iwillspankyou wrote:@lejend out with his half-truths again (lyes)
It was not voted down, but blocked by a corporate democrat, Rendon.
Wow, I think this is the first time you've ever proven me wrong, Spanky. Very well done.
Still, it was shot down by Democrats, largely due to the cost. They had no way of funding the tihng.
As I tryed to show you, it was shut down by a corporate democrat. Not the same thing.
Btw, you are wrong on almost everything you post here
Tell me, then, Spanky:
- How much was the health care law projected to cost?
- What is California's entire state budget?
Can only tell you this much, most modern countries have health care for every citizen, for half the cost you pay in USA Go figure that one out
Nah, those countries have health insurance for everyone, but that doesn't mean health care. Economic reality can't be ignored. You can have government health insurance and still get no treatment.
iwillspankyou wrote:@lejend out with his half-truths again (lyes)
It was not voted down, but blocked by a corporate democrat, Rendon.
Wow, I think this is the first time you've ever proven me wrong, Spanky. Very well done.
Still, it was shot down by Democrats, largely due to the cost. They had no way of funding the tihng.
As I tryed to show you, it was shut down by a corporate democrat. Not the same thing.
Btw, you are wrong on almost everything you post here
Tell me, then, Spanky:
- How much was the health care law projected to cost?
- What is California's entire state budget?
Can only tell you this much, most modern countries have health care for every citizen, for half the cost you pay in USA Go figure that one out
Nah, those countries have health insurance for everyone, but that doesn't mean health care. Economic reality can't be ignored. You can have government health insurance and still get no treatment.
The best health insurance is to live healthily.
Wrong again, they pay their "insurance" over the tax bill. And that gives them healt care for everyone. I guess that can be hard to understand? Government giving 4 times more healtcare for the money spent, than your corporations? lol Just look it up - maybe you would be surpriced??
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
Snuden wrote:From what I hear it is not as good as it used to be ( at least in Scandinavia)
Relative to what? I would still guess that health care in Scandinavia, Germany, UK are among the best in the world. If you do not have information contradicting that One of the reasons for the growing cost of healtcare, are the prices for medisin. And the Corporate Big Pharma sure know how to price their stuff obsenely high
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
iwillspankyou wrote:@lejend out with his half-truths again (lyes)
It was not voted down, but blocked by a corporate democrat, Rendon.
Wow, I think this is the first time you've ever proven me wrong, Spanky. Very well done.
Still, it was shot down by Democrats, largely due to the cost. They had no way of funding the tihng.
As I tryed to show you, it was shut down by a corporate democrat. Not the same thing.
Btw, you are wrong on almost everything you post here
Tell me, then, Spanky:
- How much was the health care law projected to cost?
- What is California's entire state budget?
Can only tell you this much, most modern countries have health care for every citizen, for half the cost you pay in USA Go figure that one out
Nah, those countries have health insurance for everyone, but that doesn't mean health care. Economic reality can't be ignored. You can have government health insurance and still get no treatment.
The best health insurance is to live healthily.
Wrong again, they pay their "insurance" over the tax bill. And that gives them healt care for everyone. I guess that can be hard to understand? Government giving 4 times more healtcare for the money spent, than your corporations? lol Just look it up - maybe you would be surpriced??
Hol' up I don't get it. If government health insurance isn't free, and you gotta fund it with high taxes, then why not use those taxdollars on private insurance in a competitive free market instead? That way you can just cut out the middle man.
If you say so, it must be like that then? since you have first hand knowlegde about it?
Only from what I hear... Mostly they complain about long waiting lists for less critical surgery. Personally I only have good experiences, but that's at least 10 years ago now.
lejend wrote:Hol' up I don't get it. If government health insurance isn't free, and you gotta fund it with high taxes, then why not use those taxdollars on private insurance in a competitive free market instead? That way you can just cut out the middle man.
Free markets w.r.t healthcare would price out the poorest people in society resulting in a significant number of people receiving no treatment.
Some people don't care about that, others do. Up to you how you view other people.
lejend wrote:Hol' up I don't get it. If government health insurance isn't free, and you gotta fund it with high taxes, then why not use those taxdollars on private insurance in a competitive free market instead? That way you can just cut out the middle man.
Free markets w.r.t healthcare would price out the poorest people in society resulting in a significant number of people receiving no treatment.
Some people don't care about that, others do. Up to you how you view other people.
But socialized medicine is for everyone, not just poor people. In America, most people are happy with private insurance. Wouldn't it be better to focus on the minority who have it bad, instead of overhauling the entire system for everyone?
lejend wrote:But socialized medicine is for everyone, not just poor people. In America, most people are happy with private insurance. Wouldn't it be better to focus on the minority who have it bad, instead of overhauling the entire system for everyone?
As with every other country that has some variant of universal healthcare a private option is available.
Those that want to pay for the best can still do so.
Those that would otherwise have been out priced by a free market have access to healthcare.
lejend wrote:But socialized medicine is for everyone, not just poor people. In America, most people are happy with private insurance. Wouldn't it be better to focus on the minority who have it bad, instead of overhauling the entire system for everyone?
As with every other country that has some variant of universal healthcare a private option is available.
Those that want to pay for the best can still do so.
