Try 3 months for $3

In 2009, before Obamacare, a Harvard study estimated that 45,000 Americans died annually because they didn’t have health insurance.

Steven Weiss

Weiss

Obamacare has shrunk the ranks of the uninsured from 50 million then to less than 29 million now — meaning that 8.8 percent of the country’s 327 million people still run the risk of premature death.

And lack of health insurance is the leading cause of personal bankruptcy, a uniquely American problem.

We spend far more on health care than any other nation — in 2017, 18 percent of GDP, a whopping $3.5 trillion, projected to exceed $5 trillion by 2023. Despite this huge sum, we lag other countries in health outcomes, including life expectancy and infant mortality.

Why do we pay so much and receive so little? As anyone who’s received a bill from a doctor’s office or hospital knows, they’re complicated. Thirty cents of every health-care dollar goes to profit and administration, a percentage that dwarfs all other nations.

Half of health-care spending goes to 5 percent of Americans. In this group of chronically ill patients, best practices are often not followed, and complex care may be poorly coordinated, including end-of-life care delivered in an Intensive Care Unit, which may be both medically futile and undesired by the dying patient.

Costly overtreatment isn’t limited to ICU settings.

It’s both wrong and wasteful to subject patients to care that can’t help them, whether it’s unnecessary antibiotics or surgery when watchful waiting is a better alternative.

Such care is rooted in outmoded habits, supply-driven doctor behaviors and ignoring science. Our current patchwork health-care system doesn’t do enough to encourage appropriate care.

Ever wonder why you can get the same drug in Canada for a fraction of its cost here? Because our government is prohibited from negotiating drug prices with pharmaceutical companies.

Why an MRI or a CT scan here costs several times more than the same exam in Europe? Blame a lack of price transparency and competitive markets.

So the time is right for HR 1384, introduced in the U.S. House Feb. 27 by Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, D-Washington, and 106 co-sponsors.

The bill would cover all Americans, irrespective of whether they’re employed. (Employer-based insurance is an American historical anomaly; companies offered health insurance to lure soldiers returning from World War II.)

Under HR 1384, patients would not be responsible for cost sharing of medical expenses. Coverage would include hospitals, doctors, preventive care, prescription meds, dental and vision care, and mental health and addiction treatment.

Unlike a recent similar bill, nursing home care is also rolled in. Private insurers would be prohibited from competing with the government plan, though they could offer packages for non-covered items like cosmetic surgery.

How would it be paid for? A national health budget would be developed. There will be taxes, offset by reductions, for individuals, in insurance premiums, co-pays and deductibles. The government would negotiate drug prices with the companies that manufacture them.

Because company-provided insurance would go away, workers should expect higher salaries. No longer will people be tethered to a job because of having insurance there. Employers won’t have to worry about the year-to-year unpredictability of insurance premiums.

Opponents will decry what they will deem a “government takeover” of health care. But the only such takeover in HR 1384 concerns who pays the bills, and the government — Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA — already pays nearly two-thirds of health-care costs. The existing infrastructure of hospitals and clinics and medical schools will be unaffected.

The outcry from vested interests will show that HR 1384 will indeed cut costs. Remember Harry and Louise? Expect to see similar deceptive advertising. On the right, Sarah Palin’s death panels will be back in vogue, giving palliative care a bad name.

Our conservative friends advocate a society of equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. But when tens of thousands of our fellow citizens die annually because they lack health insurance, can we say that we’re providing equal opportunity?

Annual health-care spending exceeds $10,000 for each American, and it’s going up. Are you getting your money’s worth?

Please contact Congressman Ron Kind and encourage his support of HR 1384, and encourage Sens. Baldwin and Johnson to advocate for similar legislation in the Senate.

Subscribe to Breaking News

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.

Steven Weiss of Altoona is an internist at Mayo Clinic Health System in Eau Claire, where he has practiced 30 years. He was the primary author for this piece after contributions from other members of our newly organized Western Wisconsin Chapter of Physicians for National Healthcare Program. Co-signors include Mark Neumann, MD, La Crosse; Lonnie Simmons, MD, La Crosse; Ralph Knudson, MD, La Crosse; Steve Manson, MD, La Crosse; Erin Gutowski, DO, La Crosse; Steve Brown, MD, Menomonie; Diane Brown, RN, Menomonie; Taryn Lawler, DO, Viroqua; Craig Brooks, Buffalo City.

