We Need Government Healthcare Like Canada!

[joaquinmiller]

That was a big reason UHC wasn't instituted then, and the disproportionate number of minorities in lower income brackets are a reason Americans reject UHC today. We hear absurd horror stories about Euro healthcare, but they all studiously avoid reporting those health systems have taken care of 100% of their citizenry for 70+ years.

"It will never work here!" Well, sure, if you're determined to make sure it won't work.

Your racist excuse won't work.

We simply did not want Socialist healthcare and far more people had a little thing called personal responsibility. Progressives kept forcing insurance companies to cover more and more things by mandate and the prices went crazy.

Horror stories are not absurd, they are accurate and causing painful problems in Europe.

Finland: Government Collapses Over Universal Health Care Costs
Posted by Fuzzy Slippers Sunday, March 10, 2019 at 7:30pm
“Similar problems are bedeviling Sweden and Denmark, two other countries frequently held up as models to follow on health care”
Finland: Government Collapses Over Universal Health Care Costs, #Bernie2020 Hardest Hit

###

It's not an excuse. It's one of a couple of possible explanations. You offered not one thing to counter it. Was there Jim Crow at the time? Were black people south of the Mason-Dixon allowed in the same hospital as white people?

Yes, you have horror stories - some absurd to the point of unbelievable. What you don't do is what every opponent of UHC doesn't do - you don't acknowledge that it has worked for millions of people in dozens of countries for over 70 years.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Yeah, yeah, Finland has a debt-to-GDP ratio of 59%. Anti-NHS Americans pretend universal healthcare is the reason Finland has high debt. The US has a debt-to-GDP ratio greater than 105%.

Is to laugh, comrade.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

So you can wait 3 weeks after your general practitioner refers you to a specialist and 39 weeks for orthopedic surgery.

And Bloomberg says if you’re old, you can just die.

While Americans pine for 'Medicare for all,' Canadians look for US-style private insurance

Sounds like the VA.

 

[BluesLegend]

If you want to see the left's heads explode, offer them universal healthcare with the stipulation that it is citizen run. No government or politician can touch it or the money. Their heads go BOOM!

I've been promoting universal healthcare run by a private, non-profit, for years. Conservatives call it "socialism."

We all know that if politicians and government controls it, it will be a corrupt mess. Also, able body mooching lazy deadbeats need not apply. I'm not going to work overtime to pay the healthcare bills for some fat ass lazy bum. I'm happy to contribute to the truly needy who can't work a job and need our help. I'm NOT going to fund FREE shit for everyone. Another stipulation, STOP demonizing doctors and nurses. Forcing them to work for less to fund this is not the answer. Our best and brightest will run from the healthcare profession in droves. You will get your healthcare from a bunch of stupid shit losers who scored a D- in school and accidently kill patients on a regular basis.

The HMO Act was deregulated and now it's a corrupt mess.

Right, because healthcare should be rationed and patient care decisions should be based on controlling costs not what's best for the patient. In other words Liberal Care.

How does your bloviating have anything to do with what I posted?

That's what HMO's do.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Sign in a Canadian Emergency Waiting Room: Be grateful you have to wait. It means you're in no danger of dying. Thank you for your patience.

And wait...and wait...and wait.

I have to say, anytime I've gone to the emergency room, I've never waited. Either good timing or I waited too long in the first place.

As I said, every system has it's flaws. They are different from one another, but I've yet to read about a healthcare system that is perfect.

What I get perturbed by is when people come here and tell us how our system sucks so badly, and everyplace else around the world has such great government healthcare. The left tells us it's all the insurance companies fault, and not the government which is the real problem.

If we want to bring down the cost of our healthcare, get government out of it, not bring more government in.

The insurance companies are the reason you costs are so high, not the government. We pay administration of 7%, and some of the European companies pay even less - 5% of thereabouts. The US is around 35%. A big chunk of that is insurance company profit, "loss prevention", and administration, in other words, denying claims.

So who do you think makes all those regulations for insurance companies?

I spent ten years in the business. One company I worked for had to have meetings every other Monday. Most of what was discussed were government changes in regards to Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance billing. More red tape or change of red tape. It drove those poor girls insane.

The left won't dare tell us where the expense is. For one, it would mean less government to make things better. Two, it would tell people that government was the problem all along, and certainly make people think twice about supporting government healthcare.

