From: Rod Speed on
Citizen Jimserac wrote:
> On Dec 19, 2:11 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Peter B wrote
>>
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....(a)gmail.com> wrote
>>>> AZDuffman wrote
>>>>> Rachel Uchitel <lilhor...(a)yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>> As Obama has hinted, without meaningful cost controls on major
>>>>>> components of our medical-health programs, the result will
>>>>>> eventually be U.S. BANKRUPTCY!
>>>>> You need to learn ECON 101. You CANNOT control the cost of
>>>>> something. If you slap a control on it, supply will shrink or
>>>>> dissapear.
>>>> How odd that it didnt when Japan did just that.
>>>>> The probelm in health care is the "customer" is rarely the person
>>>>> who actually pays.
>>>> The real problem is that hardly anyone can afford to treat the most
>>>> expensive medical problems like a heart attack or diabetes etc.
>>> Treated diabetes is not that expensive,
>>
>> Wrong when the diabetic ends up with foot ulcers etc and there is
>> no alternative to cutting the feet off as the diabetes progresses.
>>
>>> runaway or poorly treated diabetes is. At that point they go on
>>> disability and the state pays for it.
>>
>> Still a single payer system at that stage.
>>
>>> Heart care is covered under most medical plans,
>>
>> Irrelevant to the fact that the customer isnt paying for that.
>>
>>> emergency surgeries cannot be denied.
>>
>> But can very easily result in bankruptcy when you need a heart
>> bypass etc.
>>
>>>> So you have to tax everyone to pay for those most expensive
>>>> medical problems.
>>> Other than sales tax the ''poor'' pay no taxes.
>>
>> Even you should have noticed that not everyone is poor.
>>
>> And the working poor pay a lot more than just sales tax anyway.
>>
>>> Currently the government when it shifts funds to pay one thing or
>>> another does not affect the average tax payer when it comes to
>>> their private health plans,
>>
>> But there is very substantial funds shifting with medicare alone,
>> just because
>> funds are moved from those who are young, fit and healthy and
>> working to
>> those who are entitled to have medicare pay their medical costs.
>>
>> The modern universal first and second world health care funding
>> systems in all but the US the same as US medicare in that regard.
>>
>>> but let it all fit under the control of the USA government then
>>> watch them spend the monies elsewhere, lie or make up some lame
>>> excuse for it like they have been doing for the SS monies which was
>>> supposed to be in a literal fund of its own but isn't due to their
>>> greed.
>>
>> The obvious approach is to fix that, not continue to pay TWICE the
>> percentage
>> of GDP that the rest of the world does on an insurance system.
>>
>>> One day the avg citizen will wake up expecting treatment only to
>>> find it denied due to lack of funds.
>>
>> No govt will ever be that stupid, essentially because it would be
>> out of office so fast its feet wouldnt even touch the ground.
>>
>> And its a lie anyway, has not happened with medicare or any other
>> universal health care system.
>
> Exactly correct. The cost of NOT having some sort of government
> provided health care program for millions of uninsured is far GREATER
> than allowing the current situation to continue.

Yes, even without considering the uninsured, the current system
cost USians TWICE the percentage of GDP that every other first
and second world country spends. And the US is worse on every
sensible measure like longevity and years in good health too.

> What about some epidemic for which there is no vaccination?

First and second world countrys deal with that with involuntary
isolation when its a deadly very infectious disease.

> In addition, there is the unstated assumption that if we have a
> government run option we must copy exactly what the French
> or Great Britain or Canada has. We are under no such constraint
> - in fact, a wise move would be to consult with experts from
> these systems and find ways of improving it.

I think it would make more sense to just make medicare universal instead.

That way most medical practioners wouldnt be able to refuse to treat
medicare patients, essentially because everyone would be on medicare.

> The utter irony of all this is that everything the opponents of the
> government system say is theoretically correct - governments
> really do not run big organizations well,

Dunno, medicare does work much better than the
insurance system for those who qualify for medicare.

And the japanese system works very well indeed controlling the
prices that can be charged with an overnight stay in a hospital
only costing quite literally $10 per night if you are happy with
a shared 4 bed ward and $90 if you prefer a private room etc.

