantage plan. Drug coverage (Part D) is the weakest part of Medicare. It's optional and many plans are available but all plans require the subscriber to pay a substantial part of their drug costs.

Medicare with a supplement is great if you want comprehensive medical coverage with almost unlimited availability of health providers anywhere in the US with no bills except dental and eye glasses. Premiums in addition to the part b coverage premium and the part d premiums, can add $200 to $300 month to your cost of healthcare. Another problem with supplements is that open enrollment is available only during the first 6 months of Medicare coverage.

Medicare Advantage plans are available to anyone eligible with Medicare at any age and the cost can be very low. The downside with Medicare Advantage is deductibles and copay's, being limited to a local network and high out of network costs, if available at all and changes only available during yearly enrollment.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

He held two in 2016. You were saying?

Two! Out of over 300. He spent one day there. You’re proving my point.

If your point was that you are a clueless, partisan, left-wing hack that never understood the Constitution, you would be right.

My point is that swing states have a massively out of proportion control over the election because, and solely because, arbitrary factors from the electoral college.

A politician is rewarded richly by the electoral college for pandering to industries and individuals from these swing states. Big parts of economic policy is driven not by what’s best for the country but what’s best for Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan.

You can respond to these issues or you can just call people names. Your choice.

Where did I call names? I accurately described you.

The result would be the same if it was a popular vote, but unmanageable on that scale. Apparently reality eludes you.

Total nonsense. The Republican fetish for manufacturing and coal industry is driven by swing state politics. The EC distorts our country’s priorities and arbitrarily elevates the needs of some Americans over others.

Really? So there is no manufacturing in blue states? Coal is not a big issue in some blue states?

You really need to start thinking before spouting.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Just remember, those four places may not always be left wing strongholds, or they may lose their number advantage since people are leaving those high tax places in droves.

the founders got it right when they set up the EC, and it had nothing to do with slavery. your obsession with a delusion about early
America is another sign of minimal intelligence.

Of course it did.

Because there won’t always be “distinguished characters” with national recognition who could win a majority of votes, “the people will be sure to vote for some man in their own State, and the largest State will be sure to succeed.” But this will not be Virginia, “since her slaves will have no suffrage.” ~ Hugh Williamson of North Carolina
​

Not a single reason for the EC exists today...except to keep conservative white men in power. That part still holds true...

It depends on which facet of the "EC" you're talking about. The distribution of electoral votes that compensates less populous states is still perfectly valid. It punishes politicians and parties who think they can ignore the "flyover states". I didn't like the outcome, but the EC worked as intended in 2016. Democrats decided they could just focus on dense population centers and ignore the rednecks. They were wrong. I still don't think they've absorbed this lesson yet. They're still in denial.

Bullshit. The "flyover" states have voters and when every single vote counts, every single voter matters. As it is now, only a half dozen States matter. Democrats in Birmingham want their votes to count as much as Republicans in Fresno.

The EC has never worked the way it was intended...except to keep white men in power.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...nt-work-the-way-the-founding-fathers-intended

Here’s Every Defense of the Electoral College — and Why They’re All Wrong

Presidential candidates don’t campaign in rural areas no matter what system is used, simply because there are not a lot of votes to be gained in those areas. Data from the 2016 campaign indicate that 53 percent of campaign events for Trump, Hillary Clinton, Mike Pence and Tim Kaine in the two months before the November election were in only four states: Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Ohio. During that time, 87 percent of campaign visits by the four candidates were in 12 battleground states, and none of the four candidates ever went to 27 states, which includes almost all of rural America.
​

you are such a partisan brainwashed idiot. If we didn't have the EC the candidates would ONLY campaign in 4 places---------LA county, NYC, Houston metro, and Miami/Dade.

2016 campaigning proves your claim to be BS. Trump campaigned in Mich, Minn, NH, Montana, and did not visit Cal.

they campaigned in ohio, fla, NC, and Penn because they are swing states. It continues to amaze me how ignorant you are.

I am partisan...but I'm not ashamed of it like you are. You are as, if not more, partisan than I am.

I already gave you the facts, which you ignore as usual.

Presidential candidates don’t campaign in rural areas no matter what system is used, simply because there are not a lot of votes to be gained in those areas. Data from the 2016 campaign indicate that 53 percent of campaign events for Trump, Hillary Clinton, Mike Pence and Tim Kaine in the two months before the November election were in only four states: Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Ohio. During that time, 87 percent of campaign visits by the four candidates were in 12 battleground states, and none of the four candidates ever went to 27 states, which includes almost all of rural America.
​

The entire state of California comprises 12% of the US population, idiot.

Why waste time and effort in states that you know you will win because they are not home to the opposition party's stranglehold on the electorate?

You really are not thinking this through.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Just remember, those four places may not always be left wing strongholds, or they may lose their number advantage since people are leaving those high tax places in droves.

the founders got it right when they set up the EC, and it had nothing to do with slavery. your obsession with a delusion about early
America is another sign of minimal intelligence.