0
0
0
0
0

(80) comments

crank

I don't believe I have ever seen a coroner's death certificate or an autopsy report which listed "lack of insurance" as cause or manner of death. The Harvard 'estimate' to which Weiss refers is, in a word, silly. He goes on to talk about how Obamacare reduced the number of uninsured from 55 million to ~29 million but doesn't bother to estimate the number of deaths 'caused' by lack of insurance to show that more people having insurance reduced the number of deaths 'caused' by lack of insurance. He continues saying 327 million people risk premature death...

He does touch on some important things, however. The inefficiencies... These are a product of our Federal Government, not insurance companies. Therefore, Medicare for all is not a viable solution to reducing healthcare costs.

martian2

oh that is funny redwall. "lack of insurance" as cause of death. Are you serious! Where on earth would you dig that up? Coroner's have to give medical reasons, technical jargon its called, for cause of death. Their opinion on the healthcare industry in this country is not allowed in the final autopsy report. OH boy, that is scraping the bottom of the desperation barrel with you 8:00 post. Thanks for a good laugh today!

oldhomey

Exactly, martian. I see you attribute this to redwall. Does that mean you think redwall/crank is a multiple screen name poster? Could be. They both are outlandish.

martian2

gosh my oops, hard to tell the difference between the two, if there is any. Come to think of it there isn't.

crank

Yes, "lack of insurance"... That's what was suggested in the very first sentence of this article. I suppose you don't bother to read or understand the articles before posting, oldhomey/martian.

Just go back and read the first sentence. How do you suppose they estimated lack of insurance caused 45,000 people to die if not officially listed as the cause of death? Like so many liberal 'facts', it seems like they made it up.

martian2

omg read my 1:29 post again. The first line tells you how coroners must make out death certificates. Want to know what caused 45,000 deaths, go and google it. It easy to look up. It pops up instantly. don't use it as your argument when you have no idea what it means. do some research. geesh!

oldhomey

Lack of insurance, dear boy, can be traced back as the underlying reason for many people neglecting diseases or injuries for too long to effectively treat them. People die for lack of medical care all the time in this country. Do you doubt it? Look at the studies done by the AMA. I hope you are trying to be facetious with this latest argument of yours, crank. If you are serious, it means you seriously lacking in discerning intelligence.

capedcrusader

Redwall - And Obama's comment was six years ago. Is that the best you got? And - you didn't bother to answer this -


Redwall Mar 13, 2019 10:33pm

$10 million. But for the sake of discussion, lets use your number.

So, how many La Crosse potholes can you fix with $2.5 million? All of them.

Keep the change.
capedcrusader
capedcrusader Mar 15, 2019 10:50am

Where are you getting that $10 million dollar number from? I just pulled up an article from Chris Hubbuch from 3/24/17 and he stated the cost at $2.3 million. Is that an exaggeration on your part kind of like new2lax exaggerating about the number of illegal immigrants at between 11 and 20 million?

Redwall

Dr Detroit said: "Expect to see similar deceptive advertising. On the right, Sarah Palin’s death panels will be back in vogue, giving palliative care a bad name."

Medical costs in the U.S. are higher than in socialist countries largely because we invest in older citizens and others of questionable remaining life which drives costs up. To make socialist medicine affordable (for our government) similar steps would have to be taken in the U.S. limiting availability of healthcare. The Dr's wish would make Palin's death panel worries a reality.

By the way, Sarah Palin? Are you kidding me? That was 10 years ago. Thats the best you can do?

I was going to remind Dr Detroit of Obama's Lie of the Year (2013) "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor". That statement was actually proven to be a lie when millions of insured received cancellation notices and loss of their private healthcare and their customary doctors. How many people did that kill? I cant hear you.

martian2

Tell us redwall, how many did that kill when they had to switch doctors? I like your fear tactics using death panels argument. Another laughable lie, but that never stops you. All countries ration healthcare in some form or fashion. We happen to do it according to an individual's wealth. That is reality, happens all the time. Your lies and fear mongering are so transparent that your arguments are now null and void.

oldhomey

Good Lord, Red! Are you now publicly suggesting that all of the nations in Europe and Japan, Canada and Australia/New Zealand are refusing life-saving care to their elderly populations, killing them off to save on medical costs because -- what the, hey -- they "and others of questionable remaining life" are meaningless in the grand scheme of things, anyway. How is it, then, that they have longer life expectancy than the U.S., and that U.S. life expectancy for males lately has been decreasing? Do you actually think there would be no hue and cry in those nations about negligent care for the elderly, or are do your regard them all such primitive societies that they do not honor their elderly like we do.

