We Need Government Healthcare Like Canada!

[karpenter]

Old Folks Would Be Better Off
Since They're All Pretty Decrepit Anyway
And What If They're Not Old, But Don't Have Any Friends
Would Anyone Really Miss Them ??
I Mean, Really Miss Them ??

 

[debbiedowner]

I've said this before I think both sides will be disappointed if by chance Bernie is elected. The left won't get a full Medicare for all if any and the right will be disappointed because it didn't happen and destroy the country like they predicted.

So, I guess you're just throwing 'barbs' here - but do you really "the right" thinks like that? Can you understand that some people, people who aren't evil and insane, think it's a bad idea to put government in charge of health care?

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20200218.120496/full/

At the end of 2016, after the election of President Donald Trump, Republicans across the country were elated by the perceived inevitable, imminent repeal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Democrats mirrored these expectations with despair.

As I wrote at the time, however, political realities and policy complexities have a way of colliding with such irrational exuberance. The infamous demise of the “Repeal and Replace” campaign bore out these verities.

It didn’t take long for the pendulum to swing. Comparably high expectations have arisen among Democrats that Medicare for All, or one of its many siblings or cousins, could pass in 2021.

While conventional wisdom, and some presidential candidates, have already begun to temper these expectations, my goal here is to document five reasons why Medicare for All (M4All), Medicare buy-in, or federal public option legislation cannot pass in the near future. My hope, in doing so, is that we Democrats spare ourselves the precious time, internal acrimony, and political fallout that Republicans faced when their lofty ACA repeal promises went unfulfilled.

Reason No. 1: The 2020 Election
This one is perhaps the most obvious but an appropriate place to start. President Trump probably has about a—gulp—50 percent chance of winning reelection. (Online punters tend to put his odds higher.) While it’s fair to respond that Democrats are assuming a presidential victory, at least, when debating the nuances of Medicare for All, suffice it to say we should probably refrain from eating each other alive over it just yet.

That still leaves the Senate election, which presidential candidates and the rest of us ought to consider carefully in stoking expectations. Even if 2020 is an otherwise favorable year for them, the Senate electoral map poses an uphill climb for Democrats, who must net three seats to take control of the chamber (assuming they win the White House). Only two Republican senators are running states won by Hillary Clinton, and one Democrat, Doug Jones, is running in deep red Alabama.

I don’t think you can reasonably put the odds of the Senate flipping at over 50 percent either, which if combined with the at best even odds of taking the White House, leaves Democrats with relatively dim hopes of controlling the policy-making apparati of Washington come 2021.

Still, for the sake of our collective pleasure and edification, I am willing to cede you, my skeptical friends, both of these planks. Let’s assume Democrats do win the White House and Senate, albeit with a presumably razor thin (and politically tenuous) hold on the latter. I’ve still got four concrete legs to my theory’s stool, with the first being, naturally, …

Reason No. 2: The Senate
… the darn Senate. The ire of every majority party and darling of every minority one. The graveyard of bold, bright, and hotly partisan ideas. Love it or hate it, the institution and its norms are here to stay.

The first and most important thing to note here is that M4All or anything resembling it is highly unlikely to qualify for the budget reconciliation process, which would reduce the vote threshold for Senate passage from 60 to 50.

While it probably warrants its own post, the crux of this point is that only policies that have a meaningful budgetary impact qualify for the budget reconciliation vehicle. Because all M4All-ish proposals include inserting Medicare, a Medicare-like program, or a Medicare-like public option into the commercial market, fairly extensive policy care and craft must be afforded to ensuring the rules that apply to it mirror those that apply to other sources of coverage.

Failure to do so will highly likely lead to adverse selection (meaning an imbalance of higher-risk enrollees will gravitate to one of the options, presumably, in this case, the Medicare-like one) and precipitate the demise of the new coverage regime. The problem is that the predominant impact of these market-stabilizing policies is not budgetary, and thus they cannot be included in budget reconciliation bills.

Another change that would be necessary under any expansion of Medicare to the non-senior market would be the addition of new benefits not deemed necessary to the existing beneficiary population, such as contraception. Pediatric benefits also, for obvious reasons, get short shrift in Medicare. Adding these benefits to make the Medicare-like coverage suitable for the newly eligible people is also unlikely to qualify for reconciliation.

While the smart and savvy brain trust of lefty policy wonks does have a shot at cracking this code and concocting an M4All bill that protects market stability and qualifies for reconciliation, we ought to accept that is a good bit less than probable.

