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

(121) comments

GrandpaS

Some people: "On a sunny day, the sky is blue." Other people: "No it isn't." Some people: "Yes, it is. Look through this window." Other people: "No, I don't have to. I know the sky isn't blue even without checking anything." Some people: "God help us."

capedcrusader

You heard it here folks. DMoney said I can have his Social Security.

Lambeau West

Would be nice to see some serious discussion on how to make healthcare affordable for ALL Americans. I just reviewed my health insurance premiums for 2019. I will be paying in 6156.02 even if I don't see a provider a single time. Unfortunately my family has had a few office visits this year and until you meet your deductibles, you're paying for a majority of the care.

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.

crank

Let's note, oldhomey/martian, that you are again trying awfully hard to avoid the point I made clearly in my original comment.

Weiss doesn't follow-up to demonstrate fewer deaths were "caused" by "lack of insurance" once Obamacare insured more people. Another commenter also called this out as "one constant flow of illogic and non-sequiturs." My point was made quite clearly but you, "lacking in discerning intelligence", are doing your best to miss it (as usual, willfully obtuse).

You also seem to avoid my disagreement with Weiss' assertion that Medicare would be any more efficient. The Federal mandates and bureaucracy related to Medicare and Medicaid are one of the reasons so many administrative and other inefficiencies exist in health care; e.g. the ICD-10 and CPT codes required for billing and reimbursement. (No doubt you didn't learn anything the last three times and you'll insist we rehash that all again. [rolleyes] )

Let's see those AMA studies you've read.

oldhomey

I very rarely provide website links, preferring to quote them because it makes my point more visceral on these posts, but since you asked, crank, I googled and the first thing that popped up on ama asking for healthcare reform because it saves lives, this was the first thing that popped up: https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/patient-support-advocacy/why-us-health-care-system-should-be-reformed

Here is another in regards to your skepticism about the correlation between being insured and less vulnerable to dying from a disease event: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/06/20/gop-consider-evidence-before-you-gut-obamacare-column-benjamin-sommers/102993998/

If you don't want to read it all, this extract might explain it to you:

"By examining state expansions in Medicaid that happened in the decade before Obamacare and using population-level information on deaths among millions of Americans, we can draw longer-term conclusions on the survival effect of insurance. The study found that Medicaid expansions lowered population death rates by 6%, with the biggest reductions for causes of death that are more treatable with timely medical care, such as cancer, HIV, heart disease and infections.

"Mortality rates dropped the most in the counties with the biggest gains in health insurance, findings similar to previous research we conducted on Massachusetts’ 2006 health reform that was the model for the Affordable Care Act. Overall, the study concludes that for roughly every 300 people covered by expanded Medicaid, one death was prevented.

"GOP health bill creates separate countries of the sick and the well

"No single study is definitive, but the growing number of research studies demonstrating the benefits of health insurance coverage in general, as well as Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act in particular, should not be ignored. Our research suggests that Obamacare has improved medical care and health for millions of Americans, including low-income adults, working-class whites, people with pre-existing conditions and many others. In part based on findings like these, major physician, nurse and hospital groups have all come out in opposition to the AHCA, which would undo much of this progress."

As for lacking in discerning intelligence, crank, let me state the obvious. Every doctor I have ever interacted with has cautioned that they have the best chance of being able to treat a disease is early detection of that disease. That is why they want people to do regular check-ups, especially old fools like you and me. If you catch heart disease or cancer in its earliest stages, before it can wreak fatal damage on your organs, does it not make sense that you have a better chance of either surviving that disease or, at the very least, postponing its fatal effects? Or is my intelligence failing me here? These two questions constitute a quiz, and depending on your answers to them, your intelligence will be judged.

You seem to think I and others get on here and challenge you because we are being kneejerk and mean toward you. I can only speak for myself, but from what I can see from others who disagree with you, too, crank, is that we are not objecting to you, personally, but to the constant stream of misinformation that you try to retail on these boards. I don't hold you in scorn, but certainly I hold your false information in scorn.

crank

Did you happen to read the AMA article (not study) you linked? It says NOTHING about lack of insurance causing death. #misinformation

The closest it comes to like that is saying that is this, "That is because the evidence shows that uninsured patients live sicker and die younger than patients with insurance coverage."

What you're still avoiding is addressing the point that Weiss does not provide evidence that Obamacare (more insured people) reduced the number of deaths Harvard 'caused' by 'lack of health insurance'. The same evidence exists for simply being poor; i.e. poor people live sicker and shorter lives. or Being poor caused 45,000 people to die.