> it is better to have lower taxes and smaller government
> and many freely competing private enterprise insurers

I'm not convinved, essentially because it costs so much more
to have immense numbers of paper shuffling monkeys deciding
what will be paid for and what wont. The medicare system is
much cheaper to run, essentially because all you have to do is
decide if the medical service actually was provided or not instead.

And you save the immense cost of all that advertising as well.

The only real downside with replacing the insurance system with
a universal medicare system right now is that so many of those
paper shuffling apes in the insurance system would be out of a
job when the unemployment rate is already twice what it should be.

> (you just know that's not going to happen).

> But in the context of the current situation, with tens of millions
> of illegal aliens, tens of millions of uninsureds and the willful
> complicity of the health "insurers" in various exclusionary tactics to
> protect their "profits", such as the prior condition exclusion and
> provisions in their plan which, after a certain expenditure of time
> and resources, ENDS the coverage of the insured and terminates all
> benefits, there is no alternative but to seek government redress of
> this deliberate avoidance of the health care problem which, in effect,
> uses American taxpayers to subsidy the profits of special interest insurers.

And the only way to end the immense waste of resources in the paper
shuffling system thats inevitable with any insurance system is a decent
modern universal medicare. Its really only the completely fucked US
political system thats prevented the US doing what every other modern
first and second world country has done, a decent modern universal
health care system funded by taxation.


