╌>

Trump: ‘Single-Payer Will Bankrupt Our Country’

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  xxjefferson51  •  7 years ago  •  112 comments

Trump: ‘Single-Payer Will Bankrupt Our Country’
(CNSNews.com) – “We're in this room today to deliver on our promise to the American people to repeal Obamacare and to ensure that they have the health care that they need,” President Trump told Republican senators at a White House luncheon on Wednesday.

“We have no choice. We have to repeal and replace Obamacare.”

Trump said Republicans are “so close” to getting the job done, even without a single vote from Democrats:

The way I looked at it, we have no Democrat help. They're obstructionists. That's all they're good at is obstruction. They have no ideas. They've gone so far left, they're looking for single-payer, that's what they want.

But single-payer will bankrupt our country, because it's more than we take in for just health care. So single-payer is never going to work, but that's what they'd like to do. They have no idea what the consequence will be, and it will be horrible, horrible health care, where you'll wait on line for weeks to even see a doctor.
Trump described Obamacare as a “big lie,” as he listed all of its adverse elements, including rising premiums and collapsing insurance markets.

“But I'm ready to act,” the president told senators. "For seven years, you promised that you would repeal Obamacare. People are hurting. Inaction is not an option. And frankly, I don't think we should leave town unless we have a health insurance plan, unless we can give our people great healthcare. Because we're close; we're very close.”

Trump told the Republican senators that anyone who votes against starting debate on the Republican health care bill “is really telling America that you're fine with Obamacare.”

He said a vote to allow debate will allow senators to suggest ways of improving the bill.

He describe the Republican plan as not just a “good plan,” but a “great plan.” “This is far better than Obamacare and more generous than Obamacare,” he insisted.

Then he ran down a list of the Republican plan’s highlights, which a Republican senator helped him compile:

"Now, with John Cornyn the other night, we had a couple of things that we put down on paper. I'm just going to read them really fast…”

-- “Repeals the individual mandate. How big is that?”

-- “Repeals job-killing employer mandate. How big is that?”

-- "Will substantially lower premiums" (and eventually allow insurance sales across state lines.) “There's going to be tremendous competition.”

--“Repeals burdensome taxes -- big.”

-- “Will restore choices.”

-- “Will stabilize insurance markets.”

-- “Will protect preexisting condition coverage.”

-- “Will allow the use of pretax dollars to pay premiums.”

-- “Will expand the HSAs.”

-- “Will devote substantial resources to fight opioid and other substance abuse.”

-- “Will provide better coverage for low-income Americans…because we're going to spend some more money to make sure everybody is protected.”

-- “Will improve medical outcomes for low-income Americans.”

-- “Puts Medicaid on a sustainable path, which it's not on right now.”

-- “Levels the playing field for states when it comes to federal dollars.”

-- “Reforms major entitlements, now a principal driver of 20- trillion-dollar debt that we have.”

-- “And will redistrict authority from Washington, D.C., to the states, which I've already said, where they can innovate and develop the best practices, and on a smaller basis they'll be able to take care of people better.”

Trump repeated that the Senate should remain in session “until this bill is on my desk, and until we all go over to the Oval Office. I'll sign it and we can celebrate for the American people.”
Source URL: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/trump-single-payer-will-bankrupt-our-country

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51    7 years ago



-- “Repeals the individual mandate. How big is that?”

-- “Repeals job-killing employer mandate. How big is that?”

-- "Will substantially lower premiums" (and eventually allow insurance sales across state lines.) “There's going to be tremendous competition.”

--“Repeals burdensome taxes -- big.”

-- “Will restore choices.”

-- “Will stabilize insurance markets.”

-- “Will protect preexisting condition coverage.”

-- “Will allow the use of pretax dollars to pay premiums.”

-- “Will expand the HSAs.”

-- “Will devote substantial resources to fight opioid and other substance abuse.”

-- “Will provide better coverage for low-income Americans…because we're going to spend some more money to make sure everybody is protected.”

-- “Will improve medical outcomes for low-income Americans.”

-- “Puts Medicaid on a sustainable path, which it's not on right now.”

-- “Levels the playing field for states when it comes to federal dollars.”

-- “Reforms major entitlements, now a principal driver of 20- trillion-dollar debt that we have.”

-- “And will redistrict authority from Washington, D.C., to the states, which I've already said, where they can innovate and develop the best practices, and on a smaller basis they'll be able to take care of people better.”


Source URL: 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
link   Buzz of the Orient    7 years ago

"But single-payer will bankrupt our country..."

Many civilized Western countries use a form of single-payer, and have done so for decades.  Please point out which country it has bankrupted. Canada?  England?  Australia?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
link   Sean Treacy  replied to  Buzz of the Orient   7 years ago

Which country has a military worth noticing?

According to the non-partisan Urban institute, the medicare for all scheme proposed by Bernie Sanders and championed by any others would cost the government another 3.2 trillion a year in spending.  that's about 4 times as much as we spend on the military for comparison and almost as much as the government spends in total (3.8 trillion).

We would have to effectively double the tax rate just to maintain our current unsustainable deficit.  What would that do to our economy? 

Btu you get what you pay for and America has the best health care in the world. Single payer would destroy that as we hand our medical care over to government bean counters. The loss in standard of care would be devastating as the government tried to control costs. There's a reason those with cancer and heart problems do such better in America than they do in countries with single payer.

The uninformed  think slowing the rate of growth of medicaid will magically kill millions, the reality is that decreasing the survival rates for cancer and heart attack will actually result in Americans dying.

For instance, this is what the mythical "War on Women" looks like in reality:

 

 

 Single payer would be the real war on women.  

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
link   Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Sean Treacy   7 years ago

For some weird reason that link just brings back this original article.  Am I the only one it does that to?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
link   Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Buzz of the Orient   7 years ago

I fixed it Buzz. 

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur  replied to  Sean Treacy   7 years ago

Read the Conyers proposal.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    7 years ago

When these bullshit, intentional misrepresentations cease being posted, I will join the discussions.

The extent to which these bastards will lie to denigrate the accomplishments of a black president, that, coupled with an insidious plot to sabotage the ACA … AND BLAME IT ON THE ACA (OBAMAcare) … WITH THE ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH HEALTHCARE (millions will be sick and die without coverage) … RATHER, TO ROB FROM THE POOR FOR THE PURPOSE OF FURTHER FATTENING THE CRIMINAL RICH …

… IS FUCKING SICKENING.

And the fools who voted for a con man because he promised them what they wanted to hear and hates the same people they hate …

Let them be the first to lose their health insurance and health care.

And the ill-informed who think killing Medicaid will save them money …

WILL PAY MORE FOR PREMIUMS TO COVER THE RUSH ON EMERGENCY ROOMS!

Damned fools and haters!

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  A. Macarthur   7 years ago

So you will only join the discussions when there are no view points contrary to yours seeded or posted here?  Feel free to stay away then.  There will be no progressive echo chamber here for you.  

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur  replied to  XXJefferson51   7 years ago

So you will only join the discussions when there are no view points contrary to yours seeded or posted here? 

Contrary to REALITY is more like it!

When your misrepresentations are corrected, rather than acknowledge the reality, you double down on the same falsehood, lie, propaganda, editorial masquerading as a factual report.

Arguing with ignorance or willful dupes is a fool's errand.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  A. Macarthur   7 years ago

Forced to choose between believing Donald Trump or you  on this issue, I'll go with the President every time.  

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur  replied to  XXJefferson51   7 years ago

Of course you will, the irony being your inability to comprehend that you would side with a serial, narcissistic hater and incompetent POTUS who now asks if he can "pardon himself" ...

By virtue of a long-standing SCOTUS ruling, "accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt"!

Trump is too ignorant to understand that he essentially admitting that he has committed high crimes and misdemeanors.

You flatter me by siding with an ego-maniac psychopath instead of siding with me. I'd be seriously concerned that something was wrong with my "side" if you were on it.

Trump is destroying our democracy and you aren't concerned ... and cheer him on because you think and hope he'll take you to that "Great White Way" ...

And your delusion is accompanied by another, the one that thinks no one understands that.

 

 DEjH_qUIAAbNpr.jpgmosaic.jpeg

 

 

 

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur  replied to  A. Macarthur   7 years ago

For the record, in addition to the 2nd Amendment, The Constitution addresses other stuff … like where it precludes a Presidential Pardon (of self) from TRUMPing IMPEACHMENT!

Returning to UHC/Single Payer … while "S" seems to believe it would provide "free" health insurance at taxpayer expense … THAT'S FLAT OUT INCORRECT.

Americans opting in would purchase such health insurance via their individual taxes and/or via their Social Security benefit (where that applies). Because the pool of insured would be far greater than with any private insurer, THE RATE WOULD BE LOWER THAN WHAT IS CHARGED BY THE PRIVATE INSURER … so, the net expense to the purchaser would be less than his/her current tax liability + what is now being paid for health insurance.

Further, UHC/Single Payer would force private insurers to lower their rates in order to stay competitive.

Get EDUCATED before advocating or denigrating …

 Where Does Your Premium Dollar Go?

PremiumDollar_Infographic_Website_3.2.17-01.jpghttps://www.ahip.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/PremiumDollar_Infographic_Website_3.2.17-01-300x181.jpg 300w, 768w" alt="Where Does Your Premium Dollar Go " width="800" height="482">

 

Most of the CEOs at eight of the largest publicly traded insurance companies got a pay raise last year. Combined, those eight executives made $171.8 million in total compensation in 2016 based on realized stock gains, essentially unchanged from last year, according to a Modern Healthcare analysis of company proxy statements filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

The analysis included Aetna, Anthem, Cigna Corp., Centene Corp., Humana, Molina Healthcare, WellCare Health Plans and UnitedHealth Group. Companies report total compensation, which comprises salary, stock and option awards, bonuses and other compensation. But those stock and option awards may not be realized for a few years. Realized compensation, however, takes into account stock vested and options exercised during that year. 