The advice you say every doctors you've talked to has given speaks of good habits, exercise, good diet, regular check-ups, etc.... NOT health insurance. They are not the same thing. People with health insurance still neglect these things. People without health insurance still manage to take steps to get checkups and make their health a priority. I didn't always have health insurance but I did go for checkups. They aren't expensive.

DMoney has said, on occasion, 'it's about choices'. As an example....I am personally aware of people who could afford health insurance or a reliable car or whatever if they would simply give up smoking cigarettes but they choose (for whatever reason) to continue spending money on cigarettes. When they get sick and die, is it because they lacked health insurance.? If you're reasonable, you'd agree it isn't.

martian2

crank get with it, its not Weiss who did the study of deaths from lack of insurance, it was Harvard university. My gawd you are so dense. I'm sure a brainiak like yourself knows better than Harvard university. Yes you got them beat just by your sheer reasoning power and towering intellect. Can't trust Harvard, just a bunch of crazed liberals, right crank! Gawd get over it. Just look at diabetes instance, I take it you know what that is. Many People don't take their meds for it or get checked for it because they can't afford it, that leads to many complications and early death. Now I betcha those in Canada and Europe don't have to worry about the cost. Just a guess on my part. Want more details on that harvard study.....https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/

oldhomey

The first link was to assure you that the AMA says a great need for getting healthcare to all people, that the actual professionals in the delivery of healthcare think this is a basic need for all people. You didn't seem to thinks so, crank, so I included it.

The second link assures you that the statistics are in, the increased coverage provided by Obamacare saw lowered death rates in those newly covered populations.

You continue to cover your eyes with a nightshade, evidently, sticking fingers into your ears while loudly wailing "wah, wah, wah" as a means of not hearing or seeing anything that might affect your preconceptions.

crank

Hi, I thought you'd like this: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2017/06/30/reality-check-the-obamacare-medicaid-expansion-is-not-saving-lives-part-i/ Reality Check: The Obamacare Medicaid Expansion Is Not Saving Lives, Part 1 - Forbes

martian2

oh my forbes magazine, wow there is an indisputable source. NO bias there, no siree! They got Harvard beat for sure. Glad you found a source to support a lie there crank. But using one lie to support another lie doesn't work well, at least in most people's reality.

crank

Oh MY GAWWWWD! You are soooo dense! You are such a liar! [rolleyes] Best you got martian/oldhomey? Out of legit comments so your go-to becomes ad hominem whining? Predictable....

Funny, oldhomey/martian, when people hold opinions which differ from your own, it always those other people who are lying (according to you). Did you read the article? Too many big words?

Did you actually read this article yet to consider my original post before calling me a liar? Let's see if you/oldhomey can drag this thread up over 100 comments. [yawn]

oldhomey

crank, I hesitate to be presumptuous about the general knowledge of somebody as learned as you. But I wonder if you know what is the difference is between an article in Forbes and a blog written by somebody with no relationship to Forbes. Apparently not. The "article" you cite is not an article but a blog that appeared about two years ago, I believe, on a website called The Apothecary. It is noted for looking at healthcare issues from the politically conservative perspective. This particular blog that you cite seems to have gotten earned a link on some Forbes-connected website, and it has been viewed by perhaps 5,000 people, including you and me, I guess.

The author of the blog in fact presents almost no data or studies that would refute the idea that there is a correlation between health insurance and higher mortality rates for people lacking health insurance. What he does is expend a great deal of time speculating on how the studies that have shown this correlation must be based on faulty data, though he offers nothing to back his speculations. I think he sums up his lack of data and the speculative nature of his blog with his own conclusion, which is hardly the slamdunk that you are wishing that it was:

"Conclusion

"As should be clear, as of 2013, the evidence was not exactly overwhelming that the Medicaid expansion to able-bodied adults was likely to save lives. To be fair, CAP relied on a 2014 study of the Massachusetts health reform to make its estimates of how many purportedly will die if the Senate health bill were passed. However, in Part 2, I will show how that study, as well as a 2017 Sommers re-analysis of the 3-state Medicaid expansion likewise fail to provide convincing evidence that repeal of the Medicaid expansion will increase mortality risk on balance."

oldhomey

By the way, crank, the number of posts under this column is kind of irrelevant, isn't it? I don't think it is a competition or some sort of important milestone. What is important is the subject of this column, and when you -- crank -- and DMoney, Ricky, Redwall, Climatehoax, new2, 668, A Veteran (of no known military service) and other usual suspects jump on here with lies and misinformation about it, quite naturally I will get on here as will Physics, martian, caped and others who want to see the truth prevail, and we will call you on it. Sorry, but that is how it is.