From: Citizen Jimserac on
On Dec 19, 4:38 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> CitizenJimseracwrote:
> > On Dec 19, 2:11 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Peter B wrote
>
> >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....(a)gmail.com> wrote
> >>>> AZDuffman wrote
> >>>>> Rachel Uchitel <lilhor...(a)yahoo.com> wrote
> >>>>>> As Obama has hinted, without meaningful cost controls on major
> >>>>>> components of our medical-health programs, the result will
> >>>>>> eventually be U.S. BANKRUPTCY!
> >>>>> You need to learn ECON 101. You CANNOT control the cost of
> >>>>> something. If you slap a control on it, supply will shrink or
> >>>>> dissapear.
> >>>> How odd that it didnt when Japan did just that.
> >>>>> The probelm in health care is the "customer" is rarely the person
> >>>>> who actually pays.
> >>>> The real problem is that hardly anyone can afford to treat the most
> >>>> expensive medical problems like a heart attack or diabetes etc.
> >>> Treated diabetes is not that expensive,
>
> >> Wrong when the diabetic ends up with foot ulcers etc and there is
> >> no alternative to cutting the feet off as the diabetes progresses.
>
> >>> runaway or poorly treated diabetes is. At that point they go on
> >>> disability and the state pays for it.
>
> >> Still a single payer system at that stage.
>
> >>> Heart care is covered under most medical plans,
>
> >> Irrelevant to the fact that the customer isnt paying for that.
>
> >>> emergency surgeries cannot be denied.
>
> >> But can very easily result in bankruptcy when you need a heart
> >> bypass etc.
>
> >>>> So you have to tax everyone to pay for those most expensive
> >>>> medical problems.
> >>> Other than sales tax the ''poor'' pay no taxes.
>
> >> Even you should have noticed that not everyone is poor.
>
> >> And the working poor pay a lot more than just sales tax anyway.
>
> >>> Currently the government when it shifts funds to pay one thing or
> >>> another does not affect the average tax payer when it comes to
> >>> their private health plans,
>
> >> But there is very substantial funds shifting with medicare alone,
> >> just because
> >> funds are moved from those who are young, fit and healthy and
> >> working to
> >> those who are entitled to have medicare pay their medical costs.
>
> >> The modern universal first and second world health care funding
> >> systems in all but the US the same as US medicare in that regard.
>
> >>> but let it all fit under the control of the USA government then
> >>> watch them spend the monies elsewhere, lie or make up some lame
> >>> excuse for it like they have been doing for the SS monies which was
> >>> supposed to be in a literal fund of its own but isn't due to their
> >>> greed.
>
> >> The obvious approach is to fix that, not continue to pay TWICE the
> >> percentage
> >> of GDP that the rest of the world does on an insurance system.
>
> >>> One day the avg citizen will wake up expecting treatment only to
> >>> find it denied due to lack of funds.
>
> >> No govt will ever be that stupid, essentially because it would be
> >> out of office so fast its feet wouldnt even touch the ground.
>
> >> And its a lie anyway, has not happened with medicare or any other
> >> universal health care system.
>
> > Exactly correct.   The cost of NOT having some sort of government
> > provided health care program for millions of uninsured is far GREATER
> > than allowing the current situation to continue.
>
> Yes, even without considering the uninsured, the current system
> cost USians TWICE the percentage of GDP that every other first
> and second world country spends. And the US is worse on every
> sensible measure like longevity and years in good health too.
>
> > What about some epidemic for which there is no vaccination?
>
> First and second world countrys deal with that with involuntary
> isolation when its a deadly very infectious disease.
>
> > In addition, there is the unstated assumption that if we have a
> > government run option we must copy exactly what the French
> > or Great Britain or Canada has.  We are under no such constraint
> > - in fact, a wise move would be to consult with experts from
> > these systems and find ways of improving it.
>
> I think it would make more sense to just make medicare universal instead.
>
> That way most medical practioners wouldnt be able to refuse to treat
> medicare patients, essentially because everyone would be on medicare.
>
> > The utter irony of all this is that everything the opponents of the
> > government system say is theoretically correct - governments
> > really do not run big organizations well,
>
> Dunno, medicare does work much better than the
> insurance system for those who qualify for medicare.
>
> And the japanese system works very well indeed controlling the
> prices that can be charged with an overnight stay in a hospital
> only costing quite literally $10 per night if you are happy with
> a shared 4 bed ward and $90 if you prefer a private room etc.
>
> > it is better to have lower taxes and smaller government
> > and many freely competing private enterprise insurers
>
> I'm not convinved, essentially because it costs so much more
> to have immense numbers of paper shuffling monkeys deciding
> what will be paid for and what wont. The medicare system is
> much cheaper to run, essentially because all you have to do is
> decide if the medical service actually was provided or not instead.
>
> And you save the immense cost of all that advertising as well.
>
> The only real downside with replacing the insurance system with
> a universal medicare system right now is that so many of those
> paper shuffling apes in the insurance system would be out of a
> job when the unemployment rate is already twice what it should be.
>
> > (you just know that's not going to happen).
> > But in the context of the current situation, with tens of millions
> > of illegal aliens, tens of millions of uninsureds and the willful
> > complicity of the health "insurers" in various exclusionary tactics to
> > protect their "profits", such as the prior condition exclusion and
> > provisions in their plan which, after a certain expenditure of time
> > and resources, ENDS the coverage of the insured and terminates all
> > benefits, there is no alternative but to seek government redress of
> > this deliberate avoidance of the health care problem which, in effect,
> > uses American taxpayers to subsidy the profits of special interest insurers.
>
> And the only way to end the immense waste of resources in the paper
> shuffling system thats inevitable with any insurance system is a decent
> modern universal medicare. Its really only the completely fucked US
> political system thats prevented the US doing what every other modern
> first and second world country has done, a decent modern universal
> health care system funded by taxation.

Agree fully on the points of that last paragraph - it would seem in
the context of our current economic and socio-political situation,
that a Universal Health Care system by the gov would be probably the
only viable option.
It is a cinch we cannot rely on the private sector, their actions so
far are nothing short of a DISGRACE -including stuff like cancelling
the policies of people that get serious cancers, denying coverage for
treatments deemed "experimental" and other inhumane and utterly
contemptuous actions.

Political reforms, such as drastic reform of influence peddling by
lobbyists, recall elections, expansion of the number of Supreme Court
justices, ending redistricting and other voter district-ing tricks and
a complete scrapping and overhaul of the Federal Election Commission
(aka the Repub-Demo Preservation Commission) are obviously
inevitable. Here the danger is that the changes, instead of being
discussed rationally will happen in a sudden paroxysm of socio-
political revolt, the inevitable result of special interests in both
parties attempting to block seriously needed changes at all cost along
with their corporatista benefactors.

