Will we ever have single payer health care in this country?

[Ambivalent1]

I'm not sure you comprehend what a nonprofit is son.

Or maybe you don't. Non-profits still make money. They just don't distribute it to shareholders. Not much different about them beyond that.

They make a shitload on investments. There is no real money to make in HC anymore. Especially downstream now. The agents are getting hosed.

Oh everyone's getting hosed except for the proper folk.

You really are uninformed son. I told you, you can't see beyond what you've been told.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, but you do.

Unfortunately for you yes, I can. Here's a hint, take what you've been told, set it aside and start over with an open mind. You won't like what you find but at least you'll know the truth.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I think the very next time the dems the presidency and both chambers of Congress we’re headed for single payer healthcare.

It will happen if Trump wins a second term. He has always favored single payer.

And when it is his idea all of his sheep will say it is the best idea ever


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I dont think they will. If there is one thing you can say about the Republican party, it's that they have no qualms about criticizing their own. If you watch most of the major right wing talk shows and most of the right wing radio shows, this is evident.

I've seen and heard several of them going at trump for things they thought he messed up on. If trump supports single payer, you can bet he will lose his base, and right wing media will excoriate him over it.

Some will, but those like his zealots on this forum have never said a thing bad about him, they will accept anything that he tells them is true.

 

[H B Lowrie]

Or maybe you don't. Non-profits still make money. They just don't distribute it to shareholders. Not much different about them beyond that.

They make a shitload on investments. There is no real money to make in HC anymore. Especially downstream now. The agents are getting hosed.

Oh everyone's getting hosed except for the proper folk.

You really are uninformed son. I told you, you can't see beyond what you've been told.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, but you do.

Unfortunately for you yes, I can. Here's a hint, take what you've been told, set it aside and start over with an open mind. You won't like what you find but at least you'll know the truth.

New York, N.Y., October 8, 2015 — The U.S. spent more per person on health care than 12 other high-income nations in 2013, while seeing the lowest life expectancy and some of the worst health outcomes among this group, according to a Commonwealth Fund report out today. The analysis shows that in the U.S., which spent an average of $9,086 per person annually, life expectancy was 78.8 years. Switzerland, the second-highest-spending country, spent $6,325 per person and had a life expectancy of 82.9 years. Mortality rates for cancer were among the lowest in the U.S., but rates of chronic conditions, obesity, and infant mortality were higher than those abroad.

“Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits,” said Commonwealth Fund President David Blumenthal, M.D. “We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity.”

U.S. Spends More on Health Care Than Other High-Income Nations But Has Lower Life Expectancy, Worse Health | Commonwealth Fund


U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries

U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries


Major Findings
· Quality: The indicators of quality were grouped into four categories: effective care, safe care, coordinated care, and patient-centered care. Compared with the other 10 countries, the U.S. fares best on provision and receipt of preventive and patient-centered care. While there has been some improvement in recent years, lower scores on safe and coordinated care pull the overall U.S. quality score down. Continued adoption of health information technology should enhance the ability of U.S. physicians to identify, monitor, and coordinate care for their patients, particularly those with chronic conditions.

· Access: Not surprisingly—given the absence of universal coverage—people in the U.S. go without needed health care because of cost more often than people do in the other countries. Americans were the most likely to say they had access problems related to cost. Patients in the U.S. have rapid access to specialized health care services; however, they are less likely to report rapid access to primary care than people in leading countries in the study. In other countries, like Canada, patients have little to no financial burden, but experience wait times for such specialized services. There is a frequent misperception that trade-offs between universal coverage and timely access to specialized services are inevitable; however, the Netherlands, U.K., and Germany provide universal coverage with low out-of-pocket costs while maintaining quick access to specialty services.

· Efficiency: On indicators of efficiency, the U.S. ranks last among the 11 countries, with the U.K. and Sweden ranking first and second, respectively. The U.S. has poor performance on measures of national health expenditures and administrative costs as well as on measures of administrative hassles, avoidable emergency room use, and duplicative medical testing. Sicker survey respondents in the U.K. and France are less likely to visit the emergency room for a condition that could have been treated by a regular doctor, had one been available.

· Equity: The U.S. ranks a clear last on measures of equity. Americans with below-average incomes were much more likely than their counterparts in other countries to report not visiting a physician when sick; not getting a recommended test, treatment, or follow-up care; or not filling a prescription or skipping doses when needed because of costs. On each of these indicators, one-third or more lower-income adults in the U.S. said they went without needed care because of costs in the past year.