Of course it did.

Because there won’t always be “distinguished characters” with national recognition who could win a majority of votes, “the people will be sure to vote for some man in their own State, and the largest State will be sure to succeed.” But this will not be Virginia, “since her slaves will have no suffrage.” ~ Hugh Williamson of North Carolina
​

Not a single reason for the EC exists today...except to keep conservative white men in power. That part still holds true...

It depends on which facet of the "EC" you're talking about. The distribution of electoral votes that compensates less populous states is still perfectly valid. It punishes politicians and parties who think they can ignore the "flyover states". I didn't like the outcome, but the EC worked as intended in 2016. Democrats decided they could just focus on dense population centers and ignore the rednecks. They were wrong. I still don't think they've absorbed this lesson yet. They're still in denial.

Bullshit. The "flyover" states have voters and when every single vote counts, every single voter matters. As it is now, only a half dozen States matter. Democrats in Birmingham want their votes to count as much as Republicans in Fresno.

The EC has never worked the way it was intended...except to keep white men in power.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...nt-work-the-way-the-founding-fathers-intended

Here’s Every Defense of the Electoral College — and Why They’re All Wrong

Presidential candidates don’t campaign in rural areas no matter what system is used, simply because there are not a lot of votes to be gained in those areas. Data from the 2016 campaign indicate that 53 percent of campaign events for Trump, Hillary Clinton, Mike Pence and Tim Kaine in the two months before the November election were in only four states: Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Ohio. During that time, 87 percent of campaign visits by the four candidates were in 12 battleground states, and none of the four candidates ever went to 27 states, which includes almost all of rural America.
​

you are such a partisan brainwashed idiot. If we didn't have the EC the candidates would ONLY campaign in 4 places---------LA county, NYC, Houston metro, and Miami/Dade.

2016 campaigning proves your claim to be BS. Trump campaigned in Mich, Minn, NH, Montana, and did not visit Cal.

they campaigned in ohio, fla, NC, and Penn because they are swing states. It continues to amaze me how ignorant you are.

I am partisan...but I'm not ashamed of it like you are. You are as, if not more, partisan than I am.

I already gave you the facts, which you ignore as usual.

Presidential candidates don’t campaign in rural areas no matter what system is used, simply because there are not a lot of votes to be gained in those areas. Data from the 2016 campaign indicate that 53 percent of campaign events for Trump, Hillary Clinton, Mike Pence and Tim Kaine in the two months before the November election were in only four states: Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Ohio. During that time, 87 percent of campaign visits by the four candidates were in 12 battleground states, and none of the four candidates ever went to 27 states, which includes almost all of rural America.
​

The entire state of California comprises 12% of the US population, idiot.

They also have 10% of the EC. What was your point?

 

[Redfish]

Yes, but they would campaign where there are the most voters. Would you go to Cheyenne Wyoming or NYC if you were looking to maximize your PV?

God forbid they campaign where people actually live.

Are there voters in Cheyenne? Then yes. How many presidential candidates campaign in Cheyenne now? Zero.

don't be so naive, they would only campaign where there were large numbers of potential voters. Because those 4 places could swing the election.

None of us knows how the Cal PV would have come out if Trump had had several rallys in that state. He had rallys in Fla and won Fla, soooooooo

Your criticism is that people wouldn’t campaign in small states is irrelevant because they already don’t campaign in small states. Cities are more diverse than you give them credit for. Without the EC, those Republican voters in California would actually have a reason to turn out. Trump would have a reason to campaign there. Likewise, Democrats would have a reason to campaign in the Deep South and increase the turnout of Democratic voters there, who are currently too small a minority to flip the state’s blue.

It opens up so much potential for better representation. Right now, our electoral system is so skewed and focused on swing states, which are only important because their electorate is so evenly split. That’s an arbitrary distortion and has unnecessary effects on our country.

It will focus on the swing states no matter which system we use. With the EC at least the people in the less populated states have a voice.

I get it that you want to do away with the states and make us all one large mass of people subject to the rule of the DC elites, but that is exactly why the founders set up the EC and also why they included the second amendment.

Without the EC and with a popular vote, there is no such thing as a swing state. Just people.

my point exactly, just people, or rather lemmings controlled by a small group of super elites in Washington DC. Under your system, why even have states? why have cities or counties? just one amorphous mass of humanity doing as instructed by the masters in DC.

You have no idea what this country is about, no idea what freedom means, no idea what individuality means. You are already a sheep.

 

[Redfish]

He held two in 2016. You were saying?

Two! Out of over 300. He spent one day there. You’re proving my point.

If your point was that you are a clueless, partisan, left-wing hack that never understood the Constitution, you would be right.

My point is that swing states have a massively out of proportion control over the election because, and solely because, arbitrary factors from the electoral college.