For some context, the CEOs' combined 2016 realized compensation would be enough to cover the average annual premium for about 59,150 people enrolled in the most popular plan on the HealthCare.gov federal marketplace last year before financial assistance. 

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
Professor Quiet
link   Dean Moriarty  replied to  XXJefferson51   7 years ago

I'm with you XX. If you read the Conyers bill he is fluffing you will see it is the most disgusting bill imaginable. It steals from the people that do everything right to give to the ones that do everything wrong. It punishes work and success and rewards failure and laziness. No wonder the 115 cosponsors are all slimy Democrats. 

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
Professor Quiet
link   Dean Moriarty    7 years ago

That's for sure it was on the ballot here in Colorado last November and once the figures came in and the astronomical cost was seen by the taxpayers they defeated it by a three to one margin. And this is a blue state. Vermont is another that gave up once they saw it was too expensive. 

 

Colorado voters dealt a blow to single-payer health insurance, a controversial ballot initiative that would have provided medical coverage to all state residents through a payroll tax.

The idea was backed by progressives, but opposed by the business community, health insurers, Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper and members of Congress from both parties. About 80% of voters cast ballots against the measure,  according to a tally Tuesday night by the  Denver Post .

It’s the latest blow to the Medicare-for-all approach to healthcare that is supported by liberals like Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont Democrat, who was runner-up to Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
link   Sean Treacy  replied to  Dean Moriarty   7 years ago

California did the same thing when they realized what a massive tax increase would have to result. The Democrats who control the state government couldn't even pretend to try and pay for it. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
link   Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Sean Treacy   7 years ago

Maybe California's doctors should give up their Beverley Hills mansions and ocean-front homes and their Bentleys, and maybe all those privately owned hospitals should lower the dividends they pay to their investors, and maybe the Insurance comapanies can get little more reasonable - How many millions do the CEOs earn each year?

 
 
 
sixpick
Professor Quiet
link   sixpick  replied to  Buzz of the Orient   7 years ago

Buzz, you're talking about the elite's doctors, not the average doctor in California.

Doctor Salary in California

There is more cost in the implementation of Obamacare than any for profit situation.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
link   Buzz of the Orient  replied to  sixpick   7 years ago

From your link:

"Doctor salaries are in the top 99% of all careers in California."

The figure you quoted is for general practitioners and pedeatritions. There are specialists, such as Orthopedic Surgeons who earn on average more than a half a million dollars a year.

 
 
 
sixpick
Professor Quiet
link   sixpick  replied to  Buzz of the Orient   7 years ago

You have to scroll down the screen to see all the doctors.  I didn't quote a figure.

This is the list at that link:

Here are Doximity's (a social network for physicians) average U.S. Physician Salaries by specialty:

Allergy and Immunology - $296,705
Anesthesiology - $357,116
Cardiology- $436,849
Colon and Rectal Surgery - $343,277
Dermatology - $400,898
Emergency Medicine - $320,419
Endocrinology - $217,610
Family Medicine - $227,541
Gastroenterology - $379,460
General Surgery - $360,933
Hematology - $376,660
Infectious Disease - $205,570
Internal Medicine - $223,175
Medical Genetics - $158,597
Medicine/Pediatrics - $205,610
Neonatology/Perinatology - $290,853
Nephrology - $306,302
Neurology - $243,105
Neurosurgery - $609,639
Nuclear Medicine - $290,639
Obstetrics & Gynecology - $315,295
Occupational Medicine - $229,450
Oncology - $341,701
Ophthalmology - $343,144
Orthopaedic Surgery - $535,668
Otolaryngology (ENT) - $369,790
Pathology - $302,610
Pediatric Cardiology - $303,917
Pediatric Emergency Medicine - $273,683
Pediatric Endocrinology - $157,394
Pediatric Gastroenterology - $196,708
Pediatric Hematology & Oncology - $192,855
Pediatric Infectious Disease - $163,658
Pediatric Nephrology - $183,730
Pediatric Pulmonology - $218,106
Pediatric Rheumatology - $200,027
Pediatrics - $206,961
Physical Medicine/Rehab - $278,283
Plastic Surgery - $407,709
Preventive Medicine - $270,888
Psychiatry - $227,478
Pulmonology - $317,323
Radiation Oncology - $418,228
Radiology - $404,302
Rheumatology - $244,765
Thoracic Surgery - $471,137
Urology - $381,029
Vascular Surgery - $428,944

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    7 years ago

Conyers Reintroduces National Single-Payer Health Care Bill

H.R. 676 would expand and improve the highly popular Medicare program and provide universal access to care to all Americans. The program would be primarily funded by a modest payroll tax on employers and employees, a financial transaction tax, and higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

H.R.676 has been introduced in Congress since 2003, and has a broad base of support among universal health care activists, organized labor, physicians, nurses, and social justice organizations across the nation. The bill has been endorsed by 26 international unions, Physicians For A National Health Program, two former editors of the New England Journal of Medicine, National Nurses United, the American Medical Students Association, Progressive Democrats of America, and the NAACP. Last Congress, 77 other Members in the House of Representatives signed on as cosponsors of the legislation. In 2011, the Vermont legislature passed legislation that lays the foundation for a single-payer health care system in the state.

“Many Americans are frustrated with high out-of-pocket costs, skyrocketing premiums, and many other serious problems that are part and parcel of a health care system dependent on private health insurance plans. H.R. 676 would reform this broken system.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
link   Sean Treacy  replied to  A. Macarthur   7 years ago

Double our tax rates send the country into a depression, but hey, healthcare will be "free." 

 

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur  replied to  Sean Treacy   7 years ago

Make it up as you go along, Sean.

By eroding the FOR-PROFIT-HEALTH-INSURANCE-RACKET, Universal Health Care/Single Payer changes, if nothing else, the 30% of your premium that goes to CEO pay, claims denial departments, waste, advertising, employer costs … whatever one might pay for UHC in taxes, would be negated and then some via lower premiums.

 

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
Professor Quiet
link   Dean Moriarty  replied to  A. Macarthur   7 years ago

I remember when you had all kinds of reasons that Obamacare was going to lower costs too. How about those refund checks did anyone actually get one? 

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur  replied to  Dean Moriarty   7 years ago

I remember when you had all kinds of reasons that Obamacare was going to lower costs too. How about those refund checks did anyone actually get one? 

Actually, no you don't; I have always advocated Single Payer and decried the arbitrary raising of premiums by insurers and blaming those increases on Obamacare.

Essentially, you're blaming the wrong perpetrator … something the legislators in bed with the the Anti-Trust exempt insurance companies and right-wing media shills have mis-taught you!

Roughly 2.7 million Americans received rebate checks because …

… companies that failed to spend at least 80 percent of premiums on health care had to refund the difference to consumers.

As I posted earlier, much of your insurance premiums have nothing to do with providing you WITH HEALTH INSURANCE!

You boys are poorly informed and/or ill-informed … I don't make this stuff up!

 

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   Petey Coober  replied to  A. Macarthur   7 years ago

Actually, no you don't; I have always advocated Single Payer and decried the arbitrary raising of premiums by insurers and blaming those increases on Obamacare.

Essentially, you're blaming the wrong perpetrator … something the legislators in bed with the the Anti-Trust exempt insurance companies and right-wing media shills have mis-taught you!

You have an extremely active imagination !

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur  replied to  Petey Coober   7 years ago

And your idea of rebuttal is to insult the one who made the comment of which you are unable to rebut.

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   Petey Coober  replied to  A. Macarthur   7 years ago

You are far too easily insulted . If I were really going to mock you I would have suggested you should be in the olympics for you astounding ability to "jump to conclusions " !

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur  replied to  Petey Coober   7 years ago

You are far too easily insulted 

An insult from you is a compliment.

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   Petey Coober  replied to  A. Macarthur   7 years ago

Apparently I should be more vociferous ...

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
link   Sean Treacy  replied to  A. Macarthur   7 years ago

Please. 

I cited a comprehensive, non-partisan study of the effect of universal extension of medicare for all.

You cited a press release.

It's really easy to claim universal health care can be paid for by a "modest increase in payroll tax." It's just as easy and accurate to claim that a modest increase in payroll tax will cause pigs to fly.  Everyone talks about easy and cheap universal care will be to implement until they stop quoting press releases and start working on the problem of actually paying for it.  

I guess you didn't pay attention to what happened in  California, where legislators were making all the same promises you do until they the rubber met the pavement and it was time to actually pay for universal healthcare.. Guess what happened when they got serious?

The democrats in control of the sixth largest economy in the world realized that paying for universal healthcare was completely impossible. 

 

 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
link   Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Sean Treacy   7 years ago

There are a lot of countries that don't find universal healthcare impossible. I guess since America must pay for the biggest and most powerful military in the world it does make paying for healthcare, infrastructure, etc somewhat of a difficult burden on the taxpayers. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
link   Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Buzz of the Orient   7 years ago

Mind you, I find it hard to understand why a country with one of the biggest economies in the world, having a generally high standard of living, being one of the most advanced civilizations in the world on so many levels, allows its citizens to suffer, die or go bankrupt due to not being able to afford health care. 

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur  replied to  Buzz of the Orient   7 years ago

Well, Buzz,

Greed and a political system that literally allows organized wealth to buy legislators makes the bottom line ... the bottom line.