· Healthy lives: The U.S. ranks last overall with poor scores on all three indicators of healthy lives—mortality amenable to medical care, infant mortality, and healthy life expectancy at age 60. The U.S. and U.K. had much higher death rates in 2007 from conditions amenable to medical care than some of the other countries, e.g., rates 25 percent to 50 percent higher than Australia and Sweden. Overall, France, Sweden, and Switzerland rank highest on healthy lives.

How the U.S. Health Care System Compares Internationally


No other advanced country even comes close to the United States in annual spending on health care, but plenty of those other countries see much better outcomes in their citizens' actual health overall.

A new Commonwealth Fund report released Thursday underscored that point — yet again — with an analysis that ranks 13 high-income nations on their overall health spending, use of medical services, prices and health outcomes.

The study data, which is from 2013, predates the full implementation of Obamacare, which took place in 2014. Obamacare is designed to increase health coverage for Americans and stem the rise in health-care costs.

The findings indicate that despite spending well in excess of the rate of any other of those countries in 2013, the United States achieved worse outcomes when it comes to rates of chronic conditions, obesity and infant mortality.

One rare bright spot for the U.S., however, is that its mortality rate for cancer is among the lowest out of the 13 countries, and that cancer rates fell faster between 1995 and 2007 than in other countries.

"Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits," said Dr. David Blumenthal, president of the Commonwealth Fund. "We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health-care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity."

US health care: Spending a lot, getting the least


Ranking 37th — Measuring the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0910064#t=article


Health Care Outcomes in States Influenced by Coverage, Disparities
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...-in-states-influenced-by-coverage-disparities


One explanation for the health disadvantage of the United States relative to other high-income countries might be deficiencies in health services. Although the United States is renowned for its leadership in biomedical research, its cutting-edge medical technology, and its hospitals and specialists, problems with ensuring Americans’ access to the system and providing quality care have been a long-standing concern of policy makers and the public (Berwick et al., 2008; Brook, 2011b; Fineberg, 2012). Higher mortality rates from diseases, and even from transportation-related injuries and homicides, may be traceable in part to failings in the health care system.

The United States stands out from many other countries in not offering universal health insurance coverage. In 2010, 50 million people (16 percent of the U.S. population) were uninsured (DeNavas-Walt et al., 2011). Access to health care services, particularly in rural and frontier communities or disadvantaged urban centers, is often limited. The United States has a relatively weak foundation for primary care and a shortage of family physicians (American Academy of Family Physicians, 2009; Grumbach et al., 2009; Macinko et al., 2007; Sandy et al., 2009). Many Americans rely on emergency departments for acute, chronic, and even preventive care (Institute of Medicine, 2007a; Schoen et al., 2009b, 2011). Cost sharing is common in the United States, and high out-of-pocket expenses make health care services, pharmaceuticals, and medical supplies increasingly unaffordable (Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance System, 2011; Karaca-Mandic et al., 2012). In 2011, one-third of American households reported problems paying medical bills (Cohen et al., 2012), a problem that seems to have worsened in recent years (Himmelstein et al., 2009). Health insurance premiums are consuming an increasing proportion of U.S. household income (Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance System, 2011).

Public Health and Medical Care Systems - U.S. Health in International Perspective - NCBI Bookshelf


Once again, U.S. has most expensive, least effective health care system in survey

A report released Monday by a respected think tank ranks the United States dead last in the quality of its health-care system when compared with 10 other western, industrialized nations, the same spot it occupied in four previous studies by the same organization. Not only did the U.S. fail to move up between 2004 and 2014 -- as other nations did with concerted effort and significant reforms -- it also has maintained this dubious distinction while spending far more per capita ($8,508) on health care than Norway ($5,669), which has the second most expensive system.

"Although the U.S. spends more on health care than any other country and has the highest proportion of specialist physicians, survey findings indicate that from the patients’ perspective, and based on outcome indicators, the performance of American health care is severely lacking," the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based foundation that promotes improved health care, concluded in its extensive analysis. The charts in this post are from the report.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...care-system-in-survey/?utm_term=.3bea55276072


US healthcare system ranks 50th out of 55 countries for efficiency
US healthcare system ranks 50th out of 55 countries for efficiency


The U.S. healthcare system notched another dubious honor in a new comparison of its quality to the systems of 10 other developed countries: its rank was dead last.

