US is not ready for Medicare for all

[Andylusion]

You need to stop just believing whatever lies they tell you

Grand

then what's your metric Andy?

how's this>



~S~

Since when do you think 'wealth is distributed'?

Wealth is the result of wise choices with money. People who make bad choices, end up poor. People who make good choices, end up rich. That's how life works.

There is no system in the world, where you... or 'government' controls how wealth is distributed.

If you produce something of value to your fellow people.... you will become wealthy.
If you produce nothing of value to your fellow people.... you will become poor.

Similarly..... what you do with your money, is equally important in this equation.

If you blow your money non-stop... you will be poor, no matter how much money you earn.
If you wisely save and invest your money non-stop.... you will be wealthy, no matter how much money you earn.

Let me ask you... who do you think will be super wealthy? An international pop music star? Or a janitor?

Michael Jackson dies owing up to $500m
A janitor secretly amassed an $8 million fortune and left most of it to his library and hospital

Michael Jackson, made an estimated BILLION dollars in his life time. When he died, he was facing bankruptcy. The only reason he even attempted the "This is it" tour, is because it was either go on tour or face bankruptcy.

Meanwhile this Janitor, retired with $8 Million dollars.

People who are smart with money, will end up wealthy...> AND THEY SHOULD <

And those who waste their money, will end up poor......> AND THEY SHOULD <

This ridiculous idea that you are going to "redistribute wealth" is insane. And more importantly, it won't work.

If you take all the wealth in this country, and redistribute it equally (which is impossible but we might as well continue the myth).... you redistribute the wealth in this country, and all the poor will end up poor again, and the rich will end up rich again. Nothing will change. How do I know this?

Because the reason the poor are poor, is because they are terrible with money.

Case and point.... Two people get $10 Million dollars. One person is a poor person, the other a rich person.

If redistributing wealth worked, then the poor person should end up wealthy too.

Hamilton lottery winner fritters away $10 million

Sharon Tirabassi won $10 Million dollars in the lottery. Not even 10 years later, she's catching the bus, to a part time job, to pay rent and feed her kids. Doesn't even own a car now.

Giving money to poor people, because "I don't like the wealth distribution!" is not going to make them wealthy. They'll blow the money, end up poor, and I know that because that's why they are poor to being with.

Take that same $10 Million dollars, and give it to a wise investor..... Steve Jobs got $10 Million dollars when he was kicked out of Apple Computer 1985. With that $10 Million dollars, Steve Jobs invested in a new company. He expanded it, and added more people, and in 1995, nine years later, Pixar put out Toys Story, which was a box office smash hit.

Steve Jobs sold Pixar to Disney in 2006 for $7.8 Billion dollars.

This is why wealthy people are wealthy, and poor people are poor.

Your video is irrelevant. There will never be a system where poor people make bad choices and up wealthy, and rich people make good choices, and end up poor. That system would never work.

And besides that..... we've seen how your system actually operates in real life.

Venezuelans eat rats and dogs as the economy collapses | Daily Mail Online

That's your system.
And even Europe is figuring this out.

Macron fights 'president of the rich' tag after ending wealth tax

They have tried the wealth tax in Europe. It was disaster as the wealthy simply left.

 

[sparky]

Wealth is the result of wise choices with money

wealth is the result of legislated cronyism

There is no system in the world, where you... or 'government' controls how wealth is distributed.

welcome to America Andy, you're one of the chosen few, or you're not according to our you're stature in our system

If you produce nothing of value to your fellow people.... you will become poor.

value from thin air is phenomenally popular among the 'rich' who screw the poor with it....

~S~

 

[sparky]

People who are smart with money, will end up wealthy...> AND THEY SHOULD <

And those who waste their money, will end up poor......> AND THEY SHOULD <

America is not a meritocracy

that we've a bumbling billionaire in the WH should clue anyone in

~S~

 

[Andylusion]

Wealth is the result of wise choices with money

wealth is the result of legislated cronyism

There is no system in the world, where you... or 'government' controls how wealth is distributed.

welcome to America Andy, you're one of the chosen few, or you're not according to our you're stature in our system

If you produce nothing of value to your fellow people.... you will become poor.

value from thin air is phenomenally popular among the 'rich' who screw the poor with it....