You mock somebody for bringing up Sarah Palin's groundless 10-year-old scare tactic of "death panels", but then you in the same breath resurrect the idea that somehow a nationalized health plan will mean death panels. You, sir, are about as good as a pile of dung, which, though, honest about what it is, still is smelly, rotten and to be avoided.

As for "Obama's Lie f the Year (2013)", it was a misstatement of fact for sure. If you want to characterize it as his lie of that year, fair enough. It is about four less lies than
Donald Trump issues daily, which amount to thousands a year. An apt comparison, indeed.

Climatehoax

One point I forgot. No one will ever make all people’s chances in life equal. As long as some receive without effort, or participation, some are being taken advantage of because they are participating, and giving 100% effort, doing what society considers a contributor. When you TAKE unfairly from that ‘contributor’ over a period of time, that person will join the other side, why not? who in their right mind would continue to be taken advantage of? So socialism goes off the rails, and no one has anything, oh except Bernie gets what he says is good for a society, BREAD LINES!

Climatehoax

If health care in some places is half as much as here, that means, Dr’s, administrators, maintenance, house keeping, ALL costs would have to cut in half. I know a Dr who when finished with school, owed a half millio in student loans, good idea, let’s half what they get paid, next problem, NO DR’S! No administrators, I’ve paid my whole life, never been unemployed, do I give up my Medicare or reduce it or pay MORE because someone else hadn’t paid? Stupid column, typical liberal mantra, free, free, free, in reality, MAKE SOME OTHER SUCKER PAY MY WAY.
If liberals spoke the the truth about who pays for free stuff, fewer morons would vote for them.
As Margaret Thatcher once CORRECTLY, proclaimed, the problem with socialism is, “YOU EVENTUALLY RUN OUT OF OTHER PEOPLES MONEY”
How long do you think that will take if AOC pays people who choose not to work, not to long I bet. Liberalism, a disease of their tiny brain

PhysicsIsFun

Here's a newsflash. Medicare is not free when you retire.

Redwall

Nor does the pittance you pay in premiums come close to covering the medical costs you generate.

oldhomey

I paid into it for three decades while still working and was not using it. I continue to pay into it, while younger workers behind me pay into it the way I did to support retirees when I was still working. If we had nationalized healthcare, you would not be so jealous of this arrangement.

Redwall

AOC wont have anything to worry about. Remember, congress exempted themselves from having to suffer with the riff-raff under Obamacare and would no doubt do the same thing under any future plan.

oldhomey

Medical care "in some places" like all of Europe, Canada and Japan is not "half as much" as here, it is MORE that what we have here in terms of services delivered and, more importantly, better health outcomes than here. What is half as much is how much medical care costs for that superior care. HALF AS MUCH as Americans pay. Medical school does not cost a fortune to attend in those nations. Doctors may not be paid as much as they are here, but they are paid handsomely, drive big cars, live in nice houses. WE are the suckers who pay too much for everything, feeding the donkey that is the private insurance industry.

Rick Czeczok

OK all you socialist, how do you pay for all these free, free, free, programs? Even the most conservative experts say it would cost $90,000,000,000,000 (90 trillion) dollars over 10 years. Wishful thinking is one thing but to push for all of these impossibilities for votes is just wrong. Politicians we know are full of it, but telling people this can happen without breaking the bank, is just a blatant lie. Don't fall for it people, it's just to sucker people in for their votes.

oldhomey

Gosh! You must have the most fascinating go-to sources of information, Ricky. I certainly wonder where you got that $90 trillion figure from. I am guessing you will not come back on here and provide that information.

oldhomey

Ricky has grown silent. Can I offer just a little "haha" as a commentary on his non-response?

capedcrusader

He got his feelings hurt on another thread. He hates when you back him into a corner and try to get an honest answer out of him. Then it's name calling, wanting to know who you are, and then skeletons... pathetic really.

668 The Neighbor of the Beast


Finland has long been a Bernie go-to for the glories of socialism. Last year, he enthusiastically gushed over Finland being the “happiest place in the world” because of all its “free” stuff.

Finland has long been touted by American socialists as the socialist Nirvana, where everything is free and everyone is happy, happy, happy. Fiscal reality hit Finland as its entire government resigned Friday due to the rising costs of its universal health care.
It’s not just Finland experiencing such problems with its socialist policies. Other Nordic countries, also touted by American socialists and communists as the model America should follow, are suffering similar economic burdens directly related to their socialist policies.