And do not discount the stupidity of an electorate, a significant portion of which, is pandered to on the basis of religiosity and bigotry to the degree that it will vote against its own pragmatic interests.

The "dumbing of America" was first posited by Ralph Waldo Emerson in ...

... 1838!!!

And here we are with Donald Trump and a base of ... yup ... many deplorable, poorly educated fools who currently root for the loss of their own health care because that will erode the legacy of the black guy who previously occupied THEIR White House!

 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
link   Buzz of the Orient  replied to  A. Macarthur   7 years ago

But Gordon Gecko said that "Greed is Good".

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur  replied to  Buzz of the Orient   7 years ago

Gordon Gecko said that "Greed is Good".

Yeah! For the Greedy.

“Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's needs, but not every man's greed.” 
―  Mahatma Gandhi

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
link   Buzz of the Orient  replied to  A. Macarthur   7 years ago

I don't think the American health care mess started with Trump's presidency. Seems to me it goes way back.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Buzz of the Orient   7 years ago

Let's not make shareholders the enemy here. They are retirees, those saving for retirement, those saving for college, those who have HSA's.  Any American who has a taxable brokerage account, all are investors.  I am an investor.  I have health insurance and pharmaceutical companies in my portfolio as do most investors.  

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur  replied to  XXJefferson51   7 years ago

 I have health insurance and pharmaceutical companies in my portfolio as do most investors.  

And you're just fine if your portfolio benefits from gouging, and arbitrary and capricious rate hikes that adversely affect other individuals while bitching about people who don't take personal responsibility and or who accept welfare?

Correct me if I have that wrong, or, if you have no problem with corporate welfare as opposed to … the general welfare of American citizens.

Article I, Sec.8, clause 1, U.S.Constitution, says: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States

 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
link   Buzz of the Orient  replied to  XXJefferson51   7 years ago

"Let's not make shareholders the enemy here."

Who is doing that?  Investors who are smart enough to invest in companies that successfully gouge the general public are wise investors.  It's those who are making the decisions that attract investors and then stuff their own pockets with benefits that are the ones to blame.  For example, look at the CEO or owner of the company that manufactured Adrenalin pens who WAY overcharged for them.  She got caught, but look how much she bled needy Americans before she was.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Buzz of the Orient   7 years ago

So the 60% of Americans who are investors are not also the general public?  When Obama was elected I doubled down on my holdings of big pharma and health insurance companies.  Best investment I ever made.  I joined AMAC a seniors organization that specializes in getting its members Medicare advantage which obama wanted rid of.  Between his election and Obamacare passing so many were signed up that it was politically impossible to kill it.  It moves seniors away from single payer and has the government spend our Medicare taxes on buying plans from private insurance companies.  Medicare advantage and health savings accounts were free market reforms passed when Bush expanded Medicare with part D for senior Rx plans.  One of the first federal programs to come in well under budget and meet its goals.  All due to free market competition as companies competed to provide a service.  

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
link   Buzz of the Orient  replied to  XXJefferson51   7 years ago

"When Obama was elected I doubled down on my holdings of big pharma and health insurance companies."

They should skyrocket now that Trump has been elected. You should give investment advice to Warren Buffet.

By the way, have you ever had the occasion to read the John Grisham novel "The Rainmaker" or watch the movie of it?  It gives a picture of one of the reasons the health insurance companies are financiallyl successful, and what happens to those who need them.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
link   pat wilson  replied to  Buzz of the Orient   7 years ago

"When Obama was elected I doubled down on my holdings of big pharma and health insurance companies."

They should skyrocket now that Trump has been elected. You should give investment advice to Warren Buffet.

laughing dude

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Buzz of the Orient   7 years ago

I'm glad you like single payer where you live now and where you came from.  This article is about it being imposed here where we live.  We oppose it and support a real free market health care system instead with a safety net for prior condition customers and the genuinely poor.  

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
link   Buzz of the Orient  replied to  XXJefferson51   7 years ago

I've made it pretty clear that there is no single payer system where I live now.  It cost 80,000 yuan (US$13,000+) when my mother-in-law broke her hip last year.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
Professor Quiet
link   Dean Moriarty  replied to  Buzz of the Orient   7 years ago

It must be uncivilized there. The lefties keep telling us the rest of the civilized world has UHC. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
link   Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Dean Moriarty   7 years ago

I know I had said "the rest of the WESTERN civilized world" if anything.  As far as how civilized the PEOPLE are here, IMO they're more civilized than Americans. They are more polite, friendly, and I feel perfectly safe here even at night - nobody has a gun. 

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
Professor Quiet
link   Dean Moriarty  replied to  Buzz of the Orient   7 years ago

And they have the second largest economy in the world. It is no coincidence the two countries with the largest economies do not have single payer. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
link   Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Dean Moriarty   7 years ago

There is no coincidence. China is still a developing country, perhaps soon to overtake America in many ways, but it has not yet reached the level of governmental development as the USA, although it is progressing.  The USA reached that level long ago, so I wouldn't come to the same conclusion as you.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Buzz of the Orient   7 years ago

They just announced that in order to be a communist party member one must again officially be an atheist.  The more things change there they more they stay the same.  

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
link   Buzz of the Orient  replied to  XXJefferson51   7 years ago

I doubt that many Chinese give a shit about being a Communist Party member anyway, unless they want to enter into a climb up the governmental ladder to officialdom. Certainly nobody in my wife's family gives a shit about it and some are very successful financially. Most of them are Buddhists (my wife included) as it happens, and I doubt that they have any intention of changing that.

 
 
 
sixpick
Professor Quiet
link   sixpick  replied to  Buzz of the Orient   7 years ago

Mind you, I find it hard to understand why a country with one of the biggest economies in the world, having a generally high standard of living, being one of the most advanced civilizations in the world on so many levels, allows its citizens to suffer, die or go bankrupt due to not being able to afford health care.

Buzz, most of these people on here don't have Obamacare.  They either have some government coverage or are retired and are on Medicare.  People aren't staying alive because of Obamacare, although they aren't living as long since Obamacare was implemented.  That's just the way those PPO's talk.  They were using the same language in the 90's.  Nothing has changed.  Most people can't even afford to pay for Obamacare and have to spend thousands before they receive the first dollar of coverage.  That is those who work, make enough to not qualify for subsidies.

I gave an example a long time ago of a 63 year old man when Obamacare first started.  If he increased his income from $35,000 to 45,000 he would only put maybe a $1000 of it in his pocket because his Obamacare premiums would increase and he would have to pay the taxes on that extra $10,000.  I think it was on the site before it was changed to this one and is long gone now or unavailable.  I used the premiums at that time and the tax tables at that time to calculate it.  He would have tremendous subsidies at $35k and no subsidies at $45k.

Whether we have Obamacare or not will not affect most of these PPO's.  It won't cost them a dime more.  Their insurance will not go up one cent either way.

There has been since Obamacare was started at the most 5% more people who now have coverage than there was before and the biggest increase has been on Medicaid.  A lot of people lost their jobs in 2008 and 2009, couldn't find work and ended up on Medicaid.  Medicaid has over 75 million people on it now. They like to use the percentage using the number of people who didn't have insurance and then use it to show how many less insured there are. 

In 2009 there were 50.1 million people on Medicaid.  They projected there would be 52.9 people in 2010. That's as far as they projected.  Now in 2017 there are 75 million people on Medicaid.  So that's nearly 25k more people on Medicaid.  Let's not forget all the people who lost their good policies and took the crap Obamacare offers now to replace it.  Their employers didn't have to cover them before Obamacare, but did and after Obamacare dropped their insurance and they went on individual policies which many were subsidized.  When we say subsidized that means someone is paying that subsidy when the company they worked for had been paying it before.

Now they are proposing giving everyone a living salary for low income people or people who don't work at all.  With all this giving someone is doing the paying and they aren't getting anything except screwed.  40% of the people in this country don't pay any Federal taxes at all, so when you hear them talk about giving the rich the tax breaks, don't include the middle class who are paying any taxes, because they will be paying more to take care of those 40% which if you leave it to the Democrats will be 60% not paying any Federal Taxes and getting a living wage whether they work or not.  Now what do you think they are going to do?  Sounds like real encouragement to get into some of the things you like to do instead of taking some responsibility for yourself to me.

That's why this last election was so important.  If Hillary had won all these things would have come about without much resistance and the old saying and whenever someone is offering something for free they will find many who are willing to take advantage of it and the realization nothing is free will not cross their minds as they vote for the candidate who is making the offer.

I had a friend who was almost ready for Medicare and had taken the worst policy they had which was subsidized tremendously and only paid approximately $60 plus dollars a month.  He had rental income, not income from a job.  He received a nice hefty rate increase to over $350 a month 6 months before he became eligible for Medicare.  He paid it for 6 months.  Nothing about his income changed except he was 6 months older at the renewal date and he was still heavily subsidized.  If that had not been the case he would have paid way over a thousand dollars a month for just him.  I don't want to hear how great Obamacare is.  I know all the media and everything is now motivated to push this BS to the American public, but it ain't so.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
link   Buzz of the Orient  replied to  sixpick   7 years ago

I appreciate your explanation, but to me, it's all just a jig-saw puzzle with missing pieces.

 
 
 
sixpick
Professor Quiet
link   sixpick  replied to  Buzz of the Orient   7 years ago

I know it's a mess.  I don't want anyone to have to go without medical care, but even with insurance or Obamacare, neither cover living expenses, car or house payments.

