New ‘Medicare-for-all’ bill would largely outlaw private insurance

[0nelilreb]

Yes! I want a brand new F150 Platinum and I think the Gov should sale these at a $5,000 cap.


Am I doing it right?

I hope you are cause I sure would like one of those

 

[luthervol]

Reading back through here it seems we are talking about Dr.s in the general sense and the care you get when you or if you will be able to see them in their offices under a national health care system . What I’m not seeing if talk of hospitals , labs , interns , residents and nurses . @kiddiedoc i believe was talking about misdiagnosed patients and writing books about it , you could write two novels on what interns and residents overorder , miss or misdiagnose in hospitals . Is there one person on here that thinks when you nationalize health care that you will get better care in hostipals or even the level care you are getting now . What would Keep hospitals from just turning into VA programs ?

I think we would get at least equal care if not better. There are people, is hard as it may be for some of you to comprehend, that go into the healthcare profession not to get rich, but to make a decent living while actually helping other people to a better or more comfortable life.
I think ridding the system of the ones who prioritize personal enrichment above the true calling of helping others would only benefit the system.

Feel free to ridicule what you perceive to be my naive idealism.

 

[tennvols77]

Wrong Luth, prioritizing personal enrichment both mentally and monetarily when achieved by decent, ethical, and moral people only leads to greater pay back to the community and people.

Charity begins at home, and when you can fulfill that obligation then you can begin to give and try and make those around you and in your community better off with your money that makes charity possible. Aside from your time, money is the best thing to help and make changes.

Anyone in the medical universe already has decency and that little voice inside that says I care, aside from the money, this is a constant. Crazy enough, the majority of people who do go into any medical field do so because of experience with sick and ill family or friends at young ages, thus, the calling to go into a medical field.

Your mistake is in understanding the human and that unfortunatley, there are some who no matter what, will not, and will never believe in decency and generosity and trying to do more for others than themselves.

Money isn't the devil or evil or issue preventing decent people.

 

[utvolpj]

Prove it

Which part? The part about idiotic defense spending or democracy at the end of a gun? Actually surprised either need explaining to anyone

 

[0nelilreb]

I think we would get at least equal care if not better. There are people, is hard as it may be for some of you to comprehend, that go into the healthcare profession not to get rich, but to make a decent living while actually helping other people to a better or more comfortable life.
I think ridding the system of the ones who prioritize personal enrichment above the true calling of helping others would only benefit the system.

Feel free to ridicule what you perceive to be my naive idealism.

I won’t ridicule you for that , some of what you say is true but just some . For some they got into healthcare to help others , for some they got into it to help others and make good money , then some still who see the end result as big money and that’s the goal . The problem you have is .. when you take the incentive away from those last two groups do you have enough of group one to maintain the status you have now or to even improve on it , most will say No. some will say yes ( you ) but you are betting on people’s lives . Hospitals like any business provides a service , anytime you tinker with or decentivize a business the service will suffer . Logic dictates services will suffer when we go to this ,now you just have to try and figure out where it will happen .

 

[Vol8188]

How many people didn't see this coming? The ACA was just the first step in a nationalized single payor healthcare system. There were even those at the time of passage that knew it would fail and the government could get what they wanted all along.

Ayn Rand was the first to open my eyes to this. The left pushes policies they know will lead to failure. So they can then blame that failure on capitalism.

 

[TheDeeble]

How many people didn't see this coming? The ACA was just the first step in a nationalized single payor healthcare system. There were even those at the time of passage that knew it would fail and the government could get what they wanted all along.

Pretty sure that was pointed out years ago as soon as details about ACA became public. This won't work, and when it fails the Dem party will just use that failure to push for nationalized health care.

The D's knew it would fail, but they wanted to get something, anything with govt healthcare passed. Once you get it into the system it's near impossible to get it out.

 

[BeecherVol]

If they still have private insurance it shouldn't be a problem, right?

Oh, thats not perfect either. Which happens to be the point.

 

[BeecherVol]

We can trust them for really realz this go round???

The magic trick with taxes will make some feel better.

 

[USMC-TNVOL]

Medical errors are not going to decrease when we overwork these doctors by flooding the market with newly insured patients. If anything, Medicare for all will make the problem worse.

One simple answer the problem you’re mentioning is to change the way medical residents (I believe that’s the correct term). Many of them will work 24 hour shifts (possibly longer). Greatly increasing the odds of a major error.

And yes we do get what we pay for. If you want to survive cancer, this is the best place to be.