The insurance industry's net margin in 2017 ranged between 3 and 10.5%. Life insurance had the widest range between quarters, from 3% to 9.6%; property and casualty insurance were at 3% to 8%; and health insurance had the narrowest range of 4% to 5.25%. The net margin for insurance brokerages in 2017 was higher than that of the insurance industry overall, at 9.27% to 10.5%.

What are insurance sector companies usual profit margins?

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

Pretty cool! Which offends you more - the cost savings or the saving of lives?

 

[dudmuck]

And wait...and wait...and wait.

I have to say, anytime I've gone to the emergency room, I've never waited. Either good timing or I waited too long in the first place.

As I said, every system has it's flaws. They are different from one another, but I've yet to read about a healthcare system that is perfect.

What I get perturbed by is when people come here and tell us how our system sucks so badly, and everyplace else around the world has such great government healthcare. The left tells us it's all the insurance companies fault, and not the government which is the real problem.

If we want to bring down the cost of our healthcare, get government out of it, not bring more government in.

The insurance companies are the reason you costs are so high, not the government. We pay administration of 7%, and some of the European companies pay even less - 5% of thereabouts. The US is around 35%. A big chunk of that is insurance company profit, "loss prevention", and administration, in other words, denying claims.

So who do you think makes all those regulations for insurance companies?

I spent ten years in the business. One company I worked for had to have meetings every other Monday. Most of what was discussed were government changes in regards to Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance billing. More red tape or change of red tape. It drove those poor girls insane.

The left won't dare tell us where the expense is. For one, it would mean less government to make things better. Two, it would tell people that government was the problem all along, and certainly make people think twice about supporting government healthcare.

The insurance industry's net margin in 2017 ranged between 3 and 10.5%. Life insurance had the widest range between quarters, from 3% to 9.6%; property and casualty insurance were at 3% to 8%; and health insurance had the narrowest range of 4% to 5.25%. The net margin for insurance brokerages in 2017 was higher than that of the insurance industry overall, at 9.27% to 10.5%.

What are insurance sector companies usual profit margins?

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

Pretty cool! Which offends you more - the cost savings or the saving of lives?

Its saving $450 billion per year and prevents at least 68,000 deaths per year, at the same time.

Did you read the link?

 

[joaquinmiller]

As I said, every system has it's flaws. They are different from one another, but I've yet to read about a healthcare system that is perfect.

What I get perturbed by is when people come here and tell us how our system sucks so badly, and everyplace else around the world has such great government healthcare. The left tells us it's all the insurance companies fault, and not the government which is the real problem.

If we want to bring down the cost of our healthcare, get government out of it, not bring more government in.

The insurance companies are the reason you costs are so high, not the government. We pay administration of 7%, and some of the European companies pay even less - 5% of thereabouts. The US is around 35%. A big chunk of that is insurance company profit, "loss prevention", and administration, in other words, denying claims.

So who do you think makes all those regulations for insurance companies?

I spent ten years in the business. One company I worked for had to have meetings every other Monday. Most of what was discussed were government changes in regards to Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance billing. More red tape or change of red tape. It drove those poor girls insane.

The left won't dare tell us where the expense is. For one, it would mean less government to make things better. Two, it would tell people that government was the problem all along, and certainly make people think twice about supporting government healthcare.

The insurance industry's net margin in 2017 ranged between 3 and 10.5%. Life insurance had the widest range between quarters, from 3% to 9.6%; property and casualty insurance were at 3% to 8%; and health insurance had the narrowest range of 4% to 5.25%. The net margin for insurance brokerages in 2017 was higher than that of the insurance industry overall, at 9.27% to 10.5%.

What are insurance sector companies usual profit margins?

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

Pretty cool! Which offends you more - the cost savings or the saving of lives?

Its saving $450 billion per year and prevents at least 68,000 deaths per year, at the same time.

Did you read the link?

Indeed I did. I wondered which is the more offensive - the savings of lives or of money. I'm certain rightwingers thoroughly disapprove of one or the other, or both.

Maybe Ray from Cleveland will enlighten us!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The insurance companies are the reason you costs are so high, not the government. We pay administration of 7%, and some of the European companies pay even less - 5% of thereabouts. The US is around 35%. A big chunk of that is insurance company profit, "loss prevention", and administration, in other words, denying claims.