Reason No. 3: Democrats Will Find Compromise Difficult
Even if Democrats can use budget reconciliation to enact an M4All-related policy, at least 217 members of the House of Representatives and 50 senators will need to agree on what that policy is. Who would be the fiftieth vote for this sweeping reorientation of our health care system? Joe Manchin of West Virginia? Jon Tester of Montana? Doug Jones from Alabama?

Please spare these senators your hate mail. Their ability to win in overwhelmingly Republican states will be the reason Democrats take the Senate, if they indeed do. Asking them to support the same bill that would need to be embraced by Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won’t do them or the Democratic Party any good and, suffice it to say, can’t be counted on.

Keep in mind the perilous path the ACA took to enactment, barely attaining passage through each chamber after 15 months of extensive debate and wrangling, and that was with the support of the vast majority of the health care industry. Will Democrats, some emboldened and others wary, be able to forge consensus in a crucible of stakeholder opposition?

Reason No. 4: Other Priorities
Having spent the first 15 months of their control of Washington eight years ago on health care, and paying for the political fallout from that ever since, will Democrats choose to go down the same path in 2021?

I can still remember then-candidate Barack Obama, during a primary debate, saying health care would be one of the first two issues he would address as president because he thought it would be “easy.” Later, his advisers hopelessly tried to build the impression reform would be signed and sealed by July of his first year.

We will know better in 2021. If Democrats go down the M4All path, it will be extraordinarily contentious, protracted, and all-consuming. Many in the party and otherwise across the country would likely prefer to see Democrats prioritize other issues that have stood on the sidelines for more than a decade.

As tidily outlined by Matthew Yglesias, not exactly a wilting flower on the left, issues such as climate change, democracy (voting rights, and so forth), and immigration, deserve renewed attention, especially after the assaults each has suffered under the dominion of President Trump.

Reason No. 5: Look At The States
We don’t need to base this inquiry on speculation alone. We have evidence already at the state level. Blue states such as Connecticut and New Mexico recently tried and failed to enact government-sponsored public options, which were much milder iterations of M4All.

Washington State did successfully pass a loosely Medicare-oriented public option law last spring. After strenuous industry pushback and moderate Democrat reservations, however, provider participation will be optional and reimbursements were set at levels that likely exceed rates currently attained by some in the market. As such, the cost and coverage gains the program will achieve are uncertain.

Colorado enacted a preliminary public option law last spring, and the legislature is planning, per the governor’s administration’s recommendations, to pursue a follow-on bill in the upcoming session that would require hospital participation at Medicare-related reimbursement rates. It’s too early to predict the outcome of this effort, but the industry coalition established to extinguish any proposal that whiffs of M4All has already set up camp in my beloved Centennial State.

Will Democrats in the state and across the country align around this relatively modest, incremental step along the spectrum of M4All? Or will the left bemoan it as malevolently insufficient, while moderates run for cover from the industry assault? Whatever happens will be an informative preview of how the debate would truly unfold at the federal level, keeping in mind this is a state Hillary Clinton won by 5 percent, making it relatively favorable terrain.

So, What Then?
It usually pays to be pessimistic about Washington, and in that sense I guess I’m taking my rake with this piece. But there is a tremendous amount of headway Democrats can make in furthering the party’s goal of achieving quality, affordable coverage for all in 2021 if we can put our ideological preferences on the back burner.

Almost immediately after the ACA passed, thought leaders began working on means of improving the law’s framework. For a recent, in-depth analysis of these options, my favorite source is this comprehensive report the Urban Institute prepared for the Commonwealth Fund. It presents a number of actionable coverage expansion options including improving the ACA’s premium and cost-sharing subsidies, reestablishing a nationwide reinsurance program, and closing the eligibility gap for residents of states that have not expanded Medicaid. These policies could be crafted to qualify for reconciliation and would likely avoid costly infighting or industry hostility. Smart staffers might start drafting these policies now.

Notably, on the near side of the halfway point through the report’s array of policy options from incremental to comprehensive, authors pose addition of a public option to the existing market that closely resembles the path Colorado and Washington are on.

I have proposed a preliminary framework for such a policy, with much more refinement and consensus building ahead for all of us willing to embrace the art of the possible, albeit the still not easy.

If a new Democratic president wants to deliver on the promises he or she has made on the campaign trail and appease heightened expectations across the country, their best option will likely be to harness executive waiver authority to support states trying to adopt public option programs that are in the spirit, if not the rigid philosophical confines, of Medicare for All. If that doesn’t feel bold now, trust me, it will when the time comes.

