Healthcare. The problem? Two major parties want it both ways.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Well, I will be honest, it has been years, like 6 years, since I have even been to a doctor. So, I can't really speak to how it is now, but it was illegal for a hospital to refuse medical attention based on ability/inability to pay in my state. I really don't know how it is now.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Also, when my parents were sick with cancer, there were charitable hospitals such as M.D Anderson and others, that covered medical costs. We have options, but a lot of them aren't very well known.

My parents were below poverty level, so they qualified for aid that would probably be difficult for most people to get.

originally posted by: SpeakerofTruth
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Also, when my parents were sick with cancer, there were charitable hospitals such as M.D Anderson and others, that will cover medical costs. We have options, but a lot of them aren't very well known.

Thats great that there is a lifeline, what percentage of people that are sick and cannot pay would be able to receive this assistance though ?

Too many people are falling through the cracks there, your insurance rates get higher and higher everytime someone without money or insurance receive medical assistance, those insurance rates climb, that is the reality of single payer care, you end up paying for everyone else regardless.

It is a far better system where everybody pays a little bit and everyone gets the help they need, as opposed to fewer people pay more for the same frigging end result.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Oh, I agree. There's a huge problem here. I'm just saying, we have alternatives. The biggest obstacle is that a lot of those alternatives aren't very well known and people don't really ask questions anymore, so most are none the wiser as to what is or isn't available to them.

As I stated, there's a lot of aid that's probably not available to most people who are above the poverty level. That's really the only reason my parents qualified for the aid they received. They were well below the poverty level.

Yeah here's the deal: cronyism. The reason it's called obama-CARE is that Obama wanted to show how much he "cared" in other words owns the f@$^ out of everything. No one wanted that cause it was blatantly oozing yuck. I actually agree that it was hastily implemented and smarmy and it peeved me off watching it all.

Well so republicans screamed and kicked and summoned up all kinds of reasons as to why this was bad half of which were just reactions because here's what they will and can never admit (because politics dummy)::

Republicans are cronies, and yes I said it. They want deals for their own, prizes for their own, sweet specials all for their very own azzes and the azzes, especially the azzes (okay so i went too far this time) of their very own beloved folks.

Cue all these people on the right who actually think the game is somehow different and actually try to follow up on the specifics of election rhetoric as if anyone ever meant it. Why is it somehow different now?

The fault is with factors that existed even before trump got elected. These republicans that want to actually do the will of the people?? You mean you want to get people to admit this? Cute. Oh and you want to keep saying that "the specifics are this!!" "Its not obamacare only its a different name!" Or not complete repeal, etcetera.

Retire to your basements folks you're sounding like you want some kind of change...

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: SpeakerofTruth

The biggest problem they have is that many countries have universal health care ... and it works.

Since when? Where? How universal?

Answers: Never, nowhere, not at all. Talk to Charlie Gard's parents about how universal their kid's care was.

Sapping people's prosperity for a one-size-fits-all mediocre band-aid is not cost effective.

Charlie Gard got excellent care at one of the best children's hospitals in the world. Something acknowledged by his parents.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: pheonix358

Why does the U.S. have to adopt the failed system of Socialist countries? All you need to do is eliminate health insurance companies and prices will come down to affordable levels.

How would someone with long-term healthcare requirements pay without insurance?

originally posted by: Metallicus
Why does the U.S. have to adopt the failed system of Socialist countries?

Failed? Only in your dreams. Having healthcare without having to worry if you can afford it or who should be your provider is a worry people in developed countries don't have.

And it's well known that, despite how expensive it is, the American health system is not one of the best, and it fails to be as good as many countries with socialized healthcare, such as the UK,Switzerland, Singapore, New Zealand, Sweden, Finland etc etc etc.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Sapping people's prosperity for a one-size-fits-all mediocre band-aid is not cost effective.

Mediocre? Have you seen all the rankings? They all show the same thing: the US system is one of the worst and it's too expensive whilst those countries with universal free healthcare have the best systems.

WHO healthcare.

The Lancet.

Legatum.

I can go on and on............

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: pheonix358

Why does the U.S. have to adopt the failed system of Socialist countries? All you need to do is eliminate health insurance companies and prices will come down to affordable levels.

How would someone with long-term healthcare requirements pay without insurance?

I'm going with universal healthcare, I would have preferred a multiple choice but, this will do.

..-

.

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: Metallicus
Why does the U.S. have to adopt the failed system of Socialist countries?

Failed? Only in your dreams. Having healthcare without having to worry if you can afford it or who should be your provider is a worry people in developed countries don't have.

And it's well known that, despite how expensive it is, the American health system is not one of the best, and it fails to be as good as many countries with socialized healthcare, such as the UK,Switzerland, Singapore, New Zealand, Sweden, Finland etc etc etc.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Sapping people's prosperity for a one-size-fits-all mediocre band-aid is not cost effective.

Mediocre? Have you seen all the rankings? They all show the same thing: the US system is one of the worst and it's too expensive whilst those countries with universal free healthcare have the best systems.

WHO healthcare.

The Lancet.

Legatum.

I can go on and on............

I think you should go on and on, keep going on and on till it sinks in .

The only reason the member thinks it is a failed system is because that is what he has been led to believe and you can guarantee that comes from (wait for it) the media, who as we all know have our best interests at heart.

originally posted by: mericks74


Retire to your basements folks you're sounding like you want some kind of change...

Yeah, that would be nice. I keep hearing promises of it, but have yet to see anything REAL.

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: SpeakerofTruth

The biggest problem they have is that many countries have universal health care ... and it works.

Whu the hell they can't send a couple of Senators to each of the countries with universal health care ... to have a gander at the system working ... and have a holiday at the same time ... on the tax payers ... is beyond me.

The problem is they have their heads stuck so far up each others butts ... they could not do something meaningful.

The real problem is that your reps take money from the involved corporations ... sorry ... they are just donations ... and this is the real problem.

So ........ fix up the swamp first .... then get great health care.

P

Because someone would have to prepared to have their profit margins constrained.

There are private hospitals in Europe. But they have agreed pay rates with the government so that they can treat national healthcare patients. The private doctors in the USA wouldn't like that. Nor would the insurance companies as it would put them out of business.