~S~

wealth is the result of legislated cronyism

Brian Scudamore - Wikipedia

Brian Scudamore is a multimillionaire. He started his founding company 1-800-GOT-JUNK, while driving through a fast food shop and seeing a pickup truck that said they would haul trash.

Brian purchased a $900 pickup truck, and coined the motto "You call, we'll haul". Today 1-800-GOT-JUNK operates in three countries, with over 150 locations.

Please explain by what 'legislation' and 'cronies' allowed a teenager in a pickup truck, to become a multi-millionaire? Which specific legislation is Brian in? Which 'cronies' in Washington allowed him to become wealthy?

welcome to America Andy, you're one of the chosen few, or you're not according to our you're stature in our system

My current situation is due to the choice I have made. Just like everyone else.

value from thin air is phenomenally popular among the 'rich' who screw the poor with it....

Name one poor person anywhere, who is poor because of a derivative.

You can't. Because poor people and derivatives, have nothing to do with each other.

You have some crazy psychos that have invaded your mind.... where are you getting this nonsense from?

 

[Andylusion]

People who are smart with money, will end up wealthy...> AND THEY SHOULD <

And those who waste their money, will end up poor......> AND THEY SHOULD <

America is not a meritocracy

that we've a bumbling billionaire in the WH should clue anyone in

~S~

.... what are you talking about....

My comment, has nothing to do with your comment. They are not related, or connected in any way.

No one suggested that America was a meritocracy. And being smart with money, has nothing to do with being qualified to be president.

You are connecting to completely unrelated things.

And honestly if you want to talk about the government... The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek. Hayek pointed out that naturally in a democracy, the incompetent are the most likely to be elected, because people who are smart, are going to make changes that anger the public. The people who are most charismatic, and willing to say whatever the public wants to hear, even entirely false, and possibly ridiculous.... are more likely to be voted in.

Trump is a good example. Obama is great example. Bush was a good example. In fact, the last semi-intelligent president we had was Ronald Reagan, and honestly that is only because Reagan was a Democrat that lived out Democrat policy in California, realized they didn't work, and became a free-market capitalist.
Reagan wasn't good because he was particularly smart, but rather because he experienced how policies affect people, and saw they don't work. His experience is what made him a good president, not his mind.

Regardless.... the fact is that what I said is true.

People who are smart with money, will end up wealthy...> AND THEY SHOULD <
And those who waste their money, will end up poor......> AND THEY SHOULD <

You can say Trump is an idiot as a president, but the fact is, his businesses have been successful, and so was the apprentice TV show, and so have most of his resorts and golf courses, and so on.

You can say he's an arrogant fool who farts out non-stop stupid comments... yeah I agree. But he has been wise with his investments. He pisses people off, and says idiotic things a president shouldn't say.... yeah I agree. But he has been wise with his money, and he is wealthy, and should be.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You need to stop just believing whatever lies they tell you

Grand

then what's your metric Andy?

how's this>



~S~

You people are always a hoot. If you don't like wealth inequity, why do you participate in, and contribute to it?

You know how people became wealthy? You sent them your money, that's how. Not just you, but tens of millions just like you. You continue to do so today, and you will be doing so tomorrow.

In the United States, money is not finite. That's just what you've been told to believe; that the reason some are poor is because others have too much. There is no truth to that. If that were the case, it would mean if I ask my employer for a raise, he would tell me he can't, because the rich have all the money. Or if I went to get a second mortgage on my home.

The truth of the matter is money is virtually infinite. You or anybody else can make as much (or as little) as you desire. Now if you chose the latter, then don't complain because others have chosen the first. If you choose the first option, then it will require a lot of work, a lot of sacrifices, and a lot of risks. More than that, success is not guaranteed.

 

[Andylusion]

Well yes. I mean this should be obvious.

Which is worse.... losing a massive part of your income, or paying a $300 a month premium?