I hope we find something that will provide care for those who can't afford it for no reason of their own making and motivate people to become more responsible.  From 50 million to 75 million in 7 years is heading the wrong way.  You will find it nearly impossible to find how many were on Medicaid for say 1990 to 2017.  All the Google searches are centering their results on right now on everything.  The results are flawed and basically tell you what they want you to believe.  You really have to look hard to find what you are looking for.  If anyone can tell me how many people were on Medicaid for each year right up until 2017 I would appreciate it.  I haven't been able to find it.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur  replied to  sixpick   7 years ago

While health-care costs and premiums are rising — the recent announcement notwithstanding — they are rising much more slowly than they did during the George W. Bush administration and, indeed, over the past 50 years. For instance, from  2001 to 2005 , per-person health-care spending rose an average of more than 7 percent per year. More important, for ordinary Americans,  employer-based health insurance premiums  for a family increased by 54 percent between 2001 and 2005. Conversely, from 2011 to 2015, per-person costs rose an average of just 3.4 percent per year; family insurance premiums rose only 16 percent in that same time.

Another way to assess the ACA is to compare current premium costs with what costs were projected to be without the law. Recently, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected that under current law, premiums for employment-based coverage will be  10 to 15 percent  lower in 2025 than they would have been without the ACA, assuming a tax on high-cost plans goes into effect. Similarly, the Brookings Institution estimated that in 2016, health insurance premiums in the ACA are at least  30 percent lower  than they would have been for individuals without the ACA. And a  Robert Wood Johnson Foundation-Urban Institute analysis  found that national health-care spending is expected to be  11 percent  — $2.6 trillion — lower from 2014 through 2019 than previously estimated by CBO.

 

True, premiums in the exchanges are on their way up, although  in at least 12 states  — including big ones such as California, Ohio, Michigan and New Jersey — the increases are 10 percent or less. Yet premiums also started out much lower than expected. With the increase, they are now at the level the CBO anticipated on passage of the ACA. Because subsidies are linked to the premiums — and  83 percent  of people in the exchanges receive subsidies — for the ordinary American, the actual premium increase is almost zero. Indeed,  77 percent of Americans  will find coverage for less than $100 per month. That is a great deal.

It still needs to be fixed and one way to begin to fix rising premiums is UHC/Single Payer which increases the pool of buyers –– broadening the base and lowering the rates.

The Republican "plan" doesn't fix anything, it throws out the babies (literally in some cases) with the bathwater.

 
 
 
sixpick
Professor Quiet
link   sixpick  replied to  sixpick   7 years ago

Medicaid and CHIP Total Enrollment

bar chart state map 74,531,002 individuals were enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP in the 51 states reporting  April 2017 data.  68,884,085 individuals were enrolled in Medicaid and 5,646,917 individuals were enrolled in CHIP (please see contextual information below regarding CHIP enrollment).  Compared to the period prior to the start of the first Marketplace open enrollment period (July - Sept. 2013),  over 16.7 million additional individuals were enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP in April 2017 in the 49 states that reported relevant data for both periods, representing over 29 percent increase over the baseline period. (Connecticut and Maine aren't included because they did not report data for both periods). View graph of Medicaid and CHIP Enrollment Growth over Baseline .

Medicaid Child and CHIP Total Enrollment

people and bar chart Nearly 36 million individuals are enrolled in CHIP or are children enrolled in the Medicaid program in the 48 states that reported child enrollment data for April 2017. Children enrolled in the Medicaid program and individuals enrolled in CHIP make up almost 50.4 percent of total Medicaid and CHIP program enrollment. View graph of Medicaid Child and CHIP Enrollment .

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  sixpick   7 years ago

I have a health insurance policy with Blue Shield through my employer.  I also have life insurance, dental, vision coverage and pay for an optional policy.  I've had the same employer and same health insurance since 1986.  

 

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
link   Hal A. Lujah  replied to  XXJefferson51   7 years ago

I bet there's high turnover in your department.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Hal A. Lujah   7 years ago

Was that meant to be a personal insult directed at me Hal?  Shame on you!  

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur  replied to  XXJefferson51   7 years ago

I'm glad you are adequately covered; consider if you and your co-workers had UHC at a lower rate than you'd have through your employer, and the savings your employer enjoyed by not providing your health care, could provide you with a raise or increased contribution to a retirement plan.

The current health insurance system has many flaws, and had them even prior to the ACA.

 

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
Professor Quiet
link   Dean Moriarty  replied to  A. Macarthur   7 years ago

Not your with Conyers plan that increases payroll taxes. 

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur  replied to  Dean Moriarty   7 years ago

Not your with Conyers plan that increases payroll taxes. 

If the increase in your payroll tax is offset by the decrease in your health insurance premium cost, you have come out ahead, Dean; and that's exactly what Republicans don't want us to know, and, what numb-nut Democrats, so far, are too damned dense to start spelling out to Americans day-after-day-after-day!

With no profit motive, no advertising, no $22 million/year CEO salary and a huge pool of insured Americans, even those who would continue with private insurers would likely benefit from lowered premiums by insurers who would have to compete.

 

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
link   Cerenkov  replied to  A. Macarthur   7 years ago

"If the increase in your payroll tax is offset by the decrease in your health insurance premium cost,..."

That's a pretty big IF. Can I keep my same doctor, too? Lol.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur  replied to  Cerenkov   7 years ago

"If the increase in your payroll tax is offset by the decrease in your health insurance premium cost,..."

That's a pretty big IF. Can I keep my same doctor, too? Lol.

Do your homework, stop listening to Trump, Ryan, McConnell, Fox News … then see if you can add something of substance.

 "Mockery comes before understanding."

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
Professor Quiet
link   Dean Moriarty  replied to  A. Macarthur   7 years ago

I was referring to the offset in the employers portion of the payroll tax. Remember this crappy law punishes those that do things right and rewards the failures. 

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
link   Cerenkov  replied to  A. Macarthur   7 years ago

Lol. I need no condescension for someone who still believes in the free lunch! Lol.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur  replied to  Cerenkov   7 years ago

Lol. I need no condescension for someone who still believes in the free lunch! Lol.

Doubling down on ignorant positions makes you twice what you were when taking the positions initially; your either intentional or, totally misinformed characterization of UHC as a "free lunch" reveals your blind following of a con man who leads a party of the criminal rich.

"LOL" is the whistling-past-the-grave-yard nervous chuckle of an ill-informed, insecure sycophant.

"A lie can travel halfway round the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."

This quote has been attributed to Mark Twain … but it did not originate with him. Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-92) attributed it to an old proverb in a sermon delivered on Sunday morning, April 1, 1855.

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
link   Cerenkov  replied to  A. Macarthur   7 years ago

And you still believe in the myth of free healthcare. Or rather, you assume someone else will pay for it...

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  A. Macarthur   7 years ago

I have a good retirement plan as well as great vacation and sick time arrangements already. I'm sure that if we had single payer my employers taxes would go up so much that I'd lose all other benefits and even future pay 💰 increases.  

 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
link   JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy   7 years ago

Sean, why is universal health care OK for every other advanced country in the world except us?  That seems like a curious situation.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
link   Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell   7 years ago

The care is worse and there is less of it available for starters. There are  difffernces in cancer survival rates, cardiac event survival etc, even down to high blood pressures medications. Americans with high blood pressure are more likely to take high blood pressure medications than Europeans.

some of it is cultural. Gun shot victims, car crashes, obesity etc.., things that cost a lot of money to treat but are not 

some is overkill to avoid lawsuits. Doctors order every test imaginable to cover their asses. 

Why anyone who has dealt with a government beuracracy is willing to turn their health care over to the government is beyond me, 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
link   Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Sean Treacy   7 years ago

Life Expectancy Rates, as indicated by World Health Rankings, having used information from WHO (UN) as of 2014:

World standings (random examples) for the year 2015:

Switzerland 2nd; Australia 4th, Israel 8th, France 9th, Canada 12th, USA 31st.

CHARTS: The US Has Some Of The Worst Health Statistics In The Developed World

In their efforts to block health care reform, politicians often claim that the U.S. has the best health care system in the world .  As such, we shouldn't tinker with it.

The evidence, however, points to a different conclusion: the U.S. health care system provides less quality and less value compared to its international counterparts.

Nearly all these advanced countries, which provide better health care outcomes at a lower per capita cost, have a system of universal health care in place.

 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
link   Sean Treacy  replied to  Buzz of the Orient   7 years ago

The idea that health care  and life expectancy are causally correlated has been debunked for decades. 

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur  replied to  Sean Treacy   7 years ago

The idea that health care  and life expectancy are causally correlated has been debunked for decades. 

Oh! Do provide the sources for that oxymoron.

But, Sean, show your sincere belief in that position by telling us unequivocally, that consequently, you and your family have no health insurance, never go to medical appointments, and … we'll take you at your word.

 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
link   Sean Treacy  replied to  A. Macarthur   7 years ago

If you can't handle google, try some common sense.

Life expectancy involves genetics, behavior, environment and access to medical care.  

None of that should come as news to anyone.  

g us unequivocally, that consequently, you and your family have no health insurance, never go to medical appointment

Why? Of course health care matters.  It's amazing what needs to be spelled out sometimes. 

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur  replied to  Sean Treacy   7 years ago

Why? Of course health care matters.  It's amazing what needs to be spelled out sometimes. 

I think you need some care with regard to you short-term memory, Sean … did you not write the following?

 

The idea that health care  and life expectancy are causally correlated has been debunked for decades. 

Perhaps I misunderstood; are you contending that there's little or no correlation, or, that any such correlation has been debunked, or, that there's more than merely a CASUAL correlation.