The new study by the Commonwealth Fund ranks the U.S. against seven wealthy European countries and Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It's a follow-up of previous surveys published in 2010, 2007, 2006 and 2004, in all of which the U.S. also ranked last.

Although the U.S. ranked in the middle of the pack on measures of effectiveness, safety and coordination of care, it ranked dead last on access and cost, by a sufficient margin to rank dead last overall. The breakdowns are in the chart above.

Conservative pundits hastened to explain away these results after the report was published. See Aaron Carroll for a gloss on the "zombie arguments" put forth against the clear evidence that the U.S. system falls short.

The U.S. healthcare system: worst in the developed world

U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World
U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World

 

[dblack]

New York, N.Y., October 8, 2015 — The U.S. spent more per person on health care than ...

Same shit, different post. Yes. We know our government wastes a lot of money on health care. This is exactly why we shouldn't trust them with more.

 

[Ambivalent1]

They make a shitload on investments. There is no real money to make in HC anymore. Especially downstream now. The agents are getting hosed.

Oh everyone's getting hosed except for the proper folk.

You really are uninformed son. I told you, you can't see beyond what you've been told.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, but you do.

Unfortunately for you yes, I can. Here's a hint, take what you've been told, set it aside and start over with an open mind. You won't like what you find but at least you'll know the truth.

New York, N.Y., October 8, 2015 — The U.S. spent more per person on health care than 12 other high-income nations in 2013, while seeing the lowest life expectancy and some of the worst health outcomes among this group, according to a Commonwealth Fund report out today. The analysis shows that in the U.S., which spent an average of $9,086 per person annually, life expectancy was 78.8 years. Switzerland, the second-highest-spending country, spent $6,325 per person and had a life expectancy of 82.9 years. Mortality rates for cancer were among the lowest in the U.S., but rates of chronic conditions, obesity, and infant mortality were higher than those abroad.

“Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits,” said Commonwealth Fund President David Blumenthal, M.D. “We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity.”

U.S. Spends More on Health Care Than Other High-Income Nations But Has Lower Life Expectancy, Worse Health | Commonwealth Fund


U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries

U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries


Major Findings
· Quality: The indicators of quality were grouped into four categories: effective care, safe care, coordinated care, and patient-centered care. Compared with the other 10 countries, the U.S. fares best on provision and receipt of preventive and patient-centered care. While there has been some improvement in recent years, lower scores on safe and coordinated care pull the overall U.S. quality score down. Continued adoption of health information technology should enhance the ability of U.S. physicians to identify, monitor, and coordinate care for their patients, particularly those with chronic conditions.

· Access: Not surprisingly—given the absence of universal coverage—people in the U.S. go without needed health care because of cost more often than people do in the other countries. Americans were the most likely to say they had access problems related to cost. Patients in the U.S. have rapid access to specialized health care services; however, they are less likely to report rapid access to primary care than people in leading countries in the study. In other countries, like Canada, patients have little to no financial burden, but experience wait times for such specialized services. There is a frequent misperception that trade-offs between universal coverage and timely access to specialized services are inevitable; however, the Netherlands, U.K., and Germany provide universal coverage with low out-of-pocket costs while maintaining quick access to specialty services.

· Efficiency: On indicators of efficiency, the U.S. ranks last among the 11 countries, with the U.K. and Sweden ranking first and second, respectively. The U.S. has poor performance on measures of national health expenditures and administrative costs as well as on measures of administrative hassles, avoidable emergency room use, and duplicative medical testing. Sicker survey respondents in the U.K. and France are less likely to visit the emergency room for a condition that could have been treated by a regular doctor, had one been available.

· Equity: The U.S. ranks a clear last on measures of equity. Americans with below-average incomes were much more likely than their counterparts in other countries to report not visiting a physician when sick; not getting a recommended test, treatment, or follow-up care; or not filling a prescription or skipping doses when needed because of costs. On each of these indicators, one-third or more lower-income adults in the U.S. said they went without needed care because of costs in the past year.

· Healthy lives: The U.S. ranks last overall with poor scores on all three indicators of healthy lives—mortality amenable to medical care, infant mortality, and healthy life expectancy at age 60. The U.S. and U.K. had much higher death rates in 2007 from conditions amenable to medical care than some of the other countries, e.g., rates 25 percent to 50 percent higher than Australia and Sweden. Overall, France, Sweden, and Switzerland rank highest on healthy lives.