A politician is rewarded richly by the electoral college for pandering to industries and individuals from these swing states. Big parts of economic policy is driven not by what’s best for the country but what’s best for Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan.

You can respond to these issues or you can just call people names. Your choice.

Where did I call names? I accurately described you.

The result would be the same if it was a popular vote, but unmanageable on that scale. Apparently reality eludes you.

Total nonsense. The Republican fetish for manufacturing and coal industry is driven by swing state politics. The EC distorts our country’s priorities and arbitrarily elevates the needs of some Americans over others.

and if we used the PV, all of the resources of the federal government would go to LA county, Miami/Dade, Houston, and NYC. How would that be good for all americans?

 

[basquebromance]

The choice to die because you cant afford health care is no choice at all, my friends!

 

[basquebromance]

brothers and sisters: if i buy a car for $50K and you buy a car for $25K and your car works better, we got a problem. and thats the reality of our health care system vis a vis the rest of the world.

we are the only, and i underline only, major country on earth that doesnt have free health care. President Bernie will end this international disgrace!

 

[Redfish]

The choice to die because you cant afford health care is no choice at all, my friends!

No one in the USA is faced with that choice. NO ONE, not even those here illegally.

 

[Redfish]

brothers and sisters: if i buy a car for $50K and you buy a car for $25K and your car works better, we got a problem. and thats the reality of our health care system vis a vis the rest of the world.

we are the only, and i underline only, major country on earth that doesnt have free health care. President Bernie will end this international disgrace!

Free is not free, those countries pay for it in very high tax rates and everyone pays, not just the rich. In addition the quality of care in those countries is not even close to the quality here.

Our system works, for everyone. Why would you change it to a system where you have to wait months for routine procedures and years for dental care?

 

[rightwinger]

Newsflash for stupid Moon Bats

"Free" healthcare ain't free.

If somebody else is not paying that means you will have to pay more.

Newsflash to stupid Conservatives

We are the wealthiest nation on earth and other, less wealthy countries, manage to take care of people who are sick without bankrupting them

 

[rightwinger]

brothers and sisters: if i buy a car for $50K and you buy a car for $25K and your car works better, we got a problem. and thats the reality of our health care system vis a vis the rest of the world.

we are the only, and i underline only, major country on earth that doesnt have free health care. President Bernie will end this international disgrace!

Free is not free, those countries pay for it in very high tax rates and everyone pays, not just the rich. In addition the quality of care in those countries is not even close to the quality here.

Our system works, for everyone. Why would you change it to a system where you have to wait months for routine procedures and years for dental care?

Our system works for those with good insurance
Working families in other nations don’t worry about losing their homes if they become seriously ill

 

[Redfish]

brothers and sisters: if i buy a car for $50K and you buy a car for $25K and your car works better, we got a problem. and thats the reality of our health care system vis a vis the rest of the world.

we are the only, and i underline only, major country on earth that doesnt have free health care. President Bernie will end this international disgrace!

Free is not free, those countries pay for it in very high tax rates and everyone pays, not just the rich. In addition the quality of care in those countries is not even close to the quality here.

Our system works, for everyone. Why would you change it to a system where you have to wait months for routine procedures and years for dental care?

Our system works for those with good insurance
Working families in other nations don’t worry about losing their homes if they become seriously ill

nothing in your last sentence is true. NO ONE is denied medical care in the USA, in UK or canada those "working people" have to wait for routine procedures and have to pay out of pocket since the NHS does not cover everything.

careful what you wish for winger, you might get it shoved up your ass.

 

[Redfish]

Newsflash for stupid Moon Bats

"Free" healthcare ain't free.

If somebody else is not paying that means you will have to pay more.

Newsflash to stupid Conservatives

We are the wealthiest nation on earth and other, less wealthy countries, manage to take care of people who are sick without bankrupting them

you just cannot stop lying can you?

 

[Seawytch]

brothers and sisters: if i buy a car for $50K and you buy a car for $25K and your car works better, we got a problem. and thats the reality of our health care system vis a vis the rest of the world.

we are the only, and i underline only, major country on earth that doesnt have free health care. President Bernie will end this international disgrace!

Free is not free, those countries pay for it in very high tax rates and everyone pays, not just the rich. In addition the quality of care in those countries is not even close to the quality here.

Our system works, for everyone. Why would you change it to a system where you have to wait months for routine procedures and years for dental care?

Our system works for those with good insurance
Working families in other nations don’t worry about losing their homes if they become seriously ill

nothing in your last sentence is true. NO ONE is denied medical care in the USA, in UK or canada those "working people" have to wait for routine procedures and have to pay out of pocket since the NHS does not cover everything.

careful what you wish for winger, you might get it shoved up your ass.

Yeah, they are.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/05/united-healthcare-immoral-barbaric/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/grace...ied-access-to-life-saving-drugs/#3228cc721027