So who do you think makes all those regulations for insurance companies?

I spent ten years in the business. One company I worked for had to have meetings every other Monday. Most of what was discussed were government changes in regards to Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance billing. More red tape or change of red tape. It drove those poor girls insane.

The left won't dare tell us where the expense is. For one, it would mean less government to make things better. Two, it would tell people that government was the problem all along, and certainly make people think twice about supporting government healthcare.

The insurance industry's net margin in 2017 ranged between 3 and 10.5%. Life insurance had the widest range between quarters, from 3% to 9.6%; property and casualty insurance were at 3% to 8%; and health insurance had the narrowest range of 4% to 5.25%. The net margin for insurance brokerages in 2017 was higher than that of the insurance industry overall, at 9.27% to 10.5%.

What are insurance sector companies usual profit margins?

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

Pretty cool! Which offends you more - the cost savings or the saving of lives?

Its saving $450 billion per year and prevents at least 68,000 deaths per year, at the same time.

Did you read the link?

Indeed I did. I wondered which is the more offensive - the savings of lives or of money. I'm certain rightwingers thoroughly disapprove of one or the other, or both.

Maybe Ray from Cleveland will enlighten us!

Gladly. The last healthcare salvation promised us a family would save $2,500 a year on healthcare insurance. It promised us no more garbage plans. All plans will provide quality care. The first word in the acronym stands for Affordable. If you like your doctor, you will keep your doctor.

All lies, every one of them. The plans are unaffordable, even the garbage plans. Insurance went up, not down. Some hospitals closed because of it, and others had to layoff a lot of people. Not everybody is insured.

Oh!!!! But this new government plan will save us all kinds of money!! Where did I hear that before???

Let me explain how some of this works: Government plans typically pay about 2/3 of the cost for services to providers. So providers increase their prices which the private insurance pays. This is why when you see hospitals or clinics close up, it's usually in poorer areas where almost everybody is on a government plan.

So what this estimated savings is not considering is what would facilities and doctors do when there is no private insurance to recoup government losses? The only way to keep these places open and people working is to force government to actually pay the full bill for everybody, and there goes all that savings. In the end, it would actually cost us more than it does now.

 

[joaquinmiller]

So who do you think makes all those regulations for insurance companies?

I spent ten years in the business. One company I worked for had to have meetings every other Monday. Most of what was discussed were government changes in regards to Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance billing. More red tape or change of red tape. It drove those poor girls insane.

The left won't dare tell us where the expense is. For one, it would mean less government to make things better. Two, it would tell people that government was the problem all along, and certainly make people think twice about supporting government healthcare.

The insurance industry's net margin in 2017 ranged between 3 and 10.5%. Life insurance had the widest range between quarters, from 3% to 9.6%; property and casualty insurance were at 3% to 8%; and health insurance had the narrowest range of 4% to 5.25%. The net margin for insurance brokerages in 2017 was higher than that of the insurance industry overall, at 9.27% to 10.5%.

What are insurance sector companies usual profit margins?

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

Pretty cool! Which offends you more - the cost savings or the saving of lives?

Its saving $450 billion per year and prevents at least 68,000 deaths per year, at the same time.

Did you read the link?

Indeed I did. I wondered which is the more offensive - the savings of lives or of money. I'm certain rightwingers thoroughly disapprove of one or the other, or both.

Maybe Ray from Cleveland will enlighten us!

Gladly. The last healthcare salvation promised us a family would save $2,500 a year on healthcare insurance. It promised us no more garbage plans. All plans will provide quality care. The first word in the acronym stands for Affordable. If you like your doctor, you will keep your doctor.

All lies, every one of them. The plans are unaffordable, even the garbage plans. Insurance went up, not down. Some hospitals closed because of it, and others had to layoff a lot of people. Not everybody is insured.

Oh!!!! But this new government plan will save us all kinds of money!! Where did I hear that before???

Let me explain how some of this works: Government plans typically pay about 2/3 of the cost for services to providers. So providers increase their prices which the private insurance pays. This is why when you see hospitals or clinics close up, it's usually in poorer areas where almost everybody is on a government plan.