 

[dblack]

I've said this before I think both sides will be disappointed if by chance Bernie is elected. The left won't get a full Medicare for all if any and the right will be disappointed because it didn't happen and destroy the country like they predicted.

So, I guess you're just throwing 'barbs' here - but do you really "the right" thinks like that? Can you understand that some people, people who aren't evil and insane, think it's a bad idea to put government in charge of health care?

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20200218.120496/full/

Not really sure what your link has to do with my question. I was commenting on the tendency of people to assign malevolent motives to anyone who disagrees with them.

 

[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 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.

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.

I believe you failed to mention that the majority of those hospitals and clinics that closed were located in states who refused Medicaid expansion which normally how they survived before obamacare.

They had Medicaid expansion before Commie Care? Really?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Bankruptcy Courts and bankruptcy lawyers would lose a big portion of their business, if medical bankruptcies were removed from the equation. Aw, man, that'd be too bad.

66.5% of all bankruptcies are related to medical expenses - 530,000 people per year. Ain't that something?

That's actually misleading. Bankruptcies are related to medical costs, but are not the cause. Most people don't carry short term disability. So when they get sick for months, that means they are not drawing any income. They continue to pay bills until money becomes short, and file for bankruptcy so they can use what they have left for food and utilities.

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

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

Some of us are actually aware of our hellthcare system's ranking amongst all the other post-industrial nations on the planet. Most expensive, least efficient, shittier outcomes. And that americans pay more for American pharma products than Canadians do.

As for Bloomberg, what do you expect from your aristocracy?

Anyone recall Don's hellthcare campaign promises? He doesn't.

Majorities in both houses for 2 years.

See any healthcare legislation?

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

Bankruptcy Courts and bankruptcy lawyers would lose a big portion of their business, if medical bankruptcies were removed from the equation. Aw, man, that'd be too bad.

66.5% of all bankruptcies are related to medical expenses - 530,000 people per year. Ain't that something?

That's actually misleading. Bankruptcies are related to medical costs, but are not the cause. Most people don't carry short term disability. So when they get sick for months, that means they are not drawing any income. They continue to pay bills until money becomes short, and file for bankruptcy so they can use what they have left for food and utilities.

Yes, global endless war is more important than a healthy, educated globally competitive society and population.

 

[joaquinmiller]

$30T, not $30T in additional costs.

Do you always run around making ignorant statements in the hope you can bluff your way through?

The Eye-Popping Cost of Medicare for All
According to new figures: more than the federal government will spend over the coming decade on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid combined.

RONALD BROWNSTEIN OCTOBER 16, 2019

Senator Elizabeth Warren’s refusal to answer repeated questions at last night’s debate about how she would fund Medicare for All underscores the challenge she faces finding a politically acceptable means to meet the idea’s huge price tag—a challenge that only intensified today with the release of an eye-popping new study.

The Urban Institute, a center-left think tank highly respected among Democrats, is projecting that a plan similar to what Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders are pushing would require $34 trillion in additional federal spending over its first decade in operation. That’s more than the federal government’s total cost over the coming decade for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid combined, according to the most recent Congressional Budget Office projections.

The Eye-Popping Cost of Medicare for All

Did you ignore my post 35 minutes ago (post 265), saying "increased federal spending"? Spending and costs are not the same word, and you were initially referring to costs. I tried to gently correct you, without making a deal of it. Stow your misplaced insult - I make mistakes, like everyone, but I don't have a need to lie or bluff.

Was this NOT your four-word response?

"$30T, not $30T in additional costs."

Yes, because 'costs' and federal spending are not the same. When a State's share of Medicaid spending begins to be covered by Medicare for all, the cost doesn't change. The spending shifts - increasing at the federal level and dropping at the state level.

Really? Now you're going to get into semantics?

Admit it you had no clue and thought you'd score some points?

You think the difference between 'cost' and 'increased federal spending' is semantic? I gave you an example - where costs remain the same, but the spending burden shifts to the feds. If you want to pretend that's 'semantics', knock yourself out.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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

Some of us are actually aware of our hellthcare system's ranking amongst all the other post-industrial nations on the planet. Most expensive, least efficient, shittier outcomes. And that americans pay more for American pharma products than Canadians do.

As for Bloomberg, what do you expect from your aristocracy?

Anyone recall Don's hellthcare campaign promises? He doesn't.

Majorities in both houses for 2 years.

See any healthcare legislation?

Then move there. All the immigrants come here, not there too.

You’re full of BS.