Citizen Jimserac
From: Peter B on

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7p4mq4F81cU1(a)mid.individual.net...
> Peter B wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote
>>> AZDuffman wrote
>>>> Rachel Uchitel <lilhor...(a)yahoo.com> wrote
>
>>>>> As Obama has hinted, without meaningful cost controls on major
>>>>> components of our medical-health programs, the result will
>>>>> eventually be U.S. BANKRUPTCY!
>
>>>> You need to learn ECON 101. You CANNOT control the cost of
>>>> something. If you slap a control on it, supply will shrink or
>>>> dissapear.
>
>>> How odd that it didnt when Japan did just that.
>
>>>> The probelm in health care is the "customer" is rarely the person
>>>> who actually pays.
>
>>> The real problem is that hardly anyone can afford to treat the most
>>> expensive medical problems like a heart attack or diabetes etc.
>
>> Treated diabetes is not that expensive,
>
> Wrong when the diabetic ends up with foot ulcers etc and there is
> no alternative to cutting the feet off as the diabetes progresses.
>

Cutting off a foot is inexpensive. They start with the toes first, then
the front half of the foot, then the whole foot and gradually move up
the leg/legs. Keeping diabetes in check greatly reduces this all from
happening. That includes taking all meds, weight and diet control.

>> runaway or poorly treated diabetes is. At that point they go on
>> disability and the state pays for it.
>
> Still a single payer system at that stage.
>
Nope, chopped feet goes on disability in a high percentage of the cases.

>> Heart care is covered under most medical plans,
>
> Irrelevant to the fact that the customer isnt paying for that.
>
What part of paying for medical insurance is not paid and or earned by
the customer?


>> emergency surgeries cannot be denied.
>
> But can very easily result in bankruptcy when you need a heart bypass
> etc.
>
That has pretty much been eliminated by law. In any event it does not
change the fact that it cannot be denied.


>>> So you have to tax everyone to pay for those most expensive medical
>>> problems.
>
>> Other than sales tax the ''poor'' pay no taxes.
>
> Even you should have noticed that not everyone is poor.
>
> And the working poor pay a lot more than just sales tax anyway.
>

Then why all the hubbub about the lack of insurance, eh? The working
poor earn their health care in most instances, can buy their own "group"
insurance plans if they wish, or ignore it like many young people due
refusing to believe it can happen to them. Besides, now you are
waffling.

>> Currently the government when it shifts funds to pay one thing or
>> another does not affect the average tax payer when it comes to their
>> private health plans,
>
> But there is very substantial funds shifting with medicare alone, just
> because
> funds are moved from those who are young, fit and healthy and working
> to
> those who are entitled to have medicare pay their medical costs.
>

Wrong, they all paid into the same "fund". There is your so-called
single payer system. The fund shifting is as I mentioned above. They
take all of it and use if for other things. In other words they put it
all into the general fund and dispence it at their will.

> The modern universal first and second world health care funding
> systems in all but the US the same as US medicare in that regard.
>
Nope.

>> but let it all fit under the control of the USA government then watch
>> them spend the monies elsewhere, lie or make up some lame excuse for
>> it like they have been doing for the SS monies which was supposed to
>> be in a literal fund of its own but isn't due to their greed.
>
> The obvious approach is to fix that, not continue to pay TWICE the
> percentage
> of GDP that the rest of the world does on an insurance system.
>
Why are you so oblivious of history? This has been addressed many times
over many administrations. The house always finds a way around it. These
are the people you vote into office.

>> One day the avg citizen will wake up expecting treatment only to find
>> it denied due to lack of funds.
>
> No govt will ever be that stupid, essentially because it would be out
> of office so fast its feet wouldnt even touch the ground.
>

Really? Then why are all the clowns still in Washington D.C.? Who are
the blind and ignorant people who keep electing them? All selfish people
care about is that bad stuff isn't happening to them. When the State of
California cuts MediCal to the disabled, blind, etc. no one cares except
the people affected. It is the "caring Democrats" that cut the funds to
the helpless, disabled and indigent before they cut teachers pay,
highway workers, prison guards, and their own help. Yes, they are so
caring alright.