So what this estimate savings is not considering is what would facilities and doctors do when there is no private insurance to recoup government losses? The only way to keep these places open and people working is to force government to actually pay the full bill for everybody, and there goes all that savings. In the end, it would actually cost us more than it does now.

"All lies, every one of them" - spoken like a good cultist.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

Pretty cool! Which offends you more - the cost savings or the saving of lives?

Its saving $450 billion per year and prevents at least 68,000 deaths per year, at the same time.

Did you read the link?

Indeed I did. I wondered which is the more offensive - the savings of lives or of money. I'm certain rightwingers thoroughly disapprove of one or the other, or both.

Maybe Ray from Cleveland will enlighten us!

Gladly. The last healthcare salvation promised us a family would save $2,500 a year on healthcare insurance. It promised us no more garbage plans. All plans will provide quality care. The first word in the acronym stands for Affordable. If you like your doctor, you will keep your doctor.

All lies, every one of them. The plans are unaffordable, even the garbage plans. Insurance went up, not down. Some hospitals closed because of it, and others had to layoff a lot of people. Not everybody is insured.

Oh!!!! But this new government plan will save us all kinds of money!! Where did I hear that before???

Let me explain how some of this works: Government plans typically pay about 2/3 of the cost for services to providers. So providers increase their prices which the private insurance pays. This is why when you see hospitals or clinics close up, it's usually in poorer areas where almost everybody is on a government plan.

So what this estimate savings is not considering is what would facilities and doctors do when there is no private insurance to recoup government losses? The only way to keep these places open and people working is to force government to actually pay the full bill for everybody, and there goes all that savings. In the end, it would actually cost us more than it does now.

"All lies, every one of them" - spoken like a good cultist.

How about somebody that actually signed up for it?

 

[joaquinmiller]

Pretty cool! Which offends you more - the cost savings or the saving of lives?

Its saving $450 billion per year and prevents at least 68,000 deaths per year, at the same time.

Did you read the link?

Indeed I did. I wondered which is the more offensive - the savings of lives or of money. I'm certain rightwingers thoroughly disapprove of one or the other, or both.

Maybe Ray from Cleveland will enlighten us!

Gladly. The last healthcare salvation promised us a family would save $2,500 a year on healthcare insurance. It promised us no more garbage plans. All plans will provide quality care. The first word in the acronym stands for Affordable. If you like your doctor, you will keep your doctor.

All lies, every one of them. The plans are unaffordable, even the garbage plans. Insurance went up, not down. Some hospitals closed because of it, and others had to layoff a lot of people. Not everybody is insured.

Oh!!!! But this new government plan will save us all kinds of money!! Where did I hear that before???

Let me explain how some of this works: Government plans typically pay about 2/3 of the cost for services to providers. So providers increase their prices which the private insurance pays. This is why when you see hospitals or clinics close up, it's usually in poorer areas where almost everybody is on a government plan.

So what this estimate savings is not considering is what would facilities and doctors do when there is no private insurance to recoup government losses? The only way to keep these places open and people working is to force government to actually pay the full bill for everybody, and there goes all that savings. In the end, it would actually cost us more than it does now.

"All lies, every one of them" - spoken like a good cultist.

How about somebody that actually signed up for it?

How about a study backing your claim that it would actually cost us more than it does now? FYI, Hannity's Half-Minute isn't a study. Saying, "it's all lies" isn't an argument. It's not even a bad argument, it's just saying stuff.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

You left out a whole range of expensive things that private insurance does which single payer does not, all of which reduce costs.

Underwriting: insurance companies have an entire department of actuaries reviewing your application, medical reports, and deciding on your premiums are. Single payer has a minimum wage data entry clerk inputing you name address and SS number.

Private insurance has a pre-approval process where doctors and nurses contact the insurance company to determine whether the company will pay for their proposed treatment. Medical staff at the insurance company decide if they will pay for it. Single payer doesn’t do pre-approvals, therefore eliminating the salaries and expenses hospitals, doctors’ offices and insurers. This frees medical staff to provide treatment to more patients, lowering costs to all.

No third party billing. With only one bill to send out to the government office, and no copses to collect, your receptionist can do the paperwork.

Lop off the administration and insurance company profit of 20% (I checked Ray - it’s 20% not 15%), add in the savings to doctors and hospitals for pre-approvals and billing -another 10% and you can easily save 30% on Administration

Third party billing charges between 7.9 to 10.9% of their billing’s with a monthly minimum of $999. That’s BEFORE we talk about pre-approval costs.