Obviously paying the premiums is much much cheaper. By far more cheaper.

I have no problem paying a small premium, than losing a massive chunk of my income.

Let's even take Bernie Sanders lies... which is 6% increase in taxes. 6% of the median income of $50,000, is $3,000.

I have never paid $3,000 in health insurance premiums, in my entire life. In fact, barely half that.

Even for family coverage, that might sound like a good deal, until you realize that 6% in taxes would cover the wife's income too, even though in current system most families only have one person paying the premium, not both.

The absolute most expensive health insurance plan we have at my company, is not $300 a month.

But the real kicker, is that Bernie Sanders is lying. Even some of the pro-single-payer advocacy groups in the US, do not suggest we could pay for socialized health care with only 6%. The lowest costing plan I've seen, suggested a 12% income tax across the board.

And I even doubt that, because when you look at Europe, most of those countries with the most socialized system, often have tax rates of almost 50% of their income.

Do you really think that tax rates confiscating $20,000 of a middle class income, is going to be better than paying the premiums and co-pays?

Nothing in the world of math, supports that theory. Only living in a mythology that "the rich will pay for it", does that work. And again, if "the rich will pay for it" worked... then why are middle and lower class people in Europe losing half their income in taxes? Why are not the rich paying for it?

And let us even for the moment, live in the pretend world where the costs actually break even.... Gov care sucks dude. Have you never had to deal with gov-care? I have dealt with gov care numerous times. It's terrible. One government clinic I went to, the doctor was in a baseball cap, and a T-shirt. The staff was entirely rude. Not just unhelpful.... flat out rude to everyone. Because what can the patient do? Nothing. They were not a customer. it's not like the patient can say "I'll take my money elsewhere" because they were paid by the government. They don't give a crap what you do.

Torn up room. Broken chairs. Leaking ceiling with mold on it. An actual CRT TV in the back. A CRT tv these days is like finding a model T. Who still uses bulky old CRT TVs? Well apparently government run health care clinics do.

A Line of people filled the entire room, and through the entire 3 hours I had to be in this disgusting rude gov-car-ap clinic.... not a single patient was seen. Not even one. Two people left. Not a single person was called in to see a nurse or doctor.

Now think about that. In a capitalist pay-for-service health clinic, patients leaving is bad. You are losing money when patients walk out the door. But this was gov-care. They get paid whether you live or die, stay or leave.

My brother in law, came back from Iraq. He says he'll never wait for the VA to give him care ever again. Terrible care.

So yeah, I would much rather pay the premiums and the co-pays. When I go to my doctor, that I pay for.... I am treated like a customer. Given great service. Treated well, good care, and ultimately made better because of it.

right now, youre already paying a hidden health-care tax.

No Where in the world spends as much as we do, and many have better outcomes.

The ACA required 80% of your premiums goto health-care.
Its still 20 percent waste, and who knows if the republican government is enforcing even that.

Wait a minute. Other countries have better outcomes? Like who, and what category?

As Andy mentioned, unlike government, insurance companies invest premium money to offset their payouts. Government just lets your money sit under a mattress somewhere. What DumBama did was limit the insurance company's ability to invest that money, and of course, that meant trying to eliminate private insurance altogether.

How does the quality of the U.S. healthcare system compare to other countries?

How does health spending in the U.S. compare to other countries?

We are paying more for worse care.

ACA never tried to get rid of private insurance, its nothing but private insurance. It just made that insurance available to more, and got rid of crappy plans. But those bad plans are back.

Insurance companies only invest in bonds, but i'm not sure how the ACA affected that. 10 year treasuries yields have been dropping for decades.

See, right in your first link, I knew that's what they were going to post. Mortality rates.

Mortality rates, and other non-health-care related metrics, are pointless and irrelevant.

The reason is because Mortality rates, are directly dependent on incident rates, not the quality of care.


Again, take two Island nations, both with 1,000 people.

Island A, has 2 incidence of cancer, and both die, because Island A has zero hospitals or health care at all. So two people get cancer, both die.