I'm willing to say I misunderstood if that's the case.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
link   Sean Treacy  replied to  A. Macarthur   7 years ago

I meant that health care, and health care alone, is not directly related to life expectancy. They can't be used interchangeably.  

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur  replied to  Sean Treacy   7 years ago

I meant that health care, and health care alone, is not directly related to life expectancy. They can't be used interchangeably. 

No reasonable person uses them interchangeably … nor would any reasonable person contend that, all else being equal, they are only casually or minimally connected.

The "best" genetics can be mitigated and compromised by poor health habits, the failure of early detection of an illness/disease contracted environmentally as opposed to via genetic predisposition …

What is it about the conservative mindset that makes for the bending over backwards to deny common sense when it comes to a civilized society caring about its citizens.

Sorry, Sean … but IMO, if there is a conservative mantra, it's "I GOT MINE FUCK EVERYONE ELSE!"

How can (i.e.) The Christian Right be so CHRISTIAN WRONG!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
link   Sean Treacy  replied to  Sean Treacy   7 years ago

 here's one example:

This paper compares life expectancy in Canada to the US demonstrating that the differences are attributable to the birth of more low weight infants, homicides accidents and obesity. Low birth weight babies actually have a better chance to survive  in the US, but there are significantly more of them. 

 

This link show how significantly better American health care performs on actual medical issues:

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur  replied to  Sean Treacy   7 years ago

This paper compares life expectancy in Canada to the US demonstrating that the differences are attributable to the birth of more low weight infants, homicides accidents and obesity. Low birth weight babies actually have a better chance to survive  in the US, but there are significantly more of them.  

Is it possible that low birth weight infants born in America … is attributable to poor health care access and unaffordable, hence lack of health care of the mothers bearing those infants?

I'll grant you the statistical impact of the homicides, but if they were taken out of the equation, I speculate that other countries might well still have longer life expectancies than the U.S. .

And obesity is the other side of the coin of poorly-nourished, poorly-educated mothers bearing low-weight infants; part of a viable health care system is access to education and consultation with health care professionals.

And it was Republican that had an insidious hissy fit regarding doctors asking their patients if there guns in the home, so, even homicide can be a "health" issue to some degree.

But which is it, Sean, is there a strong correlation, a casual correlation or no correlation between life expectancy and viable health care?

As for your sources , Sean …

National Bureau of Economic Research

"Between 1985 and 2001, the organization received $9,963,301 in 73 grants from only four foundations:

All four of these are characterized (by SourceWatch, at least, in their own descriptions linked in the above quote) as very conservative, small-government/low-regulation foundations.  

And the AEI …

The  American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research , known simply as the  American Enterprise Institute  ( AEI ), is conservative   think tank  based in  Washington, D.C. [2] [3]  Its research is dedicated to issues of government, politics, economics and social welfare.

Founded in 1938, AEI's stated mission is "to defend the principles and improve the institutions of American freedom and  democratic capitalism limited government , private enterprise, individual liberty and responsibility, vigilant and effective defense and foreign policies, political accountability, and open debate". [4]  AEI is an independent  nonprofit organization  supported primarily by grants and contributions from  foundations corporations , and individuals.

 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
link   Sean Treacy  replied to  A. Macarthur   7 years ago

Do you notice Amac that you are trying to expand the traditional definition of health care to cover things like telling pregnat mothers not to drugs and restrict gun ownership while ignoring the results of single payer on actual, traditional health care (treating sick people)? Does that tell you anything? 

I know you prefer simple good vs. arguments where anyone who disagrees with you wants to kill people and puppies etc... but the real world is alot more complicated than you make out. There are real world trade offs with universal health care.

You, and others, hold Canada and Europe as the model. Are you okay with increased deaths from cancer? Are you okay with increased death form heart attacks? Are you okay with less people with high blood pressure taking medication to control it? Are you okay with people being less happy with the care they receive? That's what's happening in those counties you want to turn us into.  

Maybe before you start accusing those who oppose single health care of wanting to murder kids, maybe think about those cancer survival rates. That's what we are risking. 

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur  replied to  Sean Treacy   7 years ago

Do you notice Amac that you are trying to expand the traditional definition of health care to cover things like telling pregnat mothers not to drugs and restrict gun ownership while ignoring the results of single payer on actual, traditional health care (treating sick people)? Does that tell you anything? 

Yeah! Advising human beings about things that would make them healthier or possibly save their lives would break the bank … you really are deluded and partisan beyond comprehension. 

Ever hear of "prevention" … it saves "treating the sick" in many cases by KEEPING THEM FROM GETTING UNNECESSARILY SICK AND NEEDING TO BE TREATED!

I know you prefer simple good vs. arguments where anyone who disagrees with you wants to kill people and puppies etc... but the real world is a lot more complicated than you make out. There are real world trade offs with universal health care.

That's an ad hominem bullshit dodge … you obviously don't know or, don't want to know how UHC would work and the reasons why. You have been fed and swallowed the conservative crap intended, not to provide fair warning, rather, to scare the shit out of willing dupes and the ignorant so that fat cats can live fatter.

A repeal of the ACA is more likely to kill people than via simplistic lies from Trump and his minions.

 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
link   Sean Treacy  replied to  A. Macarthur   7 years ago

ngs about things that would make them healthier or possibly save their lives would break the bank

This should be obvious, but it's aleready being done. Do you think people are surprised that ingesting crack endangers their baby?  Do you think there's something magical about single payer that will suddenly stop Americans from driving their cars more than Europeans or shooting each other on the south side of chicago over drugs?

But let's ad public relations, gun control and traffic safety and put them all under the umbrella of "health care" to avoid the discussing the results of actual medical  care under single payer systems.

w or, don't want to know how UHC would work and the reasons why. You have been fed and swallowed the conservative crap intended, not to provide fair warning, rather, to scare the shit out of willing dupes and the ignorant so that fat cats can live fatter.

You are the brick wall that reason cannot penetrate. I've provided numerous, objective studies and you rely on name calling and worn out talking points. All that data just bounces off of you, not understood and ignored so you can repeat your simple talking points. You are too closed minded to understand anything that doesn't fit into your narrow, preconceived  concepts of what's right and wrong. 

I feel for sorry for you. I'm sure you are a probably decent person, but man, you cannot past your simple prejudices and talking points. Open yourself up and try understand what people who disagree with you are actually saying.. Challenging your own beliefs is and accepting the possibility that might be wrong and people who disagree with you might actually know what they are talking about and are acting in good faith can be rewarding , you should try it sometime. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
link   Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Sean Treacy   7 years ago

From the research I have been able to do from respectable sources, homicides, drug-related illness, automobile accidents and obesity (leading to diabetes) are not the only factors that are considered for life expectancy, although they do affect the high levels of mortality in the USA.  There are other factors, such as:

"7.    Heart disease: The U.S. death rate from ischemic heart disease is the second highest among the 17 peer countries. Americans reach age 50 with a less favorable cardiovascular risk profile than their peers in Europe, and adults over age 50 are more likely to develop and die from cardiovascular disease than are older adults in other high-income countries.

8.    Chronic lung disease: Lung disease is more prevalent and associated with higher mortality in the United States than in the United Kingdom and other European countries.

9.    Disability: Older U.S. adults report a higher prevalence of arthritis and activity limitations than their counterparts in the United Kingdom, other European countries, and Japan."

I don't think that you can "pooh-pooh" the statistics just because the USA is a dangerous place to live.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
link   Sean Treacy  replied to  Buzz of the Orient   7 years ago

You've just listed medical issues that derive from lifestyle choices. Lung Cancer, heart disease have significant environmental components ot them  Americans develop  more cardiac issues because of their diet and lack of exercise compared to other countries.. 

If you've read the sources I've cited, you've seen that the actual incidences of those diseases are treated better and more proactively than in places like Canada. For instance a higher percentage of Americans with high blood pressure are on medication than their Canadian counterparts.

YOu can believe the data and scholarly journals or you can believe press releases from Democratic partisans.

I side with the objective data. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
link   Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Sean Treacy   7 years ago

You can try to argue about it as much as you want. But the statistics are EXTREME, they're factual, they're objective, they don't lie, and they don't look for excuses (like you do).

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
link   Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Buzz of the Orient   7 years ago

I stand by the quotation from a link a previously posted comment above. The fact cannot be disputed:

Nearly all these advanced countries, which provide better health care outcomes at a lower per capita cost, have a system of universal health care in place.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
Professor Quiet
link   Dean Moriarty  replied to  A. Macarthur   7 years ago

Conquers represents a district where almost half the people are illiterate. He promises free crap at the expense of others that's how he gets reelected. He knows this bill is going nowhere but this is what the takers want to hear. 

 
 
 
sixpick
Professor Quiet
link   sixpick    7 years ago

Get ready for it.  Single payer and some combination of private insurance will be on the table and passed very soon.

Something to think about.

The Pitfalls of Single-Payer Health Care: Canada’s Cautionary Tale

 
I put forth no opinion at this time one way or the other.  I have other ideas, but not enough time to deal with them at this time.  This is just an article I ran across.  I want to know what is true and what isn't.
 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
link   Buzz of the Orient  replied to  sixpick   7 years ago

As a Canadian who lived his first 69 years in Canada, and an entirely satisfied recipient of Health Care in Canada, I would like to indicate my feelings about what that article has to say.

My first thought is to determine what the bias of the article might be. Obviously it is a right-wing bias (which I believe is supportive of market-based private insurance, rather than universal coverage).  And of course one must consider the bias of the source: National Review - William F. Buckley?  You will see as I point out some of the prejudicial slant of the language used in that regard.