By the way, martian and I in general might often have parallel thinking on these issues, but we have noticeably different writing styles, a good clue for you that we are not one in the same person. I have no idea who he is. On the other hand, you disappeared from these forums for a few days after you were badly caught out on some lies, but all of a sudden we began to some posts from some beastly person calling himself 668. I thought this 668 person wrote exactly like you did, so I asked if you and he were one in the same in this very string. All of a sudden668 disappeared and you came back with a vengeance. Makes me think all the more that you are the same person with two screen names. It doesn't matter, because if you are the same, it simply means you are being dishonest under two different names.

crank

I just did as you had done and shared the first thing that Google presented. I didn’t even read it but I knew you would study it, parse it’s content and post a long-winded diatribe. The bottom line, no matter what I would have posted or the source, I knew you would spend the day picking it apart, Googling and composing a response.

To your credit, you refrained from using the silly personal insults you usually rely upon. No thesaurus this time either! Bravo! Have you beaten the dead horse long enough or do you wish to continue to drag the thread up over 150 making the same points again and again knowing we will continue to disagree oldhomey/martian? Will you spend another 4 hours tonight fussing and fuming or might you simply be content to post your opinion then simply acknowledge that I and others disagree with you? I think I can predict what you’ll decide but maybe you will surprise us, oldhomey/martian. Is there really anything left to say which has not already been said at least a dozen times?

crank

There he is, oldtroll. The conspiracy theories and ad hominem attack you held back earlier. Delusions of grandeur, oldfussy? You sent me into hiding? Is that what you believe? Wow! What can I say? You got me... I curled up in a room with the shades drawn for days because of you. I was in the depths of depression because you do thoroughly ‘handled’ me.

Either that or I went skiing in Utah, little fella. Get a life, go outside...

DMoney

None of the facts I listed on this subject are lies. They are all either indisputable logic/common sense or proven. Again--there's no way I will pay less and receive more. The costs outlined in every estimate are far higher than what I current pay. The only difference is I'll have to ask permission from the federal government on what care I receive and when--all for the benefit of people who's decisions and output result in them not having care. It's important because I'm as middle-class as it gets. Logic dictates that if it affects me this way--it will affect many millions this way--and we're the drivers of the economy. Defecate on us, and you are defecating on the heart of America.

The constitution does allow for laws to be passed, however, there's no precedent allowing for or alluding to mass re-distribution of wealth in the constitution nor the bill of rights.

There will be a shortage of care/service to go around. This will result in a rationing, and this will result in someone you don't know determining your value. This is as un-free as it gets. This is proven in all of the countries you flaunt who have social healthcare.

Would more people overall receive healthcare? Absolutely. Would our health statistics improve? Absolutely (as a result of millions of poor receiving better outcomes). But it will come at the expense of our individual freedom and liberty and right to pursue happiness as individuals. That, I can't tolerate. Again, these aren't lies--these are the inconvenient and intolerable (for many) side effects of socialism.

oldhomey

So let's review the actual facts here, crank. You cited something you saw on the internet as proof positive that I am wrong. To be clear, while you constantly say stupid things, I don't regard you as stupid as a person. So I took seriously your admonition that you have information that solidly supports your theory that having health insurance does not correlate with lower early life mortality rates.

I looked at the material you cited. Then, when I explain that the cited information does no such thing, you chortle that you never read it. It is instructive. Yes, I probably spent ten minutes reading the article and fifteen minutes parsing it out to show you that it did not disprove what I was saying. Since you chortle now that you just wanted to "fool" me, I will adhere on the future to the fool me once, shame on me adage. You in the future can cite things to me until you are blue in the face and I will not look at them. This proves that you come on here with no substance behind what you say and are relying on your proven lies, illogic and faulty memory for your outlandish opinions.

Thanks for showing your true colors. Of course they are false colors. They become you.

oldhomey

D, what facts have you listed on this subject? You continually list you opinions and talking points as though they represent your "data".
Opinions are not "indisputable logic/common sense", and you have done nothing to prove yours. This is a fact?: "Again--there's no way I will pay less and receive more."

You can make a definitive statement like the following, but you provide no evidence whatsoever that it is accurate. "The costs outlined in every estimate are far higher than what I current pay. "

This is your poppycock belief, but it is not reality: "The only difference is I'll have to ask permission from the federal government on what care I receive and when--all for the benefit of people who's decisions and output result in them not having care. It's important because I'm as middle-class as it gets. Logic dictates that if it affects me this way--it will affect many millions this way--and we're the drivers of the economy."

This is going over the emotional top, even for you: "Defecate on us, and you are defecating on the heart of America."