Reuters reports that soaring treatment costs and longer life spans have particularly affected Nordic countries.

“Nordic countries, where comprehensive welfare is the cornerstone of the social model, have been among the most affected,” according to Reuters. “But reform has been controversial and, in Finland, plans to cut costs and boost efficiency have stalled for years.”

Similar problems are bedeviling Sweden and Denmark, two other countries frequently held up as models to follow on health care. Finland’s crisis in particular comes as calls for universal health care have grown louder among Democrats in the United States.

With the collapse of Finland’s government over its inability to financially support its massive socialist agenda, Bernie will undoubtedly do the same thing he always does when socialism (or communism) fails: ignore, obfuscate, and deflect.

oldhomey

668! Is this a new identity for crank? This 3:04pm post sure reads like crank wrote it. Whether it is or isn't doesn't really matter. It is the usual right-wing bending of reality that stands out.

One of the great arguments for universal healthcare is that statistically those nations that have it pay about half of what the U.S. spends on healthcare but get better results. Now we have 668 arguing: "Reuters reports that soaring treatment costs and longer life spans have particularly affected Nordic countries." I guess he (if 668 is a he) is arguing that taking care of people is too expensive because they just live longer. That is a great humanitarian view.

And 668 sets this up as though Finland is about to collapse because the right-wing government that tried for four years to cut back on the nation's healthcare system failed to do so, so it resigned just before elections were to take place.

Nobody is saying (or at least nobody SHOULD say) that the various universal healthcare plans in all the other industrialized nations of the world run flawlessly. They don't. The require constant tinkering. But 668, if he/she is making the argument that the Finnish healthcare plan is a failure, we need to see the evidence that the Finnish people are clamoring to get rid of it because it is too expensive. It, by the way, per person costs about half of what we as Americans expend on healthcare.

capedcrusader

Ah yes... the return of an old friend I believe. Hopefully more to talk about than Climate and Hillary.

martian2

this i the same b.s. I've been hearing about canada"s health care system for the last forty years. Its going broke, its gong to collapse, its rationing healthcare, the whole country is bankrupt! Those scare tactics have been used over and over again and always proved to be wrong. 668 must be a troll for the health care insurance industry spreading lies and falsehoods. Nice try 668, just not gonna work!

DMoney

Have you personally talked to many Canadians about it?

oldhomey

Well, D, having seen your deep and wide discussions with people of all walks of life on all subjects that you want to defend, I have to assume that you personally have made a point of talking to a huge spectrum of Canadians on their health system. And no doubt you are horrified by how much they hate it.

I have not, I must admit, ever talked to a single Canadian about their national healthcare plan. But there are excellent ways of accessing studies on Canadian opinions on their system, and I have from time to time accessed them. There are problems up there, there are aggravations, but overall Canadians love and cherish the system. They would like to see improvements, but nobody is calling for an American-style healthcare system. Do you think they're crazy?

If you want to access some of this yourself to see if it gibes with your own, painstaking first-hand canvassing of Canadian opinion, get on your computer and look for a search engine called "GOOGLE". Once you find it, type in something like "Canadian public opinion on Canadian healthcare system".

I thought you already knew how to do this, but if you are inferring that the only way to get information like this is to do the canvassing yourself, evidently not.

capedcrusader

There are people from there that "talk about it all the time. Look around and listen for a change.

martian2

oh yes dmoney, I've talked to many Canadians with my numerous trips to that country, and in tourist spots in this country. They all say the same thing, they love their health care system! Is it perfect? No of course not, but they intend to build upon it to make it better. Many I talked to tell stories of their spouse or children stricken with a horrible disease and with the medical treatments they received in their country, were able to be cured and lead a long life. You can see how popular their health care system is with their population, with over 80% approval rating. There are a lot of myths and lies out there about their system of Health care, mostly spread by the right wing and insurance lobby. Want the facts, well here is some data for you to chew on: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/myths-about-canada-us-health-care-debunked-2012-08-09

Climatehoax

Pretty stupid statement when all you had to do was google it and find out that Canadians will come here if they can make it out.

Crossing the Border for Care
Frustrated by long waits, some Canadians are heading to the U.S. for medical treatment.

Canadians Come to America for Better Care
They come to Arizona for six months every winter and get their medical care here, where the wait time is shorter.