Island B, has 20 incidence of cancer, and FOUR of them die. 16 people are diagnosed with cancer, given treatment for cancer, and cured of their cancer.

Now based on Mortality rates.... which Island has great health care?

Island A would be the top quality health care system, because only 2 people died, compared to Island B where 4 people died.

But the reality is, Island A has garbage health care, and Island B has fantastic health care.

You need to look at survival rates. Survival rates, are the only metric that matters, because it is the only metric that looks specifically at the ability of the health care system to diagnose, treat, and cure an illness.

The survival rates in the US, are much higher than any other country in the world.

And by the way....... The US is a mixed system. We have government health care here in the US. There are tons of public hospitals, public clinics, and of course the VA system.... all of which SUCK, and more our over all health care statistic look worse, than if we only had a private system.

Since medicare administrative expenditures are around 2 percent, telling private insurance to limit to 20% overhead is no problem. private insurance typically has 17 percent admin costs. Its just waste.

The reason for lack of competition is explained here, its not because of regulations. Its because the medical pricing mechanism is broken.

healthcare outcomes: Did you miss the word Amenable?
Its Amenable Mortality.
Its not just Mortality,
Its potential years of life
Its disease burden
its hospital admissions for preventable diseases
Its metical errors, etc.

Amenable doesn't matter. If this country has 50 thousand more people with a potentially curable diseases, you are still naturally going to have more people die from those potentially curable illnesses, than a country that has 50 thousand fewer.

Again, the only measurement that actually matters, is survival rates. Do you survive the illness or not?

You can talk about medical errors... but if you are faced with a choice between two hospitals, and one has a 70% survival rate for your illness, and the other has a 90% survival rate... which are you going to go with?

You are going with the one that you have the best chance of being healed and cured.

Do you really think any patient anywhere, is going to look at a hospital with a 70% survival rate, and another with an 90% survival rate, and think.... yeah but what about potential years of life lost?

Of course not. The only metric that matters to a patient is... will I be cured? Will I survive? No patient cares about all that other crap, when they are faced with a potentially life threatening illness.

Haven't met a patient yet saying "Nah I don't care about being alive in 5 years. What I need to worry about is hospital admissions for preventable diseases!"

That's how you know the difference between the frivolous statistics, and what really matters.

 

[Cosmos]

The US will NEVER be ready for Medicare for All. The reason people like Medicare is that they take out far far more in benefits than they contribute in taxes. You put everybody on Medicare it becomes totally unsustainable, costing Trillions. And the tax burden would be astronomical, for lousy service. It's a no-brainer. This can never be allowed to pass. We need to encourage market solutions to the healthcare issue.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The US will NEVER be ready for Medicare for All. The reason people like Medicare is that they take out far far more in benefits than they contribute in taxes. You put everybody on Medicare it becomes totally unsustainable, costing Trillions. And the tax burden would be astronomical, for lousy service. It's a no-brainer. This can never be allowed to pass. We need to encourage market solutions to the healthcare issue.

What we need is to tackle the issue the proper way. So far, everything that's been suggested is the wrong way.

Step one is to find ways to lower the costs first. That's paramount. Because insurance companies and government programs only pay the cost of procedures and treatment. Government doesn't make a profit, and some insurance companies only do as well as insuring other things like automobiles, houses and rents.

Lower the cost of medical care, and that lowers the costs to insurance and government. When we fine tune ways to lower medical care costs (and there are at least a dozen) then we can figure out how to pay for it. But by just allowing costs to continue rising, and then switching the payment mechanism, you aren't solving anything. You're just taking the problem and moving it somewhere else. It's like being in trouble with a credit card company, and paying the balance off with another credit card. You simply transferred the problem from one entity to another, but you still have the problem.

 

[dudmuck]

right now, youre already paying a hidden health-care tax.

No Where in the world spends as much as we do, and many have better outcomes.

The ACA required 80% of your premiums goto health-care.
Its still 20 percent waste, and who knows if the republican government is enforcing even that.

Wait a minute. Other countries have better outcomes? Like who, and what category?