You say: "The constitution does allow for laws to be passed, however, there's no precedent allowing for or alluding to mass re-distribution of wealth in the constitution nor the bill of rights." Well, if we get even more radical right wing ideologues on the Supreme Court, we may see them declare the income tax as unconstitutional, D, but for more than a hundred years it has been redistributing wealth quite legally. Perhaps you would cheer the abandonment of income taxes. Then we could go back to poll taxes to fund the government, ridding us of all those poor people and minorities and their ridiculous conceits of thinking they have a right to vote.

You go on: "There will be a shortage of care/service to go around. This will result in a rationing, and this will result in someone you don't know determining your value. This is as un-free as it gets. This is proven in all of the countries you flaunt who have social healthcare." Speaking of the lies you often use on these forums, this one is a dilly. You have absolutely nothing to back up your contention that all the industrialized nations with national healthcare ration out healthcare to the detriment of many recipients.

Your final paragraph is simply a perverse statement by you of wanting privilege, and a perversion of the Declaration of Independence that reserves the right of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" for all Americans, not just those of a certain skin pigment and European ethnicity, and not just those at certain income levels, and not just those of certain educational attainment.

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.

DMoney

I'm horrified by the idea that with national healthcare, the more you pay in (the older you are), the less important you become. As ruled by a third party.

oldhomey

D, the more you blather, the less sense you make. What the hell is the point of your 1:26pm post. Does it mean something that I am missing? Possibly. Your good friend crank finds me to be impossibly obtuse. But he is the guy who thinks there is no correlation of having the ability to seeing a doctor and better health outcomes, so I don't trust his judgement.

DMoney

If healthcare becomes socialized, the more (longer) you pay in, the less of a priority you become. You can live an entire life healthy and productively, using equal or less than "your share" of healthcare. But when you cease to produce income/revenue, you would take a back seat to those who have contributed little or nothing to the same plan as a result of age. Because they hold the potential for future revenue. This is a natural result of allocating resources in a large scale deficit caused by rationing. And rationing is a guarantee, considering there will be far more receiving benefits than contributing. The proof is in every other form of socialized healthcare. Long waits and prioritization by a board of politicians and bean counters you've never met.

DMoney

If you lump us into the same healthcare plan, you being retired and not producing goods/services/revenue and me producing all three at a high level--whos getting cancer treatment faster and more comprehensively? The answer is obvious, and terrible. But you'd have ZERO say in the matter, because you no longer control your own healthcare.

oldhomey

D, I am going to repeat these two posts of yours and suggest you get the new2lax lookalike award for running on and on without making even one sensible point. You are all over the map, but the route takes us nowhere. It makes no sense either literally or figuratively. I would implore anybody else reading this to interpret what you said into usable language and thought. I am afraid it simply cannot be done:

DMoney Mar 20, 2019 9:20pm

If healthcare becomes socialized, the more (longer) you pay in, the less of a priority you become. You can live an entire life healthy and productively, using equal or less than "your share" of healthcare. But when you cease to produce income/revenue, you would take a back seat to those who have contributed little or nothing to the same plan as a result of age. Because they hold the potential for future revenue. This is a natural result of allocating resources in a large scale deficit caused by rationing. And rationing is a guarantee, considering there will be far more receiving benefits than contributing. The proof is in every other form of socialized healthcare. Long waits and prioritization by a board of politicians and bean counters you've never met.

DMoney Mar 20, 2019 9:23pm

If you lump us into the same healthcare plan, you being retired and not producing goods/services/revenue and me producing all three at a high level--whos getting cancer treatment faster and more comprehensively? The answer is obvious, and terrible. But you'd have ZERO say in the matter, because you no longer control your own healthcare.

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

DMoney

There hasn't been an immigrant I've spoken with who prefers their past healthcare with what we have here. So, either I've incredibly spoken with the few who feel that way--or--somebody is lying. The ONLY response I've had to the contrary is along the lines of "if it's a basic procedure/checkup, it's great. If it's anything major, it's terrible".

oldhomey

D, I continue to be SO impressed with your wide-ranging personal efforts to gather first-hand testimony from foreigners and their experience with national healthcare in their homelands. I would suggest, however, that it might be stretching credulity to suggest that the majority of the people in those countries who have faced serious medical problems ended up being badly treated by the systems in their respective countries. If that were the case, would you not think that there would be a huge political blowback as millions of aggrieved people complained about this terrible service and horrid health outcomes? Who is telling the truth here? It seems fairly obvious that you are not.

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.