Those that would otherwise have been out priced by a free market have access to healthcare.
Very few people can afford private insurance on top of high taxes to fund public insurance. Will people be allowed to opt out of funding and receiving government insurance? Not likely.
Most people like their current health plan. It is simply unrealistic to expect them to risk everything by ditching what already works, based on a vague promise that the new system will be better. There are already government health programs for veterans, the elderly and the poor and they absolutely suck compared to private insurance.
In addition to that, they have to pay more taxes to fund the new system, which is universally opposed.
its not nessasary to have private insurance, if you have universal health care. BUT if you choose to have one, you can. Btw, as far as I can see, the majority of USA citizens support a single-payer health-care system that is funded and administrated by the government and eliminates private insurers, according to a poll. The support will grow further, once the public knows what it is all about, and the fact that they would save alot of money. Not to speak of worries about getting sick, and maybe have to sell your house to pay for medical bill. http://www.natlbankruptcy.com/us-medica ... tatistics/ http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/35 ... healthcare http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... -1.3509035
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
iwillspankyou wrote:Btw, as far as I can see, the majority of USA citizens support a single-payer health-care system that is funded and administrated by the government and eliminates private insurers, according to a new poll. The support will grow further, once the public knows what it is all about, and the fact that they would save alot of money.
Of course people will say they support free health care. But when people know more about it and what "free" health care means, i.e. taxes and centralization, their support decreases!
lejend wrote:Very few people can afford private insurance on top of high taxes to fund public insurance. Will people be allowed to opt out of funding and receiving government insurance? Not likely.
Most people like their current health plan. It is simply unrealistic to expect them to risk everything by ditching what already works, based on a vague promise that the new system will be better. There are already government health programs for veterans, the elderly and the poor and they absolutely suck compared to private insurance.
In addition to that, they have to pay more taxes to fund the new system, which is universally opposed.
I think you are unaware just how poor the American health care system is. It is consistently rated the worst system out of every high-income country and has been for a long time. Approx 20k~40K people die each year in the US because they can't even get access to the worst rated healthcare that they offer.
To put it into perspective the average American taxpayer gives $10,345 (2016) per year to the government to fund healthcare. Add onto that any private healthcare insurance costs. In the UK it's $3,749 (2014) which covers pretty much anything. We spend less for higher outcomes which is the same story for every other high-income country.
It absolutely does not work.
You seem to think that this plan would cost more and provide worse outcomes (in the sense that they'd want to opt out) than the current system America has?
lejend wrote:Very few people can afford private insurance on top of high taxes to fund public insurance. Will people be allowed to opt out of funding and receiving government insurance? Not likely.
Most people like their current health plan. It is simply unrealistic to expect them to risk everything by ditching what already works, based on a vague promise that the new system will be better. There are already government health programs for veterans, the elderly and the poor and they absolutely suck compared to private insurance.
In addition to that, they have to pay more taxes to fund the new system, which is universally opposed.
I think you are unaware just how poor the American health care system is. It is consistently rated the worst system out of every high-income country and has been for a long time. Approx 20k~40K people die each year in the US because they can't even get access to the worst rated healthcare that they offer.
To put it into perspective the average American taxpayer gives $10,345 (2016) per year to the government to fund healthcare. Add onto that any private healthcare insurance costs. In the UK it's $3,749 (2014) which covers pretty much anything. We spend less for higher outcomes which is the same story for every other high-income country.
It absolutely does not work.
You seem to think that this plan would cost more and provide worse outcomes (in the sense that they'd want to opt out) than the current system America has?
Lejend will dismiss those statistics based off a "flawed approach" and cite only one figure which says there might not be as many deaths due to lack of health insurance as we thought despite the otherwise much larger body of evidence saying otherwise!
He will even reference supposed rebuttals which only confirm the obvious conclusion: uninsured peoples have higher mortality rates, just how high is to be debated. The supposed rebuttals will also try to make two points that one is healthier when not seeking professional medical treatment (lol).
You can read back a few pages but it's not very productive.
I think universal health care should only cover some basic things, and especially emergency care. But it shouldn't cover stuff like fixing your teeth or face lifts. Basically the state should only give minimal healthcare to those who can't afford a private insurance.
I don't think the state can provide the best healthcare services. It's better to have competition over who provides the best services.
One more thing, the state shouldn't provide free healthcare for anything related to reproduction: fertilisation, child birth, child rearing and so on.
The reason why it shouldn't do that is to avoid having classes of people who have kids in order to live on public welfare. If you want to have a kid, first demonstrate you're responsible enough to support yourself, by having a job and an income, to a level that you can afford to have private health insurance. If not, sorry, you're on your own, we can't have parasites who reproduce like rabbits just because the state will pay for it.
If you say so, it must be like that then? since you have first hand knowlegde about it?
Only from what I hear... Mostly they complain about long waiting lists for less critical surgery. Personally I only have good experiences, but that's at least 10 years ago now.
it's gonna take longer in a country with a single payer because everyone's getting treated. If only half of your population is getting treated people are gonna be treated faster. It comes down to your priorities. Would you rather everyone be treated and it take a but longer or only the upper 60% of people be treated but they're treated quicker.
Go figure that one out