As Andy mentioned, unlike government, insurance companies invest premium money to offset their payouts. Government just lets your money sit under a mattress somewhere. What DumBama did was limit the insurance company's ability to invest that money, and of course, that meant trying to eliminate private insurance altogether.

How does the quality of the U.S. healthcare system compare to other countries?

How does health spending in the U.S. compare to other countries?

We are paying more for worse care.

ACA never tried to get rid of private insurance, its nothing but private insurance. It just made that insurance available to more, and got rid of crappy plans. But those bad plans are back.

Insurance companies only invest in bonds, but i'm not sure how the ACA affected that. 10 year treasuries yields have been dropping for decades.

See, right in your first link, I knew that's what they were going to post. Mortality rates.

Mortality rates, and other non-health-care related metrics, are pointless and irrelevant.

The reason is because Mortality rates, are directly dependent on incident rates, not the quality of care.


Again, take two Island nations, both with 1,000 people.

Island A, has 2 incidence of cancer, and both die, because Island A has zero hospitals or health care at all. So two people get cancer, both die.

Island B, has 20 incidence of cancer, and FOUR of them die. 16 people are diagnosed with cancer, given treatment for cancer, and cured of their cancer.

Now based on Mortality rates.... which Island has great health care?

Island A would be the top quality health care system, because only 2 people died, compared to Island B where 4 people died.

But the reality is, Island A has garbage health care, and Island B has fantastic health care.

You need to look at survival rates. Survival rates, are the only metric that matters, because it is the only metric that looks specifically at the ability of the health care system to diagnose, treat, and cure an illness.

The survival rates in the US, are much higher than any other country in the world.

And by the way....... The US is a mixed system. We have government health care here in the US. There are tons of public hospitals, public clinics, and of course the VA system.... all of which SUCK, and more our over all health care statistic look worse, than if we only had a private system.

Since medicare administrative expenditures are around 2 percent, telling private insurance to limit to 20% overhead is no problem. private insurance typically has 17 percent admin costs. Its just waste.

The reason for lack of competition is explained here, its not because of regulations. Its because the medical pricing mechanism is broken.

healthcare outcomes: Did you miss the word Amenable?
Its Amenable Mortality.
Its not just Mortality,
Its potential years of life
Its disease burden
its hospital admissions for preventable diseases
Its metical errors, etc.

Amenable doesn't matter. If this country has 50 thousand more people with a potentially curable diseases, you are still naturally going to have more people die from those potentially curable illnesses, than a country that has 50 thousand fewer.

Again, the only measurement that actually matters, is survival rates. Do you survive the illness or not?

You can talk about medical errors... but if you are faced with a choice between two hospitals, and one has a 70% survival rate for your illness, and the other has a 90% survival rate... which are you going to go with?

You are going with the one that you have the best chance of being healed and cured.

Do you really think any patient anywhere, is going to look at a hospital with a 70% survival rate, and another with an 90% survival rate, and think.... yeah but what about potential years of life lost?

Of course not. The only metric that matters to a patient is... will I be cured? Will I survive? No patient cares about all that other crap, when they are faced with a potentially life threatening illness.

Haven't met a patient yet saying "Nah I don't care about being alive in 5 years. What I need to worry about is hospital admissions for preventable diseases!"

That's how you know the difference between the frivolous statistics, and what really matters.

Amenable mortality is defined as premature deaths (deaths under age 75) that could potentially be avoided, given effective and timely healthcare. That is, early deaths from causes (diseases or injuries) for which effective health care interventions exist and are accessible.

This isnt any different than the survival rate you mention, other than being more precisely defined.

A more consice definition: Mortality amenable to healthcare is a measure of the rates of death considered preventable by timely and effective care.
In the USA, its 88.7 percent, and in the rest of compatible countries its 93.7 percent. Notice its a percent. Its a ratio independent of total number of people.

We are spending more for a lower healthcare performance.
People in other countries spend less for better care.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wait a minute. Other countries have better outcomes? Like who, and what category?