"Canada’s government-controlled health-care system has become more restrictive than communist China’s." 

Are you kidding? In China, without expensive insurance, you pay for everything. My elderly mother-in-law here in China fell and broke her hip. It cost my brother-in-law 80,000 yuan (equivalent of more than 13,000.00 US dollars) plus what will be lifetime payments for live-in nursing care.  

"The Canadian model of universal coverage is failing." 

Failing? (language?)  It still works pretty good, and if problems arise they will be dealt with. You will see below that proposals are already being considered to keep the system viable.

"...in Canada health care is technically delivered privately, although given the Kafkaesque regulations and restrictions that govern it," 

What did I say about the language used in this article? "Kafkaesque"?

"While private insurance does exist — an OECD report found that 75 percent of Canadians have supplementary insurance — it applies only to procedures and services that fall outside the CHA — including dental work, optometric care, and pharmaceutical drugs."

True enough, the government does not pay to straighten your child's teeth, or to examine your eyes and prescribe a new pair of glasses. As for pharmaceutical drugs, as a senior citizen I paid $100 dollars a year registration at a pharmacy and got thousands of dollars worth of prescribed drugs by only paying a small dispensing fee - and I had no insurance for that.  As well, why do Americans come to Canada to buy their drugs? Can't you figure out why?  What is NOT covered by the health insurance is vanity procedures (i.e. a nose job or plastic surgery to make you more beautiful), unless the repairs (and this includes dental) were caused by an accident or criminal attack, in which case they would all be covered.  I had Blue Cross supplemental insurance, so I had a private room in the hospital, otherwise I would have been in a ward with 3 other patients, but those patients would have been given the same care as I was given. I had no problem paying the Blue Cross annual premium, but if I could not have done it, having a few people for company in the room wouldn't have killed me.

"Canadians pay for health insurance through their taxes; most never see a medical bill. But that doesn’t mean the system is affordable. Au contraire, it relies almost entirely on current taxpayers to subsidize the disproportionately large health-care needs of elderly Canadians in their final few years of life."

Taxes are paid by those who earn sufficient income to pay taxes, and even if taxes are greater than in the USA, I have NEVER in my lifetime heard any person complain about their taxes. You don't PAY taxes unless you still have enough money left over to live, in most cases comfortably, and of course taxes are applied proportionately, similarly to Canadians as they are to Americans, and if you don't earn enough to pay taxes, health care is still free, or if your taxes are minimal, the health care aspect of them is even MORE minimal.

"CHARTING A PATH TO SUSTAINABLE HEALTH CARE IN ONTARIO
 10 proposals to restrain cost growth without compromising quality of care"

A department of the Toronto-Dominion Bank provided that to Ontario as a way to continue with the provision of health care and to alleviate rising costs of it, to continue to make it affordable.  It does suggest some participation by private enterprise, but does not make big changes to the existing system.  Other proposals will of course be considered because it is not intended that the government be bankrupted due to the system notwithstanding the changing generational demographics, or that taxes be increased unreasonably.

"Canadian taxpayers pay, on average, $10,500 per year for all their health-care needs."

Keep in mind that not everyone pays taxes, but everyone is covered. As well, as I've said above, low income earners would not consider the minimal increases to their taxes (if they DO pay taxes) for health care because it would not be a big hit and probably what they would have otherwise have had to spend for their family health care would most likely have well exceeded that minimal add-on anyway. You have to compare that AVERAGE $10,500 to what AVERAGE amount Americans pay for health insurance. 

"The report showed that 29 percent of adult Canadians who fell ill and needed to see a specialist waited two months or longer, and 18 percent waited four months or longer, compared with 6 percent and 7 percent of Americans, respectively."

In emergency situations, health services are provided immediately. When I got my first kidney stone attack (what I would not wish on anyone) I did not have to wait two months for care - it was immediate, even though my life was not in danger.

"First, there is a well-propagated, pernicious myth that Canadians are pioneers in health care, and that access to care is a basic human right."

What kind of bullshit statement is that?  Of course Canadians are proud of the fact that NOBODY goes bankrupt or have to do without health care in Canada. So what if it isn't absolutely perfect. Are all Americans so proud of their system?

"Finally, there is the fact that Canada’s single-payer system is made possible only by an accident of geography: It is propped up by the U.S. health-care industry next door, which provides a parallel private system for very sick and very rich Canadians while acting as the driving force for global medical innovation."

Well, aren't WE lucky!!!  I had torn a ligament in my knee, and it was painful although I was able to bear the pain.  It took a month to get arthroscopic surgery on it.  I suppose if I were a millionaire I could have gone to the USA to get that surgery immediately, but I'm not a wimp and I was able to wait.  If I had had a heart attack I would have been given care on an emergency basis.  If there is a procedure required that Canadian Hospitals do not provide, the Canadian government DOES provide the funding for such services to be provided elsewhere.

"Likewise, a recent report from the Fraser Institute, Canada’s leading public-policy think tank, estimated that more than 52,000 Canadians received medical treatment outside of Canada in 2014."

That's a good one. Once when I was in Florida for a Christmas vacation, I got the flu or some other ailment I cannot recall, but I went to a doctor there, and I was reimbursed for the cost of his services by the Canadian government.  If it is something very serious in such a case, there can be immediate verification of coverage by the Canadian government so that an emergency situation will be dealt with by an American hospital.  Now, have you any idea how many Canadian "Snowbirds" vacation in America for as much as "one day less than six months" per year (my mother did) and use American health care paid for by the Canadian govenment?  Factor THAT into that 52,000 number. ("One day less than 6 months" per year is a necessary maximum to be out of Canada or they will lose their Canadian health coverage.  I lost mine a decade ago.) Canadians do travel to countries other than the USA as well, and get the same coverage - all to be included in that 52,000 number.

"The Canadian model offers universality, affordability, and the illusion of quality. But an illusion is all it is: The more closely you look, the worse the quality of Canadian health care appears."

ABSOLUTE BIASED BULLSHIT. I, and my family, had the best of health care in Canada - ALWAYS. 

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur  replied to  Buzz of the Orient   7 years ago

The Republican/Right Wing pitch against Obamcare, UHC/Single Payer ... or any health insurance plan that doesn't accomplish one or all of three political objectives ... Is insidious bullshit.

Objective 1. Destroy the Black POTUS' legacy by repealing Obamacare and in the process, obtain the means to ...

Objective 2. Use the money from Obamacare/Medicaid to give roughly $800 billion in tax breaks to already wealthy Republican donors, and ...

Objective 3. Give Private Insurers even more latitude than in the past, to raise premiums and reduce coverage.

And that is it, and that is all.

In the process, they lie and obfuscate; among us are the shills and/or dupes who use the straw man ... "UHC" is the equivalent of the myth of the "free lunch," which I have specifically refuted.

What kind of human excrement is able to advocate such cruelty in the satisfaction of power, greed and support for bigots?

The kind that would put a Donald Trump in the White House and defend his narcissistic, hateful criminality by simply calling every truth it finds inconvenient, "fake news"!

There is a corollary to Godwin's Law that the lowest among us never cite ... namely, that sometimes comparisons to Hitler not only do not, by default, end a discussion, but that often, THEY APPLY.

Only the lowest piece of shit would take away a child's cancer treatment in order to put  more money in a rich man's pockets.

And they know who they are ... and so do many of the rest of us.

 

 

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
Professor Quiet
link   Dean Moriarty  replied to  A. Macarthur   7 years ago

You say already wealthy what about those that are just now becoming wealthy and those that will become wealthy in the future? How will they avoid these Obamacare taxes? 

For me I believe the person using the insurance should be the one that pays for their own insurance. No subsidies that steal from the successful and give to the beach bums. No forcing businesses to supply healthcare and no payroll taxes that make us less competitive in the global marketplace. 

The government has proven time after time they are incompetent and you need look no farther than the 19 trillion debt they are now buried under. Government failed with Obamacare and government is not the answer. Removing government from healthcare and letting the free market function is the answer. 

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    7 years ago

You say already wealthy what about those that are just now becoming wealthy and those that will become wealthy in the future? How will they avoid these Obamacare taxes? 

By simply choosing between UHC/Single Payer at a lower rate than the current premiums or Private Health Insurance, also at a lower rate as these insurers will have to become competitive.

For me I believe the person using the insurance should be the one that pays for their own insurance.

Dean, that's what I just wrote and have been advocating from day one.

No subsidies that steal from the successful and give to the beach bums. No forcing businesses to supply healthcare and no payroll taxes that make us less competitive in the global marketplace. 

Reality is so easy when one pigeon holes what he sees as a demographic satisfying his stereotype. And how many times have I advocated taking health insurance off of the employer … with UHC/SINGLE PAYER being the most sensible way to do just that?

 
 
 
sixpick
Professor Quiet
link   sixpick    7 years ago

This comment refers back up to my comment, Buzz comment and Amac's comment.

1st my comment:

I put forth no opinion at this time one way or the other.  I have other ideas, but not enough time to deal with them at this time.  This is just an article I ran across.  I want to know what is true and what isn't.
 
I figured maybe Buzz could inform me.  I will now in this comment put the article in the comment.  I didn't do it before because it would not format properly and I didn't fill like screwing around with it.  After 421 miles and 12 hrs on the road plus the two hrs of already being home, I didn't have a lot of energy left to get more involved.
 