> And its a lie anyway, has not happened with medicare or any other
> universal health care system.

Then why haven't you read the news on the Internet for the last 5 years?
Hmmm? Can you read? Are you civically minded? Did you not read of the
cut in funding for the UK regarding Prostrate surgery and that over 50%
were being denied? That many would die prematurely over this? That
Swedish Dr,'s are treating all who come over with the money for it? Then
they cut back on Mammograms and then Breast surgery for women by the
same amount.

Yes, all the cut backs are true, but you chose to believe a lie. It will
cost you in the end.


From: Peter B on

"Citizen Jimserac" <jimserac(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d2a96404-eaba-4c41-98c4-d33c583a2e12(a)u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 19, 2:11 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Peter B wrote
>
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed....(a)gmail.com> wrote
> >> AZDuffman wrote
> >>> Rachel Uchitel <lilhor...(a)yahoo.com> wrote
> >>>> As Obama has hinted, without meaningful cost controls on major
> >>>> components of our medical-health programs, the
> >>>> result will eventually be U.S. BANKRUPTCY!
> >>> You need to learn ECON 101. You CANNOT control the cost of
> >>> something. If you slap a control on it, supply will shrink or
> >>> dissapear.
> >> How odd that it didnt when Japan did just that.
> >>> The probelm in health care is the "customer" is rarely the person
> >>> who actually pays.
> >> The real problem is that hardly anyone can afford to treat the most
> >> expensive medical problems like a heart attack or diabetes etc.
> > Treated diabetes is not that expensive,
>
> Wrong when the diabetic ends up with foot ulcers etc and there is
> no alternative to cutting the feet off as the diabetes progresses.
>
> > runaway or poorly treated diabetes is. At that point they go on
> > disability and the state pays for it.
>
> Still a single payer system at that stage.
>
> > Heart care is covered under most medical plans,
>
> Irrelevant to the fact that the customer isnt paying for that.
>
> > emergency surgeries cannot be denied.
>
> But can very easily result in bankruptcy when you need a heart bypass
> etc.
>
> >> So you have to tax everyone to pay for those most expensive medical
> >> problems.
> > Other than sales tax the ''poor'' pay no taxes.
>
> Even you should have noticed that not everyone is poor.
>
> And the working poor pay a lot more than just sales tax anyway.
>
> > Currently the government when it shifts funds to pay one thing or
> > another does not affect the average tax payer when
> > it comes to their private health plans,
>
> But there is very substantial funds shifting with medicare alone, just
> because
> funds are moved from those who are young, fit and healthy and working
> to
> those who are entitled to have medicare pay their medical costs.
>
> The modern universal first and second world health care funding
> systems in all but the US the same as US medicare in that regard.
>
> > but let it all fit under the control of the USA government then
> > watch them spend the monies elsewhere, lie or make up
> > some lame excuse for it like they have been doing for the SS monies
> > which was supposed to be in a literal fund of its
> > own but isn't due to their greed.
>
> The obvious approach is to fix that, not continue to pay TWICE the
> percentage
> of GDP that the rest of the world does on an insurance system.
>
> > One day the avg citizen will wake up expecting treatment only to
> > find it denied due to lack of funds.
>
> No govt will ever be that stupid, essentially because it would be out
> of office so fast its feet wouldnt even touch the
> ground.
>
> And its a lie anyway, has not happened with medicare or any other
> universal health care system.

Exactly correct. The cost of NOT having some sort of government
provided health care program for millions of uninsured is far GREATER
than allowing the current situation to continue. What about some
epidemic for which there is no vaccination?
========================================================
Why does the federal government subsidize vaccines?
Why are they currently interested in the GP health?
Why do they currently subsidize many health programs?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, there is the unstated assumption that if we have a
government run option we must copy exactly what the French or Great
Britain or Canada has. We are under no such constraint - in fact, a
wise move would be to consult with experts from these systems and find
ways of improving it.
======================================================
Now that is a statement straight from the mouth of uneduated and
ignorant people.