How the U.S. Health Care System Compares Internationally


No other advanced country even comes close to the United States in annual spending on health care, but plenty of those other countries see much better outcomes in their citizens' actual health overall.

A new Commonwealth Fund report released Thursday underscored that point — yet again — with an analysis that ranks 13 high-income nations on their overall health spending, use of medical services, prices and health outcomes.

The study data, which is from 2013, predates the full implementation of Obamacare, which took place in 2014. Obamacare is designed to increase health coverage for Americans and stem the rise in health-care costs.

The findings indicate that despite spending well in excess of the rate of any other of those countries in 2013, the United States achieved worse outcomes when it comes to rates of chronic conditions, obesity and infant mortality.

One rare bright spot for the U.S., however, is that its mortality rate for cancer is among the lowest out of the 13 countries, and that cancer rates fell faster between 1995 and 2007 than in other countries.

"Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits," said Dr. David Blumenthal, president of the Commonwealth Fund. "We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health-care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity."

US health care: Spending a lot, getting the least


Ranking 37th — Measuring the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0910064#t=article


Health Care Outcomes in States Influenced by Coverage, Disparities
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...-in-states-influenced-by-coverage-disparities


One explanation for the health disadvantage of the United States relative to other high-income countries might be deficiencies in health services. Although the United States is renowned for its leadership in biomedical research, its cutting-edge medical technology, and its hospitals and specialists, problems with ensuring Americans’ access to the system and providing quality care have been a long-standing concern of policy makers and the public (Berwick et al., 2008; Brook, 2011b; Fineberg, 2012). Higher mortality rates from diseases, and even from transportation-related injuries and homicides, may be traceable in part to failings in the health care system.

The United States stands out from many other countries in not offering universal health insurance coverage. In 2010, 50 million people (16 percent of the U.S. population) were uninsured (DeNavas-Walt et al., 2011). Access to health care services, particularly in rural and frontier communities or disadvantaged urban centers, is often limited. The United States has a relatively weak foundation for primary care and a shortage of family physicians (American Academy of Family Physicians, 2009; Grumbach et al., 2009; Macinko et al., 2007; Sandy et al., 2009). Many Americans rely on emergency departments for acute, chronic, and even preventive care (Institute of Medicine, 2007a; Schoen et al., 2009b, 2011). Cost sharing is common in the United States, and high out-of-pocket expenses make health care services, pharmaceuticals, and medical supplies increasingly unaffordable (Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance System, 2011; Karaca-Mandic et al., 2012). In 2011, one-third of American households reported problems paying medical bills (Cohen et al., 2012), a problem that seems to have worsened in recent years (Himmelstein et al., 2009). Health insurance premiums are consuming an increasing proportion of U.S. household income (Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance System, 2011).

Public Health and Medical Care Systems - U.S. Health in International Perspective - NCBI Bookshelf


Once again, U.S. has most expensive, least effective health care system in survey

A report released Monday by a respected think tank ranks the United States dead last in the quality of its health-care system when compared with 10 other western, industrialized nations, the same spot it occupied in four previous studies by the same organization. Not only did the U.S. fail to move up between 2004 and 2014 -- as other nations did with concerted effort and significant reforms -- it also has maintained this dubious distinction while spending far more per capita ($8,508) on health care than Norway ($5,669), which has the second most expensive system.

"Although the U.S. spends more on health care than any other country and has the highest proportion of specialist physicians, survey findings indicate that from the patients’ perspective, and based on outcome indicators, the performance of American health care is severely lacking," the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based foundation that promotes improved health care, concluded in its extensive analysis. The charts in this post are from the report.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...care-system-in-survey/?utm_term=.3bea55276072


US healthcare system ranks 50th out of 55 countries for efficiency
US healthcare system ranks 50th out of 55 countries for efficiency


The U.S. healthcare system notched another dubious honor in a new comparison of its quality to the systems of 10 other developed countries: its rank was dead last.

The new study by the Commonwealth Fund ranks the U.S. against seven wealthy European countries and Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It's a follow-up of previous surveys published in 2010, 2007, 2006 and 2004, in all of which the U.S. also ranked last.

Although the U.S. ranked in the middle of the pack on measures of effectiveness, safety and coordination of care, it ranked dead last on access and cost, by a sufficient margin to rank dead last overall. The breakdowns are in the chart above.

Conservative pundits hastened to explain away these results after the report was published. See Aaron Carroll for a gloss on the "zombie arguments" put forth against the clear evidence that the U.S. system falls short.