Seems Buzz basically just took offence to the article rather than answered any questions I may of had about it.  I don't blame anyone for defending their countries health care and I also looked at many other articles that put Canada in very good light in many other respects including healthcare, but there were some questions, I apologize for not waiting until today to put up.  I'm not going to spend much time today either since I have to pick up my other car from the doctor after leaving it with him for the last 3 weeks to have a few things done to it I didn't have time to deal with during the last 52,000 miles I put on it last year.  It barely had a chance to stop long enough to take care of some illnesses it developed and I hadn't purchased the second one to drive while it was in the hospital. LOL 
 
Poor thing didn't get much time off to take a rest, but now it should be in tip top condition to be used again as a part time means of transportation.  Forgive me for the off topic, but who cares?
 
Everyone is on edge here anyway and triggers come with each step we make.
 
Here's the body of the article:
 
Before resigning themselves to socialized medicine, flummoxed legislators should consider the experience of our neighbors to the North. In the Netflix series House of Cards, President Frank Underwood campaigned for the White House by telling Americans, “You are entitled to nothing.” The fictional president — a Democrat, no less — was forthright with American voters about the unaffordable and unsustainable structure of America’s entitlement programs, and he was rewarded at the polls. In real-life America, unfortunately, there is no such courageous honesty from the political class. Even many in the Republican party, once the stalwart force fighting against the growth of big government, are now resigned to contemplating a government takeover of the health-care industry in the wake of their failure to repeal and replace Obamacare. Charles Krauthammer, for example, woefully predicts that President Trump will opt for single-payer health care. F. H. Buckley, meanwhile, optimistically calls for Trump to look to the Canadian model of universal coverage. There’s just one problem: The Canadian model of universal coverage is failing. Assessing Canada’s Single-Payer System The Canada Health Act (CHA), introduced in 1984, governs the complicated fiscal agreement between the provinces, who administer health services, and the feds, who manage their health-insurance monopoly and transfer funds to the local governments. Unlike in the United Kingdom, where health care is socialized and hospitals are run by the National Health Service, in Canada health care is technically delivered privately, although given the Kafkaesque regulations and restrictions that govern it, the system is by no means market-based. In fact, Canada’s government-controlled health-care system has become more restrictive than communist China’s. Debates about health-care policy typically revolve around three key metrics: universality, affordability, and quality. Canada passes the first test with flying colors: Every resident of the country is insured under the CHA, with covered procedures free at the point of delivery. While medical providers are independent from the federal government, they are compelled to accept CHA insurance —and nothing else — by a prohibition on accepting payments outside the national-insurance scheme so long as they wish to continue accepting federal health-transfer funds. The spigot of money from Ottawa thus ensures a de facto government monopoly in the health-insurance market. The CHA provides and ensures universal coverage from the top down. In Canada, the government determines what procedures are medically necessary. Bureaucrats, not doctors, decide which procedures and treatments are covered under the CHA — based on data and statistics rather than on the needs of patients. While private insurance does exist — an OECD report found that 75 percent of Canadians have supplementary insurance — it applies only to procedures and services that fall outside the CHA — including dental work, optometric care, and pharmaceutical drugs. When it comes to affordability, the Canadian system also passes, if just barely. Canadians pay for health insurance through their taxes; most never see a medical bill. But that doesn’t mean the system is affordable. Au contraire, it relies almost entirely on current taxpayers to subsidize the disproportionately large health-care needs of elderly Canadians in their final few years of life. Rather than pre-funding the system to deal with the coming tsunami of aging Baby Boomers, Canada’s provincial governments pay and borrow as they go — and rank among the most indebted sub-sovereign borrowers in the world. According to Don Drummond, an economist appointed by Ontario’s Liberal government to help fix its finances, Canada’s largest province is projected to see health-care costs soar to the point where they will consume 80 percent of the entire provincial budget by 2030, up from 46 percent in 2010. In the meantime, to address scarcity in the health-care system, government central planners ration care and cap the number of procedures offered in a given year, leading to queues, longer wait times, and a deterioration in the quality of care. Speaking of which#…# #…#When it comes to the final metric, quality of care, Canada lags behind most other developed Western nations. A 2014 report by the Commonwealth Fund ranked Canada tenth out of eleven wealthy countries (ahead of only the United States) in health-care quality, and dead last in timeliness of care. The report showed that 29 percent of adult Canadians who fell ill and needed to see a specialist waited two months or longer, and 18 percent waited four months or longer, compared with 6 percent and 7 percent of Americans, respectively. Canada’s quality of care is poor, and it continues to deteriorate in the face of a looming fiscal crunch and further rationing.
 
In Canada’s single-payer system, citizens cannot pay directly for procedures, and they cannot purchase private insurance to cover services provided by the CHA. They must instead wait in line or seek health-care services outside the country.
 
The System’s Mysteriously Enduring Popularity Canadian health-care outcomes are relatively poor, and yet the state-controlled system is beloved by Canadians. A 2012 poll by Leger Marketing in Montreal found that 94 percent of Canadians consider universal health care “an important source of collective pride.” The reasons for this are complicated. First, there is a well-propagated, pernicious myth that Canadians are pioneers in health care, and that access to care is a basic human right. The universality of the system has become a key part of Canada’s national identity, thanks in no small part to propagandists who ignore the widespread suffering wrought by the CHA in order to paint the country as some sort of socialist utopia. Second, the system’s costs are hidden. Many Canadians — and many progressives abroad — like to think that health care is “free” in Canada, when in fact, Canadian taxpayers pay, on average, $10,500 per year for all their health-care needs. Canadians simply have no concept of how much the services they consume cost, since the CHA prohibits providers from ever showing patients a bill. Finally, there is the fact that Canada’s single-payer system is made possible only by an accident of geography: It is propped up by the U.S. health-care industry next door, which provides a parallel private system for very sick and very rich Canadians while acting as the driving force for global medical innovation. Ultimately, the antidote for Canada’s poor health outcomes and long wait times has been for Canadians to seek care elsewhere. Don’t take my word for it. A few years ago, Dr. Martin Samuels, the founder of the neurology department at Harvard’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital, wrote in Forbes about his experiences as a visiting professor in Canada: The reason the Canadian health-care system works as well as it does (and that is not by any means optimal) is because 90 percent of the population is within driving distance of the United States where the privately insured can be Seattled, Minneapolised, Mayoed, Detroited, Chicagoed, Clevelanded, and Buffaloed, thus relieving the pressure by the rich and influential to change a system that works well enough for the other people but not for them, especially when they are worried or in pain. In the United States, there is no analogous safety valve, so the influential simply demand a different level of care and receive it. In other words, Canada’s rigid state monopoly on health insurance works only because Canadians secretly have a private alternative: America’s market-based system. It isn’t just “rich and influential” Canadians who seek treatment in the U.S., either. In a recent government document obtained by the Toronto Star, five stem-cell-transplant directors laid out the “crisis” in Ontario, revealing that “the health ministry approved more than $100 million in spending recently to redirect hundreds of patients who will probably die waiting for transplants in Ontario to hospitals in Cleveland, Buffalo, and Detroit.” Likewise, a recent report from the Fraser Institute, Canada’s leading public-policy think tank, estimated that more than 52,000 Canadians received medical treatment outside of Canada in 2014. Canadians might like their single-payer health-care system in theory, but in practice, large numbers of them are going elsewhere for care. Universal Suffering As previously mentioned, the three key indicators to consider in evaluating a health-care system are universality, affordability, and quality. It’s often said that you can have two out of the three, but you cannot have all three. The Canadian model offers universality, affordability, and the illusion of quality. But an illusion is all it is: The more closely you look, the worse the quality of Canadian health care appears. As policymakers in Washington continue to debate the future of American health care, they might want to consider another quote from the cynical President Underwood before giving in to temptation, following Canada’s lead, and pursuing a single-payer system: “Pay attention to the fine print. It’s far more important than the selling price.”

Read more at:
 
 
The red and especially the one orange sentences are the ones I'm interested in.   I don't know the answers.  I have read where California was going to take off on their own and cover everyone with single payer, but it would take more money to do it than the state could afford, since it was more than their entire budget or available funds after raising taxes to cover it.  Now I don't know if that is true.
 
Now I do know that Canada's population is only about 10% of the population of the USA.
I do know that if you put Canada, England and Australia together they still have only 1/3 of the population of the USA.
 
I could care less about how good or bad Canada's healthcare is as far as if it is any of my business to concern myself whether they have it right or wrong.
 
I would prefer no one in this country has to go without health care and I can see where that is the case sometimes, if you consider routine healthcare.  Being able to go to the emergency room doesn't compare to being able to go to the doctor regularly or when desired or needed.
 
We can't just throw figures up in the air and assume they are correct.  Does anyone know how much the total cost of healthcare would be in this country?  How much was spent by individuals and by other means last year in this country for every procedure that was performed?  If we know that, we can start to access the total cost of single payer.
 
We already know everyone who works above the table pays some payroll taxes.  My payroll taxes are nearly insignificant relative to the Federal and State taxes I pay and have gone up significantly over the last few years.  If a person isn't working then we don't have to assume how much they are providing toward the cost of single payer.  This doesn't mean I think they should go without healthcare.
 
I can understand the feelings of those who I share about this whole matter.  The more the government provides to the people, the more control over the people the government has.  We've seen it over and over, government intervention has driven the cost of products and services up.  Once people start to get what they consider to be free is not free at all, someone is paying for it, but as I've seen many times when people start to receive free stuff, it is hell trying to get them to cut back or give anything up.
 
Can anyone tell me how many people in the USA were on disability for every year over the last 20 years?  If you can, please do it.  It's not difficult to see the propaganda, as subtle as it is, can be propagated to the masses to promote an agenda.  You only get to see what they want you to see and it will be designed to promote an agenda.  I'm sure a lot of information is available, but a lot of things I would like to know, I just don't know how to find it or maybe it is not available.
 