GrandpaS

If those young people had paid into the plan, cost increases would have ben much smaller, as oldhomey points out. And young people don't need health insurance? What bubble do you live in? They get cancer, diabetes, injuries from car accidents, epilepsy, depression, drug addiction, shot in school, and countless other problems. They don't need insurance? What an ignorant, unthinking remark.

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?

capedcrusader

Waiting for your response to oldhomey...

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.

GrandpaS

"Rather than spend time wading trough such a recitation of tortured "facts" I skipped the rest of this masterpiece." Which is why lazy people like you who don't really care enough about the truth to read it are costing me and millions of others, including you, huge, huge sums of money that individuals could keep with smarter health care. You just don't want to learn, and you're shafting the rest of us with that attitude. It's pretty sickening and has gotten very, very old. Grow up. Read . Learn. Watch news reports besides Fox. You need to do that.

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

STILL, no answer.

capedcrusader

Sure I did. Some time ago. YOU claimed the "wailing wall" worked and you didn't even know what it was. You just hate being wrong don't you. Well, guess what, you are... Happens to the best of us but at least I"m not afraid to admit when I am.

DMoney

Still no answer. Because if you say yes, you lose. If you say no, you lie.

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.

DMoney

Roads are primarily funded by state gas tax/tolls. The federal government contributes through highway fund, which is for highways, interstates, etc. Nice try.

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.

capedcrusader

What's a young repulican? And you really didn't answer his 4:55 post. Not a nice try... You hate contributing to SS. Can I have yours then?

DMoney

Sure you can. I'd rather not have it than take the crumbs the government try to give me. You know I'm projected to receive only 80% of the money I contribute? That's right--while investing privately, one can expect over 7% gains in their life through the greed and corruption of wall St. But good ol' uncle Sam... I'm taking a 20% loss. Yup, let's give em healthcare that will turn out great for average folks like me..

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".

GrandpaS

So if person A has a legitimate need of medical care that will cost him money he can't afford, Person B shouldn't help? Know what the leading cause of US bankruptcy filings are for? Medical expenses. Did you read this article?

GrandpaS

You're missing the fact that because your money and B's money will both go into the same kitty, B will pay a lot less for health care, and, tah dah, SO WILL YOU. One hand washes the other, helping you and others afford health care. The nonsensical resistance to universal health care of you and millions of others is the reason I'm paying out the a** for medical care. It's also the reason YOU are paying that much. You won't even take a look at a very doable solution to that, will you? Did you know that if you moved to any other country, ANY OTHER COUNTRY, you would have universal health care, because the US is the only advanced country that doesn't have it.

Give me a list of other free countries who have lost their freedom because of universal health care. That list is non-existent. So why in the world don't you work on learning more about medical coverage and correcting your misinformation? This article is a great start. It's all true, D. Every bit of it. Your mind is totally closed, so we Americans can continue to enjoy the world's most expensive health care for what is ranked #37 on a list of quality healthcare received. There are countries you've never even heard of that are ranked above us. Please stop making me and everybody else pay 10 times more on health care than we should be paying, and that includes you.

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.

DMoney

Martian, your 9:20 post is one of your worst yet, devoid of any intelligence whatsoever, and completely unworthy of a response.

DMoney

You believe the founding fathers interpreted the mass redistribution of wealth and private property into the US Constitution??

oldhomey

I believe the intent of the founding fathers was to create a constitutional framework that would embed basic freedoms into our political system and government, but would leave plenty of room in the process to allow the succeeding generations to react to the realities of their times. It certainly didn't foresee the industrial revolution, railroads, internal combustion engines, radio and television, development of effective medications and drugs, highways, airplanes, the computer and the internet and so on. But they anticipated that these developments in human events that they could not possibly know about and gave succeeding generations the ability to interpret how the constitution should be applied to those realities. You and the tea party folks want to sabotage that approach with the insane strict constructionist approach.

DMoney

"With respect to the two words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison

There is undoubtedly flexibility in the Constitution, intentionally allowed. This does not allow for fundamentally contorting it.

Here's the best I can compromise:. If the federal government creates, executes and judges that universal healthcare is a law, I will respect it and complain accordingly. I do not think that will happen. It will require socialist majorities in every branch.

GrandpaS

"No data needed to see that I will pay thousands more on a universal plan than my private plan." That is the exact opposite of the reality of socialized medicine. A family of four pays about $1,500 to $1, 800 per month for health insurance, dependent on their health, the coverage they choose, etc. If EVERYBODY contributes to a cause, those individual contributions will drop to a fraction of what one person has to pay for those benefits. So if you and your wife could pay $300 a month more in taxes and $1,500 a month LESS in premiums, you wouldn't want to do that? I don't know if those numbers are absolutely accurate, but I bet they're not far off.

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.