How did they arrive at all the current health plans? From Hillary's plan
on down. They don't care about how it works, they just want you to feel
comforatble with it while they control your life and erode your rights.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The utter irony of all this is that everything the opponents of the
government system say is theoretically correct - governments really do
not run big organizations well, it is better to have lower taxes and
smaller government and many freely competing private enterprise
insurers (you just know that's not going to happen).
===================================================
When you chose not to limit competition, prices drop. The more competing
in the same market place the more the prices drop. Anyone can plainly
see evidences of that everywhere they look. The states that limit health
plans to one of two companies either pay more or get less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But in the context of the current situation, with tens of millions of
illegal aliens, tens of millions of uninsureds and the willful
complicity of the health "insurers" in various exclusionary tactics to
protect their "profits", such as the prior condition exclusion and
provisions in their plan which, after a certain expenditure of time
and resources, ENDS the coverage of the insured and terminates all
benefits, there is no alternative but to seek government redress of
this deliberate avoidance of the health care problem which, in effect,
uses American taxpayers to subsidy the profits of special interest
insurers.
===========================================================
Illegal aliens should not be given any help other than to return home,
or if they are escaping tryany.
Any lazy person can get a job, then health care. Otherwise they are
supported by those of us who pay taxes.

You are anti-capitalist, and are against anything that eminates from it,
but are only too willing to take welfare money from those of us who pay
taxes. It isn't the government that pays you, they are the ones who
confiscate my money to give to lazy bums like you.

Citizen Jimserac
fool


From: Peter B on
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7p4vf6FmlaU1(a)mid.individual.net...
> Citizen Jimserac wrote:
>> On Dec 19, 2:11 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Peter B wrote
>>>
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....(a)gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> AZDuffman wrote
>>>>>> Rachel Uchitel <lilhor...(a)yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>>> As Obama has hinted, without meaningful cost controls on major
>>>>>>> components of our medical-health programs, the result will
>>>>>>> eventually be U.S. BANKRUPTCY!
>>>>>> You need to learn ECON 101. You CANNOT control the cost of
>>>>>> something. If you slap a control on it, supply will shrink or
>>>>>> dissapear.
>>>>> How odd that it didnt when Japan did just that.
>>>>>> The probelm in health care is the "customer" is rarely the person
>>>>>> who actually pays.
>>>>> The real problem is that hardly anyone can afford to treat the
>>>>> most
>>>>> expensive medical problems like a heart attack or diabetes etc.
>>>> Treated diabetes is not that expensive,
>>>
>>> Wrong when the diabetic ends up with foot ulcers etc and there is
>>> no alternative to cutting the feet off as the diabetes progresses.
>>>
>>>> runaway or poorly treated diabetes is. At that point they go on
>>>> disability and the state pays for it.
>>>
>>> Still a single payer system at that stage.
>>>
>>>> Heart care is covered under most medical plans,
>>>
>>> Irrelevant to the fact that the customer isnt paying for that.
>>>
>>>> emergency surgeries cannot be denied.
>>>
>>> But can very easily result in bankruptcy when you need a heart
>>> bypass etc.
>>>
>>>>> So you have to tax everyone to pay for those most expensive
>>>>> medical problems.
>>>> Other than sales tax the ''poor'' pay no taxes.
>>>
>>> Even you should have noticed that not everyone is poor.
>>>
>>> And the working poor pay a lot more than just sales tax anyway.
>>>
>>>> Currently the government when it shifts funds to pay one thing or
>>>> another does not affect the average tax payer when it comes to
>>>> their private health plans,
>>>
>>> But there is very substantial funds shifting with medicare alone,
>>> just because
>>> funds are moved from those who are young, fit and healthy and
>>> working to
>>> those who are entitled to have medicare pay their medical costs.
>>>
>>> The modern universal first and second world health care funding
>>> systems in all but the US the same as US medicare in that regard.
>>>
>>>> but let it all fit under the control of the USA government then
>>>> watch them spend the monies elsewhere, lie or make up some lame
>>>> excuse for it like they have been doing for the SS monies which was
>>>> supposed to be in a literal fund of its own but isn't due to their
>>>> greed.
>>>
>>> The obvious approach is to fix that, not continue to pay TWICE the
>>> percentage
>>> of GDP that the rest of the world does on an insurance system.
>>>
>>>> One day the avg citizen will wake up expecting treatment only to
>>>> find it denied due to lack of funds.
>>>
>>> No govt will ever be that stupid, essentially because it would be
>>> out of office so fast its feet wouldnt even touch the ground.
>>>
>>> And its a lie anyway, has not happened with medicare or any other
>>> universal health care system.
>>
>> Exactly correct. The cost of NOT having some sort of government
>> provided health care program for millions of uninsured is far GREATER
>> than allowing the current situation to continue.
>
> Yes, even without considering the uninsured, the current system
> cost USians TWICE the percentage of GDP that every other first
> and second world country spends. And the US is worse on every
> sensible measure like longevity and years in good health too.
>
You like believing lies. Americans live the longest when you pull out
all the illegals, those that die by the hand or exchange of the illegal,
and war efforts. Our health and health systems is amongst the very best.
Your financials are wrong as well.