Why Canadians Are Increasingly Seeking Medical Treatment Abroad

63,000 Canadians left the country for medical treatment last year: Fraser Institute

It looks like if you can afford it and get here, the US is the place for Canadians to get health care

martian2

another one of your lies hoaxer. Less than 1% of Canadians seek medical care outside their country. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/myths-about-canada-us-health-care-debunked-2012-08-09

oldhomey

I am guessing, martian, that you won't hear back again from Climate on his spurious 6:48pm post.

capedcrusader

Did you stop to think that perhaps many of them that do come are seeking specialized care? Like some people leave Wisconsin to go to the Mayo Clinic in Rochester for something? Have you ever heard of anyone from this country seeking specialized care elsewhere? It does happen. Who gives a crapola as long as you get the care you need?

mocha1

This article looks like it was copied and pasted from all the Obamacare "facts" we were fed. Remember, fact, our insurance premiums would all go done by $2500/year, coverage would increase, we could keep the insurance we liked, even our doctors too. Remember all those facts we were fed, guess it all depends on what your definition of "IS" is.

oldhomey

Obamacare did lower the rate of increase for health insurance coverage considerably, mocha. I have been retired for seven years now, so I can't speak with firsthand knowledge anymore, but I certainly recall the dizzying insurance fee increases in my last 20 years of employment, with the company switching plans every couple of years (often necessitating shifting to new doctors and clinics), reducing benefits while increasing employee contributions significantly.

mocha1

I can speak from first hand knowledge of this errant program. After going onto Obamacare my premiums more than doubled and my deductibles did the same. There was nothing in this whole program that was designed to reduce or control costs. In fact the whole program was built on the assumption young healthy people would pay for insurance they did not need to subsidize the more in need. Never happened. The only people I have seen that like Obamacare are the people that did not have to deal with it.

oldhomey

I am somewhat flummoxed by all the people on here who say they had this experience. I have to wonder what healthcare plan did you people transition off from to get on Obamacare? Was it an employer-plan that your company dropped, forcing you on to Obamacare?

The insurance companies and the right-wingers fought tooth and nail against the mandatory coverage. Had young people been signed up for it and were paying into it, the funding of Obamacare would not have been a problem.

It is no different than the employee health insurance plans when I entered the workforce in the 1960s. The kids in their 20s paid their premiums, and they usually had little need for the insurance for the next ten or twenty years. But as they married or if they -- as happens to a certain percentage of all youth -- had a serious accident or illness, they were happy they had the insurance, saving them from tens of thousands of dollars of bills that would have sunk them hopelessly in debt. And as they went into middle and old age, they needed the insurance with more frequency.

The young paid for the old in commercial insurance, just as they should in a government plan. Boo! I scared you, I suppose, with such communistic talk.

Climatehoax

Lowered the rate of increase? Now I know you’re a politician wanna be. You’re wrong I had an increase immediately when obummycare came out, and this year I had a HUGE increase in my premium. So, I figure I’ll get the same result with the snake oil this fool is trying to pedal. Medicare for all when so many haven’t paid a dime??? Quazillions added to everyone’s taxes! NO THANKS!

oldhomey

Health insurance rates were skyrocketing every year, Climate, at a huge percentage rate. They did not collapse with Obamacare, but the increases dropped significantly under him.

"Health care costs have been rising, but at a slower pace since the ACA was launched. Since 2010, health care costs have increased between 3.5 percent to 5.8 percent a year. In the 10 years prior to that, they rose between 4.0 percent to 9.6 percent. That's according to the annual 'National Health Expenditures Summary,' published by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services."

So where were you getting insurance from before Obamacare? Were you forced to go on to Obamacare by an employer, or was it your own choice?

Redwall

No-one with training in statistics, research, and scientific methodology could read the first two paragraphs and not laugh. Its one constant flow of illogic and non-sequiturs.

Rather than spend time wading trough such a recitation of tortured "facts" I skipped the rest of this masterpiece.

Too, bad as the health care system is broken and needs some work.

PhysicsIsFun

Please share with us your training in statistics, research, and scientific methodology.

DMoney

Since when did that matter with you? You declared that emotion, conjecture, opinion and rumor were fact when discussing how Trump was the worst president ever. Even after I challenged you. Now you need scientific and valid data? Pick a course.