Cancer Survival: The Start of Global Surveillance | CDC

Seems there’s a 1-2% difference in cancer survival rates. Not a big difference. Cancer is a huge thing and a money maker for the industry so of course their going to test as much as possible to find cancer. You will also pay a ton of money for it and may go bankrupt in the process. No other comparable countries that provide healthcare can you go bankrupt. An estimate I saw said 62% of bankruptcies are from medical costs in the U.S.

 

[Vol8188]

Cancer Survival: The Start of Global Surveillance | CDC

Seems there’s a 1-2% difference in cancer survival rates. Not a big difference. Cancer is a huge thing and a money maker for the industry so of course their going to test as much as possible to find cancer. You will also pay a ton of money for it and may go bankrupt in the process. No other comparable countries that provide healthcare can you go bankrupt. An estimate I saw said 62% of bankruptcies are from medical costs in the U.S.

If I’m the one with cancer, I’ll take the extra 2%.

And your bankruptcy stat is a well known misuse of statistics. 62% of bankruptcies are people who have medical debt. The study in no way proved causation. Bankruptcy is obviously caused by multiple factors (job, credit cards, mortgage, etc).

Exposing the Myth of Widespread Medical Bankruptcies

 

[hog88]

If I’m the one with cancer, I’ll take the extra 2%.

And your bankruptcy stat is a well known misuse of statistics. 62% of bankruptcies are people who have medical debt. The study in no way proved causation. Bankruptcy is obviously caused by multiple factors (job, credit cards, mortgage, etc).

Exposing the Myth of Widespread Medical Bankruptcies

I'll gladly pay for that extra 2% chance every day.

 

[LouderVol]

It's a point if contention that we are unable to keep many of the doctors we train in America. Maybe they are just tired of dealing with insurance companies.

How to reverse the medical brain drain

I couldnt find net numbers, but it seems we, the US, are net importers of doctors. there is also a world wide shortage of doctors. so you aren't going to be able to fix it.

 

[Fun coupon VOL]

Which part? The part about idiotic defense spending or democracy at the end of a gun? Actually surprised either need explaining to anyone

The part where we kill people if they don’t agree with us. A few come to mind where this doesn’t apply. Threats, of course, but actual physical force no. Venezuela, North Korea, Russia(could have crushed them right after WWII) would be gone already.

Idiotic spending is giving money to women who have kids outside of marriage and just keep having more to get more money. Providing low income housing for people who are getting paid under the table. Tax credits to corporations which go bankrupt to push an ideology. Representatives being paid(as much as they are currently) is one that burns me up as well.

Defense spending keeps Americans safe, which should be the main objective of the American government. Does it work all the time? No, but it does a pretty good job. Should Americans rely on the government to keep them safe? No. You are responsible for you and your family.

 

[Velo Vol]

Russia(could have crushed them right after WWII) would be gone already.

Not unless we used nuclear weapons.

 

[Fun coupon VOL]

Not unless we used nuclear weapons.

They would have broken in half. Russia would be fighting on two fronts against well season and very well supplied American troops.

If it wasn’t for a couple of horrible errors on the Germans part Stalingrad and Moscow would have been taken. They are lucky Germany opened two fronts or they iterally would have been crushed in months.

 

[utvolpj]

The part where we kill people if they don’t agree with us. A few come to mind where this doesn’t apply. Threats, of course, but actual physical force no. Venezuela, North Korea, Russia(could have crushed them right after WWII) would be gone already.

Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Africa, etc. We're spreading merica in all kinds of places

Idiotic spending is giving money to women who have kids outside of marriage and just keep having more to get more money. Providing low income housing for people who are getting paid under the table. Tax credits to corporations which go bankrupt to push an ideology. Representatives being paid(as much as they are currently) is one that burns me up as well.

defense spending handouts dwarf anything you listed. It's ridiculous bloat that grows every year. I'd rather give it a few unnecessary dollars to some lazy people than billions to the MIC

Defense spending keeps Americans safe, which should be the main objective of the American government. Does it work all the time? No, but it does a pretty good job. Should Americans rely on the government to keep them safe? No. You are responsible for you and your family.

Defense spending does keep us safe. Unfortunately it doesn't make the MIC enough money so we have to play a lot of offense too. If we stick to what the Constitution allows then we could chop that budget to pieces

 

[Fun coupon VOL]

Not unless we used nuclear weapons.

Also, the casualties the Russian suffered during the conflict with Germany, would put them at an extreme disadvantage.