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

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

Some of us are actually aware of our hellthcare system's ranking amongst all the other post-industrial nations on the planet. Most expensive, least efficient, shittier outcomes. And that americans pay more for American pharma products than Canadians do.

As for Bloomberg, what do you expect from your aristocracy?

Anyone recall Don's hellthcare campaign promises? He doesn't.

Majorities in both houses for 2 years.

See any healthcare legislation?

Then move there. All the immigrants come here, not there too.

You’re full of BS.

Was this intended as a coherent rebuttal on our hellthare system rankings?

 

[Markle]

Some of us are actually aware of our hellthcare system's ranking amongst all the other post-industrial nations on the planet. Most expensive, least efficient, shittier outcomes. And that americans pay more for American pharma products than Canadians do.

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

Some of us are actually aware of our hellthcare system's ranking amongst all the other post-industrial nations on the planet. Most expensive, least efficient, shittier outcomes. And that americans pay more for American pharma products than Canadians do.

A little due diligence will confirm. Meme that.

 

[Markle]

Do you always run around making ignorant statements in the hope you can bluff your way through?

The Eye-Popping Cost of Medicare for All
According to new figures: more than the federal government will spend over the coming decade on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid combined.

RONALD BROWNSTEIN OCTOBER 16, 2019

Senator Elizabeth Warren’s refusal to answer repeated questions at last night’s debate about how she would fund Medicare for All underscores the challenge she faces finding a politically acceptable means to meet the idea’s huge price tag—a challenge that only intensified today with the release of an eye-popping new study.

The Urban Institute, a center-left think tank highly respected among Democrats, is projecting that a plan similar to what Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders are pushing would require $34 trillion in additional federal spending over its first decade in operation. That’s more than the federal government’s total cost over the coming decade for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid combined, according to the most recent Congressional Budget Office projections.

The Eye-Popping Cost of Medicare for All

Did you ignore my post 35 minutes ago (post 265), saying "increased federal spending"? Spending and costs are not the same word, and you were initially referring to costs. I tried to gently correct you, without making a deal of it. Stow your misplaced insult - I make mistakes, like everyone, but I don't have a need to lie or bluff.

Was this NOT your four-word response?

"$30T, not $30T in additional costs."

Yes, because 'costs' and federal spending are not the same. When a State's share of Medicaid spending begins to be covered by Medicare for all, the cost doesn't change. The spending shifts - increasing at the federal level and dropping at the state level.

Really? Now you're going to get into semantics?

Admit it you had no clue and thought you'd score some points?

You think the difference between 'cost' and 'increased federal spending' is semantic? I gave you an example - where costs remain the same, but the spending burden shifts to the feds. If you want to pretend that's 'semantics', knock yourself out.

Semantics.

Medicare for all will cost an additional $34 TRILLION over 10 years.

For Medicare for all, we will SPEND an additional $34 TRILLION over 10 years.

Why yes, I see the stark difference now, how could I have missed it?

 

[debbiedowner]

I've said this before I think both sides will be disappointed if by chance Bernie is elected. The left won't get a full Medicare for all if any and the right will be disappointed because it didn't happen and destroy the country like they predicted.

So, I guess you're just throwing 'barbs' here - but do you really "the right" thinks like that? Can you understand that some people, people who aren't evil and insane, think it's a bad idea to put government in charge of health care?

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20200218.120496/full/

Not really sure what your link has to do with my question. I was commenting on the tendency of people to assign malevolent motives to anyone who disagrees with them.

It's not going to fucking happen.

 

[debbiedowner]

Did you ignore my post 35 minutes ago (post 265), saying "increased federal spending"? Spending and costs are not the same word, and you were initially referring to costs. I tried to gently correct you, without making a deal of it. Stow your misplaced insult - I make mistakes, like everyone, but I don't have a need to lie or bluff.

Was this NOT your four-word response?

"$30T, not $30T in additional costs."

Yes, because 'costs' and federal spending are not the same. When a State's share of Medicaid spending begins to be covered by Medicare for all, the cost doesn't change. The spending shifts - increasing at the federal level and dropping at the state level.

Really? Now you're going to get into semantics?

Admit it you had no clue and thought you'd score some points?

You think the difference between 'cost' and 'increased federal spending' is semantic? I gave you an example - where costs remain the same, but the spending burden shifts to the feds. If you want to pretend that's 'semantics', knock yourself out.

Semantics.

Medicare for all will cost an additional $34 TRILLION over 10 years.

For Medicare for all, we will SPEND an additional $34 TRILLION over 10 years.