The U.S. healthcare system: worst in the developed world

U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World
U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World

I know. You can't set it aside, it defines you. It's ok, very few escape the lie that they've been brought up in.

 

[Maxdeath]

we could solve simple poverty by solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment through unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.

Socialism should nurture Capitalism within Standards, fixed by Government. Capitalism can "float" from within the ease and convenience of that form of nurture for nature.

All states have unemployment compensation.
Part of the problem with poverty it is tied to the want to work, the want to increase your standards.
You can only give a person so much. After that it is up to them. Unfortunately if you give too much there is only the incentive to collect and not to work.

You miss the point; capital is a requirement to participate in our markets. Simply paying some Labor to pursue Happiness instead of profit will lead to improved market efficiency.

Lol. Love the point that capital is a requirement, blah, blah, blah. Too bad it is bull attempting to sound like you know what you are talking about. The only problem with making up things is someone will eventually call it for what it is. But hey an a for effort, f for actual content.

 

[Ambivalent1]

we could solve simple poverty by solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment through unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.

Socialism should nurture Capitalism within Standards, fixed by Government. Capitalism can "float" from within the ease and convenience of that form of nurture for nature.

All states have unemployment compensation.
Part of the problem with poverty it is tied to the want to work, the want to increase your standards.
You can only give a person so much. After that it is up to them. Unfortunately if you give too much there is only the incentive to collect and not to work.

You miss the point; capital is a requirement to participate in our markets. Simply paying some Labor to pursue Happiness instead of profit will lead to improved market efficiency.

Lol. Love the point that capital is a requirement, blah, blah, blah. Too bad it is bull attempting to sound like you know what you are talking about. The only problem with making up things is someone will eventually call it for what it is. But hey an a for effort, f for actual content.

LOL, uh...…………...what are you talking about?

 

[georgephillip]

And you can continue to lead shorter more expensives and disease ridden lives. Should dovetail nicely with being a walled in police state without enough livable wage jobs for all.

That is because the US is the fattest country. We have way too many people who are fat and out of shape. Nothing to do with medicine. You're wrong yet again Lowrie. We have the best cancer treatments in the world here in the US. We have the best Childrens Hospitals in the WORLD. We are also fat and suffer many heart attacks. That has to do with gluttony not our healthcare.

The U.S. is the most obese nation in the world, just ahead of Mexico

Lowrie, I enjoy making you look stupid.

Why does our exceptional nation never have any other response than to blame its own people. Never any responsibility, just blame for a predatory society not only abroad, but right here at home. Of course america is a very sick, unhealthy and emotionally unstable society, do you not witness that daily?

Only when we read any of your posts.

The boy indeed does love seeing himself talk.

Meh. I just skip the cut and paste. I don't mind citing articles to backup claims of fact, that's often necessary. But when people are too lazy to express their own opinions I don't bother reading their links (I'm looking at you georgephillip ).

Meh. I just skip the cut and paste. I don't mind citing articles to backup claims of fact, that's often necessary. But when people are too lazy to express their own opinions I don't bother reading their links (I'm looking at you georgephillip

 

[task0778]

we could solve simple poverty by solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment through unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.

Socialism should nurture Capitalism within Standards, fixed by Government. Capitalism can "float" from within the ease and convenience of that form of nurture for nature.

All states have unemployment compensation.
Part of the problem with poverty it is tied to the want to work, the want to increase your standards.
You can only give a person so much. After that it is up to them. Unfortunately if you give too much there is only the incentive to collect and not to work.

You miss the point; capital is a requirement to participate in our markets. Simply paying some Labor to pursue Happiness instead of profit will lead to improved market efficiency.

Lol. Love the point that capital is a requirement, blah, blah, blah. Too bad it is bull attempting to sound like you know what you are talking about. The only problem with making up things is someone will eventually call it for what it is. But hey an a for effort, f for actual content.

Capital isn't a requirement to participate in our markets? How then do you invest in anything? How do you start a business? Or expand one? How do you innovate, or hire somebody? It may not be the 1st requirement, that might be an idea or a concept. But from that point on, you gotta have money; how are you gonna eat and where are you gonna sleep while you pursue your dream? How are you gonna obtain the materials, the location, the energy (electricity), somebody had to spend money to allow you to even start.

 

[Markle]

Bullshit. This is why our mortality rate is inferior not because of healthcare. Don’t deviate.

That's pretty funny!