PhysicsIsFun

So you want statistics to verify the obvious fact that Trump is a terrible president. Statistics are applicable in some things not all. Red claims that he has these attributes and used them to discount what a trained medical professional has to say on a subject. I asked him to let us know what his qualifications are. You want data because you are too twisted to see the obvious. Get a grip. You are on the wrong side of these issues. Your twisted worldview is alarming.

oldhomey

D, is it emotion conjecture and opinion to state the irrefutable facts about the American healthcare system? Per capita we pay twice what any other industrialized nation pays for healthcare, yet we leave tens of millions totally uncovered. We leave just as many (and that includes YOU) vulnerable to bankruptcy if you are faced with a family member hit by catastrophic illness or injury. We have worse health outcomes than any other industrialized nation -- all of which have some form of universal healthcare (AND, remember, they pay per capita half of what Americans do on healthcare, roughly $5,000 a year to our $10,000). Why bring up Physics' declarations about the worst U.S. president in history here. As a distraction? It would seem so.

PhysicsIsFun

No sh@t Sherlock. I am totally aware of the situation in our healthcare system. We as a nation need to do something about the costs, the outcomes, and the access. The private health insurance companies sure are not going to do anything about it. If our elected officials would work together with experts maybe they could work on fixing it. One party (your party) is happy with the status quo. They like it because the healthcare industry pays them to like it. We are the only western democracy with such a dysfunctional system. As far as data on Trump. Do you know the difference between a quantitative and a qualitative observation? Well in basic sciences e.g. physics and chemistry it is possible to measure things and reduce observations to a mathematical expression. This is more difficult in the social sciences, and nearly impossible when dealing with ethics and morality. There is [plenty of qualitative evidence that Trump is not only an awful human being but the worst president in modern times. Your willful denial of that obvious fact is telling. I thought one of the important roles of a president was to be the moral leader of our country? Please quantify how Trump is filling that role. You seem to be focused on some sort of short term personal metric of economic success in evaluating Trump. That sounds pretty selfish and short sighted to me.

DMoney

The president's job is defined in the Constitution and assumed by the oath. No more, no less. No wording about being a moral compass or good, upstanding person. While that would be a nice bonus, I'll take someone who follows the job description. And you have no evidence that he's not doing that.

oldhomey

Good Lord, D! Are you simply going daft? Did you see the Republican-dominated Senate reject Trump's power grab with the executive order on funding his worthless border wall? They were not opposed to the wall, they were opposed to this president taking away the constitutional mandate that congress, not the executive, will hold the nation's purse strings.

PhysicsIsFun

Dmoney, I hope your children grow up to be just like Trump. With him and you as a model for good behavior that is the likely outcome. Thankfully I raised my children (who are older than you) to believe that being a good moral person is more important than the bottom line. I wonder about you? I think you're lacking in some basic human empathy and moral integrity.

DMoney

Fact: healthcare would need to be rationed. Being as far more will take than contribute. Rationing means a third party prioritizing who gets priority. I'm in my 30's and will contribute many years of taxes. Many of the retirees here will not. Who gets priority?

Fact: by paying for others to receive care who can't afford it, I am falling into their debt. What action caused me to fall into their debt? I owe them something simply because they exist. They have "the right" to care, but I gain no right to demand anything from them.

Fact:. Millions of Americans who are happily covered will pay far more to receive far less. And they will do this against their will.

Fact: it's unconstitutional

I've yet to meet and talk with an immigrant who said they preferred their previous socialized care to what they can access here. The stats given in this article do not factor in lifestyle and are completely skewed because of the level of health among the poor. Their poor are in better health than our poor. But if they were to compare care and costs of net contributors, ours must be much better.

martian2

fact: if you pay insurance premiums, or your employer does for you, you are paying for others to receive care right now. That is how insurance works Dmoney, And that is how medicare works too. You falling into someone's debt is a bogus argument and totally stupid.
Fact: the bigger the insurance pool the less it costs to cover more people. Medicare creates the biggest insurance pool, with much less administrative costs than private insurance, and there will be no profit motive to deny coverage as it exist now. There is no proof we will get less coverage, again another bogus argument.
fact: With All the countries in this world with universal healthcare, not one has tried to appeal it, NOT ONE! No country wants to revert to our system of healthcare with its highest cost in the world and private insurance dictating what coverage you receive.
fact: it is constitutional, we have medicare and medicaid now, covering millions of Americans and there is nothing illegal about it. We just need to expand the coverage to cover more Americans, the system is already in place to do so. Blaming the poor for our high health care costs is a lie. there is plenty of blame to go around. Signaling out the poor as a culprit is totally bogus.
fact: Meet Stephen Hemsly, He is the CEO of United Health care group. He makes 77 thousand a day at his job, which in large part is denying Americans health care to increase profits for the company. You want someone to blame for our high health care, look no further. http://www.startribune.com/ceo-pay-watch-unitedhealth-s-stephen-hemsley-made-31-3-million-last-year/420284643/

capedcrusader

Those pesky facts martian2... You are trying to get through to a 30 something that believes walls work. He tends to forget what intended purposes are...