The air support Americans could provide on both fronts would have been insurmountable for the Russians.

 

[Fun coupon VOL]

Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Africa, etc. We're spreading merica in all kinds of places
defense spending handouts dwarf anything you listed. It's ridiculous bloat that grows every year. I'd rather give it a few unnecessary dollars to some lazy people than billions to the MIC

Defense spending does keep us safe. Unfortunately it doesn't make the MIC enough money so we have to play a lot of offense too. If we stick to what the Constitution allows then we could chop that budget to pieces

Does anyone know how much of the defense budget is paid out in salaries, which in turn is paid back to U.S via income taxes?

I’m all for not giving the UN and other countries who don’t have a defense budgets our wallet. If we start there I could agree on cutting the defense budget.

 

[Velo Vol]

They would have broken in half. Russia would be fighting on two fronts against well season and very well supplied American troops.

If it wasn’t for a couple of horrible errors on the Germans part Stalingrad and Moscow would have been taken. They are lucky Germany opened two fronts or they iterally would have been crushed in months.

Even with an air force I don't see how the U.S. could have supplied a two front attack on Russia (unless you mean east and south).

At any rate the Germans took a lot of territory from Russia in the first year, because Russia was completely unprepared for the war. But by 1943 it really ramped up military production and defeated the bulk of the German army.

I'm not saying America couldn't have defeated Russia. But it would have a tremendously bloody and expensive war. Hundreds of thousands of casualties.

 

[Fun coupon VOL]

Even with an air force I don't see how the U.S. could have supplied a two front attack on Russia (unless you mean east and south).

At any rate the Germans took a lot of territory from Russia in the first year, because Russia was completely unprepared for the war. But by 1943 it really ramped up military production and defeated the bulk of the German army.

I'm not saying America couldn't have defeated Russia. But it would have a tremendously bloody and expensive war. Hundreds of thousands of casualties.

The casualties would have been in the millions.

The Two front attack would be the German border as the first one and the Finish border being the other. Eastern Russia makes no since from a resource stand point but it could be done if traveling by land was required.

Depending on the ice pack a more northern attack could be your 2nd from.

The sheer number of planes in the pacific for the US would present a problem for Russia.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

Khan, Bonaparte, Hitler..none could conquer mainland Russia. They will never be overrun with conventional weapons, just like we couldnt. For much the same reasons...citizens will arm themselves as best they can and fight til their last breaths.

I am anything but pro Russian...but i can respect an adversary and see their strengths rationally. I agree that while we could have probably been the first to take Moscow, many hundreds of thousands of Americans would have paid for it with their lives...to take a country far too large to ever occupy, with very little natural resources and a climate not receptive to our ways of agriculture or production.

Trying to take Russia would have been a massive boondoggle, and weakened us to the point that i dont think we could have ever had the postwar boom that catapulted our country out in front of the rest of the world from a development and quality of life standpoint. There simply wouldnt have been enough able bodied men to industrialize, innovate, reproduce, and grow our economy and lifestyle. Those men would all be buried in Europe. JMO TIFIWIW

 

[USMC-TNVOL]

If I’m the one with cancer, I’ll take the extra 2%.

And your bankruptcy stat is a well known misuse of statistics. 62% of bankruptcies are people who have medical debt. The study in no way proved causation. Bankruptcy is obviously caused by multiple factors (job, credit cards, mortgage, etc).

Exposing the Myth of Widespread Medical Bankruptcies

Regardless, medical costs are an issue whether you agree or not. About 18% of GDP is health costs which is much higher than other countries. You can defend the menial 1-2% but it’s basically a negligible difference. Easily within a margin of error. While we may have a small advantage with cancer survival rates, our death rates for many other diseases are higher.

 

[Vol8188]

Regardless, medical costs are an issue whether you agree or not. About 18% of GDP is health costs which is much higher than other countries. You can defend the menial 1-2% but it’s basically a negligible difference. Easily within a margin of error. While we may have a small advantage with cancer survival rates, our death rates for many other diseases are higher.

If the reason for our survival rates being higher were a “margin of error” it wouldn’t be consistent annually.

Americans die the most of heart disease. That’s not an issue of quality of care, nor lack of care. It’s actually an issue of wealth.

 

[tumscalcium]

If the reason for our survival rates being higher were a “margin of error” it wouldn’t be consistent annually.

Americans die the most of heart disease. That’s not an issue of quality of care, nor lack of care. It’s actually an issue of wealth.

But, like, with Medicare for all we’ll be a healthy populace.

-Mick