Single payer, enters the doctor name, posts his patient billings by OHIP number to confirm their card number is active and eligible, and issues a cheque. One bill to one insurer. No muss, no fuss, no medical reviews.

Spent a full year visiting Calgary (at least once a month). TV commercials replete with complaints about their doctor shortage.

Wonder why ?

Because no one wants to live in Calgary?

Rural America is pretty short on doctors too.

I live in rural America and whenever my wife and I need a medical appointment it’s either that day or the next. And that includes specialists and special procedures like MRI’s.

What you suffer from is Ruralphobia, brought on by spending your live surrounded by concrete.

No one believes that, a specialist or mri within a day? No fucking way unless in ER but I guess you have to say something since you get paid to do so.

For those who are talking about waiting times and shitty care in Calgary, Alberta, I would like to point out to from 1971 to 2015, Conservative governments ruled Alberta. The Province lost its collective mind in 2015, or maybe the stench of graft and corruption got to be too much for even conservatives to stomach, but they elected the NDP, in 2015. It would be like Texas suddenly voting for the Green Party to State Governor and the House. The crash you heard was the sound all of our jaws hitting the floor on election night. Oil rich Alberta is Canada's Texas - staunchy Conservative, hates liberalism, the French, and anyone named Trudeau.

Of course conservative Alberta wants American style health care. They're the only province in the country with Charter schools too. Taxes on oil production form the basis of their Heritage Fund, which means that Alberta is the only Province in Canada with no provincial sales tax. Alberta is more like an American state, than a Canadian Province.

Canada won't pay competitive wages (compared to the U.S.).

Canada doesn't pay "wages" to doctors. Doctors bill the government for services they provide to their patients. The fees for those services are lower in the USA. Unlike the USA, they can't charge whatever they want and "extra billing" is illegal. A Canadian doctor's practice can be as large or as small as they want. Our pediatrician in Toronto had his offices near the U of T. He taught medicine at the U of T, and was a part owner of a children's after-hours walk-in clinic near our home with two or three other pediatricians. My GP just had an his own office.

American hospitals and medical facilities come to Canada to hire our doctors to work in the USA. We raise em and train em, and then Americans promise them millions and poach our home grown doctors away. But even living in rural Ontario, where finding a doctor who is taking new patients is a problem, I can call my doctor up in the morning and be seen the same day.

America doesn't need to come to Canada to take your doctors away. Canadian doctors are quite aware of the income difference and come to the USA on their own free will to make a much better living. It's the same way with all other countries. We have doctors from all over the world here in Cleveland. I'm sure it's like that all over the country.

General Practice Physicians make 10% more in Canada than the US.

"12. How well are Canadian doctors paid?

On average, a Canadian general practitioner makes about 10 percent more than an American family physician; I don’t know about specialists. Office overhead runs between 15 percent and 30 percent. The cost of living, though, is very high."

An interview with an American doctor working in Canada

Oops!
Average General Practitioner Salary in Canada
C$125,829
Avg. Salary
C$1,000
The average salary for a General Practitioner in Canada is C$125,829.
General Practitioner Salary in Canada | PayScale

Average Family or General Practitioner Salary
$184,786
Avg. SalaryGet pay report
How should I pay?
Price a job
The average salary for a Family or General Practitioner is $184,786.
Family or General Practitioner Salary | PayScale

You can’t compare salaries in Canada and the USA since our health care is part of taxes, mortgage payments on your home aren’t tax deductible (home sales are free of capital gains), and our food production industry doesn’t massive amounts of low wage illegals.

Well,

It seems doctors do and they leave.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The insurance companies are the reason you costs are so high, not the government. We pay administration of 7%, and some of the European companies pay even less - 5% of thereabouts. The US is around 35%. A big chunk of that is insurance company profit, "loss prevention", and administration, in other words, denying claims.

I've had private insurance for forty years and I've never had a claim denied for me, my wife, and my four children.

Helps a lot to actually learn the coverage offered instead of assuming, doesn't it?

It’s even better when there are no limitations or exclusions, everything is covered and nobody is ever denied.

Purge garbage.