DMoney

Do the walls of your home work? Yes or no. If yes, you fail. If no, you lie.

capedcrusader

Shallow argument at best. Tax payers aren't paying for the "walls of my home".

DMoney

That's not the question. The question is if walls work. Do your walls work?

DMoney

My walls work fantastically. They keep critters, varmints, weather and thugs out. I back them up with a security system and I back that up with guns and I back them up with training and experience. As a result, my family couldn't be more safe or secure behind them.

oldhomey

I have news for you, D. Your house is not secure. Anybody with the right training and tools will get into your home if they are determined to do so. You are supremely smug to think otherwise. Now come back at me balls out with what a man you are and by God nobody but nobody will ever get away with getting into your fortress. It is all pi$$ing in the wind on your part.

capedcrusader

Well, well, well. Isn't DMoney just a civil warrior!!!

DMoney

Caped--still haven't answered

oldhomey

" DMoney Mar 18, 2019 2:05pm

"That's not the question. The question is if walls work. Do your walls work?"

D, that is not a real question. That is you desperately spluttering because you are hopelessly cornered. If you need an answer, it is this: no wall is inviolable.

capedcrusader

Well, to coin a phrase that you used... Nothing is perfect ... Of course not everyone has all that training and experience that you have. The question SHOULD be - Is a Trump Wall worth it? I believe most Americans don't feel it is especially when that kind of money could be used to help fix our infrastructure. As El Chapo how walls work. He avoided plenty of people who had "training and experience".

DMoney

Bogus argument and stupid?? I must pay so that another can receive. There's no way around it. I am indebted to them. It's not stupid and bogus it's obvious and true.

martian2

" I must pay so that another can receive" Yep that is how insurance works there dmoney. You just can't get that through your thick head. That is how social security works, medicare, public schools, roads and government, military, etc.
Get over yourself.

DMoney

Insurance is optional and I choose my costs and benefit. My insurance sets limits and requirements for all those who join. It's participation in a club. I hate paying social security, your right that's exactly what I am arguing against. Military? In the Constitution. Roads? Local not federal. You have no idea what you are talking about.

oldhomey

D, your 2:11pm post just shows you how you increasingly reveal what a knucklehead you are. Your insurance "club" has no actual legal obligation to you, and indeed, if you or a member of your family begins to cost too much, you may find yourself out on the street, penniless. Roads not federal? Do you have any idea what the percentage is of the ratio of federal to state and local funding? Go to G-O-O-G-L-E and look it up. It might astonish you.

capedcrusader

Answer oldhomey's 4:55 post below.

PhysicsIsFun

Dmoney those are some crazy "facts". I can't say that I agree with one of them, and I was involved in negotiating healthcare insurance for years. Where did you get these "facts"?

DMoney

Basic logic. A system where all recieve and not all contribute results in a deficit which requires rationing. This is a well known and hated fact in all countries with socialized medicine. Rationing requires hard decisions to be made, by someone you don't know. Me, a young repulican and future tax payer and system contributor will receive priority over you, a 70 y.o. person who is done contributing economically. That's backwards and it's happening prominently across the globe.

It's not in the Constitution.

My healthcare is far more affordable now than the estimates given under a universal system. How is it fair that I must pay more against my will for receiving equal or lesser care?
Basically, people like me (millions) would be skrewed, people like you (millions) would be skrewed, and the poor and/or lazy will benefit. No thanks.

PhysicsIsFun

Please school us on the basic deceit of heath insurance. Tell us how young people pay more for coverage so that older people get coverage for cheap. Tell us how you, a young person, should be paying less than me, an old person. Then tell us how this works over a lifetime. You are really full of something. Propriety prevents me from saying what it is.

DMoney

You paid into Medicaid from when it started till when you needed it. Medicaid for ALL flips this logic. Now your contributions are worth LESS than those who contribute NOTHING. How is that so hard to understand?