I know CEO's receive huge salaries plus stock, but I assure you they don't receive 30% of your premiums.
 
I expect the end result will be a combination of private and public as it is in Australia.  There are too many people who can't afford the current rates for insurance for one reason or another.  There are too many people who have been sold on the idea Capitalism is bad and Socialism is good, especially in the younger generation and those who spent their productive years working for the government or through unions.
 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur  replied to  sixpick   7 years ago

Unlike the author's bogus contention, namely that Single Payer/UHC is "SOCIALIZED MEDICINE," on the very face of such a contention, IT IS A FALSEHOOD!

HEALTH INSURANCE IS NOT MEDICINE -- SOCIALIZED OR OTHERWISE! It is a way to pay for medical care, and, to thus characterize it for the ill and the uninformed who fall prey to the right-wing legislative liars and their insurance company underwriters, is to do precisely what the strategy behind such a mischaracterization … SUCH AN INSIDIOUS LIE … intends.

It's a McCarthyism tactic to sucker the willingly gullible and the poorly educated needers-of-scapegoats-and-boogymen to falsely validate and justify their arguments with reality!

Where INSURERS ACTUALLY DO GET INVOLVED WITH "MEDICINE," is when they find ways to deny coverage … WHEN THEY ALLOW AMERICANS TO LIVE WITH CHRONIC PAIN, OR, TO DIE … 

… FOR A FUCKING DOLLAR!

The fool who cheers for the con man because that con has promised to take away the fool's health insurance and piss on the Black POTUS' legacy … is a pathetic sap who can't get out of the way of his own ugly delusions regarding who he believes are the REAL AMERICANS -- and who are not!

Ironically, should any of them die because their Mr. Trump conned them and screwed them … and they fell for it … they will, in a way, in their demise, prove their anti-Christ, Charles Darwin, was a prophet!

ADAPT OR PERISH!

And please, don't anyone embarrass yourself by responding with a quip and a LOL …

… because if you do, you will merely reinforce my positions.*

___________________________________________

* Thanking those of you who will do it anyway … in advance.

 

 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
link   Buzz of the Orient  replied to  sixpick   7 years ago

"Seems Buzz basically just took offence to the article rather than answered any questions I may of had about it."

I actually resent your smear that all I did was take offence.

This is what you asked - it was your ONLY question:

"I want to know what is true and what isn't."

That is what I answered, point by point (often by actual example), by showing that the article was misleading, biased and in places absolute bullshit.

I still consider you a friend, in fact a very helpful one, notwithstanding this issue.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
link   Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Buzz of the Orient   7 years ago

@ Sixpick:

Had you opened and read this link: "80 percent of the entire provincial budget by 2030"  in the article wherein you wanted to know what was true or not, you would have seen this report: 

"CHARTING A PATH TO SUSTAINABLE HEALTH CARE IN ONTARIO
 10 proposals to restrain cost growth without compromising quality of care"

which had been requested by the Ontario government and provided, among others, to prevent Ontario's health care from becoming unaffordable:

It contained this paragraph, among others:

"PRESERVING PUBLICLY FUNDED MODEL, PROMOTING PRIVATE SECTOR INVOLVEMENT

An important message underpins the ten recommendations: meaningful reforms can be achieved within the current publicly-funded system.

However it is worth making a few points about the private sector’s role in our health care system.

We urge the expansion of private sector involvement in the provision of health care. As long as the public can use their OHIP card, we believe they would probably support the underlying services being provided in whatever manner is most efficient.

The reality is the private sector already plays an important role in our health care system through the supply of pharmaceuticals, home and long-term facilities, diagnostic equipment, and various contract services.

We challenge the government to open the door more widely for private sector involvement, not only to improve efficiencies, but also to capitalize on the huge economic potential in building a vibrant health care sector in Ontario.

Having said that, we are more cautious about increasing options for consumers to purchase health care services outside the publicly-funded system. Our health care system is largely funded through public money to pay for “medically necessary” services.

Private financing would allow consumers to pay for the same medical services themselves, perhaps using different providers.
 
A shift to private financing could certainly reduce government spending on healthcare, but lessons abroad show that negative effects could arise.

For this reason, this is not a centerpiece of our reform package.
 
Yet, as we point out in the report, there is merit in carrying out limited experimentation under certain restrictions that would minimize risks to access and quality of care."

In other words, there is already a mix of private and public participaion in the system, and expanding the private participation is suggested.  I believe that woud also work in the USA. 

I do therefore have to amend my "absolutely free" explanation for an example of private sector participation that I paid cash for.  When I got a regular annual medical checkup with my doctor, he had in his clinic a lab department that took blood and urine samples, had them tested, and provided a report to the doctor. That cost me CDN$20.  It didn't break me, nor would it have broken anyone else.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
Professor Quiet
link   Dean Moriarty    7 years ago

Ronald Reagan saw the handwriting on the wall. He was right then and he is right now. 

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
Professor Quiet
link   Dean Moriarty  replied to  Dean Moriarty   7 years ago

Milton Friedman one of the great minds of the 20th century also saw through the bs. 

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur  replied to  Dean Moriarty   7 years ago

And look who he advised …

Friedman was an advisor to  Republican  U.S. President  Ronald Reagan  and  Conservative  British Prime Minister  Margaret Thatcher .

Not exactly champions of the working person.

Just one more "I got mine -- fuck everyone else" conservative.

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   Petey Coober  replied to  A. Macarthur   7 years ago

Thanks for demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the real issues . Keep those liberal blinders on . We can't have you breaking out of your bias box ...

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur  replied to  Petey Coober   7 years ago

 

Thanks for demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the real issues . Keep those liberal blinders on . We can't have you breaking out of your bias box ...

Other than your usual pronouncement and personal slam, might YOU demonstrate YOUR real understanding of the issue-at-hand …

… BY ACTUALLY DISCUSSING ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE-AT-HAND?

The nearest you ever come to imparting actual information, is to raise a question that takes us away from any given issue-at-hand.

 
 
 
sixpick
Professor Quiet
link   sixpick  replied to  A. Macarthur   7 years ago

… BY ACTUALLY DISCUSSING ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE-AT-HAND?

Kind of like you?  Amac, you didn't even read my last comment before making yours.  If you had read it and had responded to my comment as a discussion you would have never responded to me the way you did.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  sixpick   7 years ago

He never engages except in arrogant condescending progressives dogma personally attacking all who don't share his point of view.  Friedman was a great economist with ideas that were all about maintaining a strong 💪 middle class.  

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur  replied to  XXJefferson51   7 years ago

He never engages except in arrogant condescending progressives dogma personally attacking all who don't share his point of view.  Friedman was a great economist with ideas that were all about maintaining a strong 💪 middle class.

The poorly informed usually regard specific knowledge as a manifestation of arrogance!

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur  replied to  sixpick   7 years ago

Six,

Every publication like the National Review skews and slants and puts down UHC as proxies for private insurers and Republican con artists who will oppose any plan that fails to achieve the objective of diverting money to the wealthy.

You assumed I did not read your post ... that also assumes that I am not knowledgable otherwise to know the right-wing company lines designed to achieve an insidious deception.

Until you et al list the specifics of any actually proposed UHC/Single Payer plan and tell what specifically your objections, we are not discussing the same things.

 

 

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   Petey Coober  replied to  A. Macarthur   7 years ago

BY ACTUALLY DISCUSSING ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE-AT-HAND?

I have rarely ever seen you do anything resembling "discussion" . Massive cut & paste ops which are far too detailed but still disputable do not count . However , if you have an actual question to ask to get the discussion ball rolling , have at it ...

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur  replied to  Petey Coober   7 years ago

Massive cut & paste ops which are far too detailed but still disputable do not count .

Just an excuse to not do your homework and participate in an actual discussion.

If it's far too detailed for you, how would you know if the information or source is disreputable?

 

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   Petey Coober  replied to  A. Macarthur   7 years ago

Just an excuse to not do your homework and participate in an actual discussion.

If it's far too detailed for you, how would you know if the information or source is disreputable?

Your history of spreading false propaganda precedes your cut/paste jobs ... Here's my suggestion : Try summarizing info once in a while IN YOUR OWN WORDS ! What ? Too much work ?!

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur  replied to  Petey Coober   7 years ago

Massive cut & paste ops which are far too detailed but still disputable do not count .

Just an excuse to not do your homework and participate in an actual discussion.

If it's far too detailed for you, how would you know if the information or source is disreputable?

 

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    7 years ago

He never engages except in arrogant condescending progressives dogma personally attacking all who don't share his point of view.  Friedman was a great economist with ideas that were all about maintaining a strong 💪 middle class.

The poorly informed usually regard specific knowledge as a manifestation of arrogance!

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  A. Macarthur   7 years ago

Yet secular progressives are both poorly informed and arrogant.  Their ignorance of what their non bicoastal ivory tower non limousine liberal heartland 🇺🇸 Americans knows no bounds nor does their smug condescending arrogant intolerance of flyover America.  

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur  replied to  XXJefferson51   7 years ago

Only the smallest of minds thinks in stereotypical genearalities and demagoguery.

Again with the arrogance thing; those who are intimidated by individuals with facts stated articulately, find their reasoning and knowledge to be arrogant, while finding the truly arrogant to be their heroes.

The Trumps of the world have no pearls to cast; instead, they toss red meat and intellectual garbage to fill the void where complicated thoughts die of loneliness.

 

 
 

Who is online

Ronin2
Outis


87 visitors