There is as least one well publisized case where England would not approve an experimental drug and let a woman die (saying, in fact, she should shut up and and take it like a good Brit).

You ever take the time to read your insurance policy? Good luck with those experimental drugs.

Except I am not the one who said nobody is ever denied.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

You are either out of your mind, or the biggest bald-faced liar since Hillary Clinton . . . or both.

WOW!! Another Canadian?

But wait, there's more! If you have an HMO, you also have co-pays for being admitted to the emergency room and hospital. These typically run from $600.00 to $3000.00. Is it any wonder that consumer healthcare costs are the number one reason for bankruptcy?

Wow, you're just spewing random shit relating to not a damned thing.

At least you clarified for us all that you are, in fact, out of your mind.

I don't know if I mentioned it but depending on the product you also have a $3000.00 to $8000.00 yearly deductible. Is it any wonder that consumer healthcare costs are the number one reason for bankruptcy?

What I actually wonder about is why you think I'm going to accept that lie as fact just because you say it.

Because, even on my worst day, I'm smarter than you.

Only in your tiny mind.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

WOW!! Another Canadian?

But wait, there's more! If you have an HMO, you also have co-pays for being admitted to the emergency room and hospital. These typically run from $600.00 to $3000.00. Is it any wonder that consumer healthcare costs are the number one reason for bankruptcy?

Wow, you're just spewing random shit relating to not a damned thing.

At least you clarified for us all that you are, in fact, out of your mind.

If you followed his posts you would know that he's out of his mind.

Because I've outed you and yours?

No, because you babble utter nonsense and then brag about how "brilliant" it was.

I've outed you and yours. Suck it up, you'll just come back under a different name.

Are you drunk ?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

One of my favorites.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Its saving $450 billion per year and prevents at least 68,000 deaths per year, at the same time.

Did you read the link?

Indeed I did. I wondered which is the more offensive - the savings of lives or of money. I'm certain rightwingers thoroughly disapprove of one or the other, or both.

Maybe Ray from Cleveland will enlighten us!

Gladly. The last healthcare salvation promised us a family would save $2,500 a year on healthcare insurance. It promised us no more garbage plans. All plans will provide quality care. The first word in the acronym stands for Affordable. If you like your doctor, you will keep your doctor.

All lies, every one of them. The plans are unaffordable, even the garbage plans. Insurance went up, not down. Some hospitals closed because of it, and others had to layoff a lot of people. Not everybody is insured.

Oh!!!! But this new government plan will save us all kinds of money!! Where did I hear that before???

Let me explain how some of this works: Government plans typically pay about 2/3 of the cost for services to providers. So providers increase their prices which the private insurance pays. This is why when you see hospitals or clinics close up, it's usually in poorer areas where almost everybody is on a government plan.

So what this estimate savings is not considering is what would facilities and doctors do when there is no private insurance to recoup government losses? The only way to keep these places open and people working is to force government to actually pay the full bill for everybody, and there goes all that savings. In the end, it would actually cost us more than it does now.

"All lies, every one of them" - spoken like a good cultist.

How about somebody that actually signed up for it?

How about a study backing your claim that it would actually cost us more than it does now? FYI, Hannity's Half-Minute isn't a study. Saying, "it's all lies" isn't an argument. It's not even a bad argument, it's just saying stuff.

What do you need a study about what's already been proven in recent past? These commies lie to us. Their main goal is to create as many government dependents as possible even if they have to lie to accomplish that. The more government dependents, the more likely Democrat voters.

 

[Markle]

That was a big reason UHC wasn't instituted then, and the disproportionate number of minorities in lower income brackets are a reason Americans reject UHC today. We hear absurd horror stories about Euro healthcare, but they all studiously avoid reporting those health systems have taken care of 100% of their citizenry for 70+ years.

"It will never work here!" Well, sure, if you're determined to make sure it won't work.

Your racist excuse won't work.

We simply did not want Socialist healthcare and far more people had a little thing called personal responsibility. Progressives kept forcing insurance companies to cover more and more things by mandate and the prices went crazy.

Horror stories are not absurd, they are accurate and causing painful problems in Europe.