PhysicsIsFun

Here's just a little fact for you Dmoney. My wife and I pay about $700 per month for complete Medicare coverage (PartB, Supplement, and Part D). It is not free. So if we went to Medicare for all the premiums people would pay would have to be adjusted based on age, ability to pay, and so on. It needs to be determined. Medicare also negotiates the rates it pays, which are way less than what the usual rates are. Unfortunately Medicare is unable to negotiate the cost of drugs thanks to Republican protection of Big Pharma. We need a wholesale reevaluation of our system, and that will not be easy. My friend with brain cancer died 1 week ago today. She suffered through months of painful and expensive treatments. The total cost was nearly one million dollars. She lived for 4 months after her diagnosis. It is just a few very sick individuals (or the elderly in their last months of life) who throw the system out of wack. This is not only a financial problem, but it is an ethical problem. How do we as a society decide on spending our healthcare dollars?

DMoney

You just defeated your own argument. "How do we as a society spend our healthcare dollars?". That will be the literal question asked by politicians (not you or I regarding our own care). Politicians will decide, like they have everywhere else, who gets what care and when. And that's prioritized by age, health and economic potential. You just went to the back of the line, friend. You are good with that though, I'm sure, because you want it.

martian2

well physics how we spend our health care dollars reveals what kind of society we live in. Dmoney wants to make all the decisions himself on other people's health care options. Yep his hard earned sweat of the brow money he has to fork over for helping others, entitles him to play God with people's lives. As if an over weight tobacco chewing thirty something person should be judging others. Yes those he deems poor and lazy, chronically ill, handicap and many others are not worth his precious dollars. Oh but he is pro life, wants to control all women's uterus, but doesn't want to help pay for it. Make about as much sense as....well it doesn't make a bit of sense.

oldhomey

D, you demand "fact" and what you loosely call "data". Then you declare that healthcare will be rationed. It might be prioritized, but prioritizing is not rationing.

For somebody who scorns bring emotion into the argument, you have the audacity to try to make THIS argument?: "y paying for others to receive care who can't afford it, I am falling into their debt. What action caused me to fall into their debt? I owe them something simply because they exist. They have "the right" to care, but I gain no right to demand anything from them." You cannot offer up a scintilla of "fact" or "data" to make such an overwrought charge.

I will repeat the remainder of your post, dumbfounded that you think you have a single "fact" or any "data" that could remotely back up these absurd statements. Your supposed conversations with immigrants are strikingly obtuse and false:

Fact:. Millions of Americans who are happily covered will pay far more to receive far less. And they will do this against their will.

DMoney

It's incredibly simple. Data not required because it uses the most elementary amount of logic: if person A has a right to something but can't afford it, and person B can afford it, then person B owes person A. "To each according to their need, from each according to their ability".

DMoney

No data needed to see that the mass resdistribution of wealth and private property is not a right our government has. No data needed to see that I will pay thousands more on a universal plan than my private plan. These facts require the most minimal amount of brain function to ascertain.

oldhomey

Do you apply this exquisite logic to police and fire protection, D? To national defense? To the oversight of drug companies to make sure they are not selling tainted and worthless medications? All of that represents taking public money and redistributing it into services that are the right of all Americans. To the protection of freedom of speech? Ooops! You might object here that those who can spend hundreds of millions of dollars on propaganda for their personal agendas DO have a bigger right to being heard than ordinary people. So in that case, we expend tax money gathered from the likes of you and me and redistribute them to protect the rights of the very rich to have an unfair political advantage over us. But we already know that you have been beaten down to the point of accepting that, making you thankful for the crumbs they leave behind for you. I'd rather change the law to take that advantage away from the uber wealthy.

DMoney

FD/PD are local. Military is in Constitution. Free speech is in Constitution. What's in the Constitution--I support. What's not--I do not.

martian2

nothing is mentioned about God in the constitution, do you believe? Nothing about gun ownership in the constitution either. Nothing is specifically mentioned, so you must not support guns. Nothing about federal holidays in the constitution, so you don't support the fourth of july celebration! How UnAmerican can you get!!!! See, its not as simple as you want it to be, life gets complicated.

oldhomey

It remains to be seen if the billionaires and corporations ablities to swamp the nation with political big buck and propaganda to support the agenda of the very rich will be judged a constitutional right, D. Does the constitution declare that corporations are people, the argument a radically conservative supreme court has made? They can be overruled by legislation, and you had better believe that efforts are afoot to negate that SC decision. Dark money has become pernicious, even more so in state and local elections than in national elections. We all support the constitution, my friend, but the majority support it as interpreted by the founding fathers, making the "originalist" argument you use not only vulnerable, but absolutely wrong.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thanks for reading. Subscribe or log in to continue.