As far as I know, correct me if I'm wrong but I believe every countries mortality rate is 100%.

Please be bit more clear.

 

[Markle]

Sure, I'm sure you've researched them and done your own due diligence on them.

Which, is far more than you admittedly have done.

Come on HB no guts no glory!

You don't seem up for discussion really.

Not with someone who throws up a post while they are totally uninformed about the information cited.

I asked you a simple question. What are those criteria?

 

[Markle]

Then you should act more like it don't you think?

LOL, your judgements are meaningless kid. Tell me, how do the Non Profits make money?
Oh by the way, one BCBS lost 55 mill in 2014.

I'm not sure you comprehend what a nonprofit is son.

Or maybe you don't. Non-profits still make money. They just don't distribute it to shareholders. Not much different about them beyond that.

They make a shitload on investments. There is no real money to make in HC anymore. Especially downstream now. The agents are getting hosed.

Oh everyone's getting hosed except for the proper folk.

Troll, who is the "proper folk"?

 

[Markle]

LOL, I am a Consultant in the Biz son. I was captive with BCBS for a few years. I know the game very well.

Then you should act more like it don't you think?

LOL, your judgements are meaningless kid. Tell me, how do the Non Profits make money?
Oh by the way, one BCBS lost 55 mill in 2014.

I'm not sure you comprehend what a nonprofit is son.

LOL, I know full well that you don't. It's cool kid.

We all know where the best healthcare systems are kid, not here.

Where?

 

[Markle]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, but you do.

 

[danielpalos]

we could solve simple poverty by solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment through unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.

Socialism should nurture Capitalism within Standards, fixed by Government. Capitalism can "float" from within the ease and convenience of that form of nurture for nature.

All states have unemployment compensation.
Part of the problem with poverty it is tied to the want to work, the want to increase your standards.
You can only give a person so much. After that it is up to them. Unfortunately if you give too much there is only the incentive to collect and not to work.

You miss the point; capital is a requirement to participate in our markets. Simply paying some Labor to pursue Happiness instead of profit will lead to improved market efficiency.

Lol. Love the point that capital is a requirement, blah, blah, blah. Too bad it is bull attempting to sound like you know what you are talking about. The only problem with making up things is someone will eventually call it for what it is. But hey an a for effort, f for actual content.

nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.

 

[Polishprince]

I think the very next time the dems the presidency and both chambers of Congress we’re headed for single payer healthcare.

Even if we did get such a Risky Scheme imposed on us, it still wouldn't be "single" payer. People that give a shit about their health will still hire health care providers outside of the system and buy insurance to cover it.

Unless the Libs would actually outlaw the private practice of medicine- but that isn't likely. Private doctors will help keep the huge queues for service somewhat realistic

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

If you don't know the difference between our current Medicare system and Single Payer, go and educate yourself.

SInce we're having a discussion...how about YOU tell us how you think they differ

To make a very long story short, our Medicare system includes a significant free market component in the form of Medicare Supplements, Medicare Advantage Plans and Prescription Drug Plans, and true Single Payer does not.
.

... and every one of those plans is paid for by whom?

 

[dblack]

Bullshit. This is why our mortality rate is inferior not because of healthcare. Don’t deviate.

That's pretty funny!

As far as I know, correct me if I'm wrong but I believe every countries mortality rate is 100%.

Please be bit more clear.

Bernie Sanders has proposed legislation to drive that number higher - up to 110% by some accounts.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No, I'm against Single Payer.

If you don't know the difference between our current Medicare system and Single Payer, go and educate yourself.

If I use Medicare, which I do, other than the government, who pays for my health care?

Since my retirement, I have used more than double everything I ever paid into Medicare. By the time I croak, that could rise to three or four times easily. How do you propose that is paid for by other taxpayers?

Medicare doesn't pay for all your health care. It has gaps, and co-insurance. It also has no built-in drug plan or out of pocket maximums.

If you have a Medicare Supplement to cover those gaps, you're going through an insurance company. If you have a Medicare Advantage plan, that is a partnership between CMS and the insurer.

Very, very few people have Medicare alone.
.

Medicare Supplicants are paid by the Medicare recipient.

Medicare Advantage is paid for by the government and administered by insurance companies who keep a cut for themselves.

Who besides the government, i.e. taxpayers and recipients is paying for Medicare?

 

[dblack]

Who besides the government, i.e. taxpayers and recipients is paying for Medicare?

The Chinese.