Finland: Government Collapses Over Universal Health Care Costs
Posted by Fuzzy Slippers Sunday, March 10, 2019 at 7:30pm
“Similar problems are bedeviling Sweden and Denmark, two other countries frequently held up as models to follow on health care”
Finland: Government Collapses Over Universal Health Care Costs, #Bernie2020 Hardest Hit

###

It's not an excuse. It's one of a couple of possible explanations. You offered not one thing to counter it. Was there Jim Crow at the time? Were black people south of the Mason-Dixon allowed in the same hospital as white people?

Yes, you have horror stories - some absurd to the point of unbelievable. What you don't do is what every opponent of UHC doesn't do - you don't acknowledge that it has worked for millions of people in dozens of countries for over 70 years.

Today

• Saturday, February 22, 2020
  • (24 days from St. Patrick's Day)

And they are going broke and the systems are failing and have been for years,

We also are not going to stand for a seventy percent tax rate.+

 

[joaquinmiller]

That was a big reason UHC wasn't instituted then, and the disproportionate number of minorities in lower income brackets are a reason Americans reject UHC today. We hear absurd horror stories about Euro healthcare, but they all studiously avoid reporting those health systems have taken care of 100% of their citizenry for 70+ years.

"It will never work here!" Well, sure, if you're determined to make sure it won't work.

Your racist excuse won't work.

We simply did not want Socialist healthcare and far more people had a little thing called personal responsibility. Progressives kept forcing insurance companies to cover more and more things by mandate and the prices went crazy.

Horror stories are not absurd, they are accurate and causing painful problems in Europe.

Finland: Government Collapses Over Universal Health Care Costs
Posted by Fuzzy Slippers Sunday, March 10, 2019 at 7:30pm
“Similar problems are bedeviling Sweden and Denmark, two other countries frequently held up as models to follow on health care”
Finland: Government Collapses Over Universal Health Care Costs, #Bernie2020 Hardest Hit

###

It's not an excuse. It's one of a couple of possible explanations. You offered not one thing to counter it. Was there Jim Crow at the time? Were black people south of the Mason-Dixon allowed in the same hospital as white people?

Yes, you have horror stories - some absurd to the point of unbelievable. What you don't do is what every opponent of UHC doesn't do - you don't acknowledge that it has worked for millions of people in dozens of countries for over 70 years.

Today

• Saturday, February 22, 2020
  • (24 days from St. Patrick's Day)

And they are going broke and the systems are failing and have been for years,

We also are not going to stand for a seventy percent tax rate.+

At least you admit they've done it for 70 years. They aren't broke - their debt is 59% of their GDP, ours is more than 105% of our GDP. I'm not sure how you measure going broke. Are you?

 

[joaquinmiller]

Indeed I did. I wondered which is the more offensive - the savings of lives or of money. I'm certain rightwingers thoroughly disapprove of one or the other, or both.

Maybe Ray from Cleveland will enlighten us!

Gladly. The last healthcare salvation promised us a family would save $2,500 a year on healthcare insurance. It promised us no more garbage plans. All plans will provide quality care. The first word in the acronym stands for Affordable. If you like your doctor, you will keep your doctor.

All lies, every one of them. The plans are unaffordable, even the garbage plans. Insurance went up, not down. Some hospitals closed because of it, and others had to layoff a lot of people. Not everybody is insured.

Oh!!!! But this new government plan will save us all kinds of money!! Where did I hear that before???

Let me explain how some of this works: Government plans typically pay about 2/3 of the cost for services to providers. So providers increase their prices which the private insurance pays. This is why when you see hospitals or clinics close up, it's usually in poorer areas where almost everybody is on a government plan.

So what this estimate savings is not considering is what would facilities and doctors do when there is no private insurance to recoup government losses? The only way to keep these places open and people working is to force government to actually pay the full bill for everybody, and there goes all that savings. In the end, it would actually cost us more than it does now.

"All lies, every one of them" - spoken like a good cultist.

How about somebody that actually signed up for it?

How about a study backing your claim that it would actually cost us more than it does now? FYI, Hannity's Half-Minute isn't a study. Saying, "it's all lies" isn't an argument. It's not even a bad argument, it's just saying stuff.

What do you need a study about what's already been proven in recent past? These commies lie to us. Their main goal is to create as many government dependents as possible even if they have to lie to accomplish that. The more government dependents, the more likely Democrat voters.

Jesus H, man, you've got it bad. That's not anyone's goal, that's just something FOX or Rush pissed in your ear.