Why yes, I see the stark difference now, how could I have missed it?

So now you can look into the future? Plus you have no goddamn proof.

 

[dblack]

I've said this before I think both sides will be disappointed if by chance Bernie is elected. The left won't get a full Medicare for all if any and the right will be disappointed because it didn't happen and destroy the country like they predicted.

So, I guess you're just throwing 'barbs' here - but do you really "the right" thinks like that? Can you understand that some people, people who aren't evil and insane, think it's a bad idea to put government in charge of health care?

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20200218.120496/full/

Not really sure what your link has to do with my question. I was commenting on the tendency of people to assign malevolent motives to anyone who disagrees with them.

It's not going to fucking happen.

What's not going to fucking happen?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Some of us are actually aware of our hellthcare system's ranking amongst all the other post-industrial nations on the planet. Most expensive, least efficient, shittier outcomes. And that americans pay more for American pharma products than Canadians do.

As for Bloomberg, what do you expect from your aristocracy?

Anyone recall Don's hellthcare campaign promises? He doesn't.

Majorities in both houses for 2 years.

See any healthcare legislation?

Some of you believe the propaganda you're fed and think you're "actually aware" of something real.

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

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

Some of us are actually aware of our hellthcare system's ranking amongst all the other post-industrial nations on the planet. Most expensive, least efficient, shittier outcomes. And that americans pay more for American pharma products than Canadians do.

As for Bloomberg, what do you expect from your aristocracy?

Anyone recall Don's hellthcare campaign promises? He doesn't.

Majorities in both houses for 2 years.

See any healthcare legislation?

Some of you believe the propaganda you're fed and think you're "actually aware" of something real.

Feel free to pick it apart point by point, here it is again:

Some of us are actually aware of our hellthcare system's ranking amongst all the other post-industrial nations on the planet. Most expensive, least efficient, shittier outcomes. And that americans pay more for American pharma products than Canadians do.

As for Bloomberg, what do you expect from your aristocracy?

Anyone recall Don's hellthcare campaign promises? He doesn't.

Majorities in both houses for 2 years.

See any healthcare legislation?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

Some of us are actually aware of our hellthcare system's ranking amongst all the other post-industrial nations on the planet. Most expensive, least efficient, shittier outcomes. And that americans pay more for American pharma products than Canadians do.

As for Bloomberg, what do you expect from your aristocracy?

Anyone recall Don's hellthcare campaign promises? He doesn't.

Majorities in both houses for 2 years.

See any healthcare legislation?

Some of you believe the propaganda you're fed and think you're "actually aware" of something real.

Feel free to pick it apart point by point, here it is again:

Some of us are actually aware of our hellthcare system's ranking amongst all the other post-industrial nations on the planet. Most expensive, least efficient, shittier outcomes. And that americans pay more for American pharma products than Canadians do.

As for Bloomberg, what do you expect from your aristocracy?

Anyone recall Don's hellthcare campaign promises? He doesn't.

Majorities in both houses for 2 years.

See any healthcare legislation?

Trump said we would first repeal Obamacare, then replace it with something else. The Rino's in our Senate stopped the repeal. CommieCare is still alive and well today.

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

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

Some of us are actually aware of our hellthcare system's ranking amongst all the other post-industrial nations on the planet. Most expensive, least efficient, shittier outcomes. And that americans pay more for American pharma products than Canadians do.

As for Bloomberg, what do you expect from your aristocracy?

Anyone recall Don's hellthcare campaign promises? He doesn't.

Majorities in both houses for 2 years.

See any healthcare legislation?

Some of you believe the propaganda you're fed and think you're "actually aware" of something real.

Feel free to pick it apart point by point, here it is again:

Some of us are actually aware of our hellthcare system's ranking amongst all the other post-industrial nations on the planet. Most expensive, least efficient, shittier outcomes. And that americans pay more for American pharma products than Canadians do.

As for Bloomberg, what do you expect from your aristocracy?

Anyone recall Don's hellthcare campaign promises? He doesn't.

Majorities in both houses for 2 years.

See any healthcare legislation?

Trump said we would first repeal Obamacare, then replace it with something else. The Rino's in our Senate stopped the repeal. CommieCare is still alive and well today.

No, Don said everyone would be covered, better than ever. He had 2 years with majorities in both houses and never made move one on any of what he spewed. I'll never, thankfully, understand partisanshitheads who glom onto "one" of "these" political parties only to wind up endlessly blathering excuses as to why the party they chose can never quite get it done.