>> What about some epidemic for which there is no vaccination?
>
> First and second world countrys deal with that with involuntary
> isolation when its a deadly very infectious disease.
>
LOL, you didn't even understand his question.

>> In addition, there is the unstated assumption that if we have a
>> government run option we must copy exactly what the French
>> or Great Britain or Canada has. We are under no such constraint
>> - in fact, a wise move would be to consult with experts from
>> these systems and find ways of improving it.
>
> I think it would make more sense to just make medicare universal
> instead.
>
> That way most medical practioners wouldnt be able to refuse to treat
> medicare patients, essentially because everyone would be on medicare.
>
Most do not do as you say. Most in fact operate part of the year pro
bono.

>> The utter irony of all this is that everything the opponents of the
>> government system say is theoretically correct - governments
>> really do not run big organizations well,
>
> Dunno, medicare does work much better than the
> insurance system for those who qualify for medicare.
>
Wrong. Totally wrong. Ignorance is bliss, eh?

> And the japanese system works very well indeed controlling the
> prices that can be charged with an overnight stay in a hospital
> only costing quite literally $10 per night if you are happy with
> a shared 4 bed ward and $90 if you prefer a private room etc.
>

Then why do many come here for medical attention?
(meaning those that can afford it)

>> it is better to have lower taxes and smaller government
>> and many freely competing private enterprise insurers
>
> I'm not convinved, essentially because it costs so much more
> to have immense numbers of paper shuffling monkeys deciding
> what will be paid for and what wont. The medicare system is
> much cheaper to run, essentially because all you have to do is
> decide if the medical service actually was provided or not instead.
>
> And you save the immense cost of all that advertising as well.
>

LOL

> The only real downside with replacing the insurance system with
> a universal medicare system right now is that so many of those
> paper shuffling apes in the insurance system would be out of a
> job when the unemployment rate is already twice what it should be.
>

No, they would now work for the feds. (You have to be around 16 yrs old
or less)

>> (you just know that's not going to happen).
>
>> But in the context of the current situation, with tens of millions
>> of illegal aliens, tens of millions of uninsureds and the willful
>> complicity of the health "insurers" in various exclusionary tactics
>> to
>> protect their "profits", such as the prior condition exclusion and
>> provisions in their plan which, after a certain expenditure of time
>> and resources, ENDS the coverage of the insured and terminates all
>> benefits, there is no alternative but to seek government redress of
>> this deliberate avoidance of the health care problem which, in
>> effect,
>> uses American taxpayers to subsidy the profits of special interest
>> insurers.
>
> And the only way to end the immense waste of resources in the paper
> shuffling system thats inevitable with any insurance system is a
> decent
> modern universal medicare. Its really only the completely fucked US
> political system thats prevented the US doing what every other modern
> first and second world country has done, a decent modern universal
> health care system funded by taxation.

No, and now you are contradicting yourself, paper shuffling with *ANY*
insurance system? ROTFL
You are the reason the US political system is F'd. You and all the
ignorant fools who never get involved, never took US History, never
understood nor even bothered to learn about your system and its
foundations.

You have a gimme attitude and do not understand who or how it will be
given to you and what you will lose when you get it.