As Andy mentioned, unlike government, insurance companies invest premium money to offset their payouts. Government just lets your money sit under a mattress somewhere. What DumBama did was limit the insurance company's ability to invest that money, and of course, that meant trying to eliminate private insurance altogether.

How does the quality of the U.S. healthcare system compare to other countries?

How does health spending in the U.S. compare to other countries?

We are paying more for worse care.

ACA never tried to get rid of private insurance, its nothing but private insurance. It just made that insurance available to more, and got rid of crappy plans. But those bad plans are back.

Insurance companies only invest in bonds, but i'm not sure how the ACA affected that. 10 year treasuries yields have been dropping for decades.

See, right in your first link, I knew that's what they were going to post. Mortality rates.

Mortality rates, and other non-health-care related metrics, are pointless and irrelevant.

The reason is because Mortality rates, are directly dependent on incident rates, not the quality of care.


Again, take two Island nations, both with 1,000 people.

Island A, has 2 incidence of cancer, and both die, because Island A has zero hospitals or health care at all. So two people get cancer, both die.

Island B, has 20 incidence of cancer, and FOUR of them die. 16 people are diagnosed with cancer, given treatment for cancer, and cured of their cancer.

Now based on Mortality rates.... which Island has great health care?

Island A would be the top quality health care system, because only 2 people died, compared to Island B where 4 people died.

But the reality is, Island A has garbage health care, and Island B has fantastic health care.

You need to look at survival rates. Survival rates, are the only metric that matters, because it is the only metric that looks specifically at the ability of the health care system to diagnose, treat, and cure an illness.

The survival rates in the US, are much higher than any other country in the world.

And by the way....... The US is a mixed system. We have government health care here in the US. There are tons of public hospitals, public clinics, and of course the VA system.... all of which SUCK, and more our over all health care statistic look worse, than if we only had a private system.

Since medicare administrative expenditures are around 2 percent, telling private insurance to limit to 20% overhead is no problem. private insurance typically has 17 percent admin costs. Its just waste.

The reason for lack of competition is explained here, its not because of regulations. Its because the medical pricing mechanism is broken.

healthcare outcomes: Did you miss the word Amenable?
Its Amenable Mortality.
Its not just Mortality,
Its potential years of life
Its disease burden
its hospital admissions for preventable diseases
Its metical errors, etc.

Amenable doesn't matter. If this country has 50 thousand more people with a potentially curable diseases, you are still naturally going to have more people die from those potentially curable illnesses, than a country that has 50 thousand fewer.

Again, the only measurement that actually matters, is survival rates. Do you survive the illness or not?

You can talk about medical errors... but if you are faced with a choice between two hospitals, and one has a 70% survival rate for your illness, and the other has a 90% survival rate... which are you going to go with?

You are going with the one that you have the best chance of being healed and cured.

Do you really think any patient anywhere, is going to look at a hospital with a 70% survival rate, and another with an 90% survival rate, and think.... yeah but what about potential years of life lost?

Of course not. The only metric that matters to a patient is... will I be cured? Will I survive? No patient cares about all that other crap, when they are faced with a potentially life threatening illness.

Haven't met a patient yet saying "Nah I don't care about being alive in 5 years. What I need to worry about is hospital admissions for preventable diseases!"

That's how you know the difference between the frivolous statistics, and what really matters.

Amenable mortality is defined as premature deaths (deaths under age 75) that could potentially be avoided, given effective and timely healthcare. That is, early deaths from causes (diseases or injuries) for which effective health care interventions exist and are accessible.

This isnt any different than the survival rate you mention, other than being more precisely defined.

A more consice definition: Mortality amenable to healthcare is a measure of the rates of death considered preventable by timely and effective care.
In the USA, its 88.7 percent, and in the rest of compatible countries its 93.7 percent. Notice its a percent. Its a ratio independent of total number of people.

We are spending more for a lower healthcare performance.
People in other countries spend less for better care.

There is no truth in that because we have the best care in the world. We are ranked lower because not everybody has access to this great care.

It's the rule of law. When you spend less, you get less.