Gmoney

Gmoney

Audioholic Field Marshall
Most small children believe in santa clause and as they get older they find out that someone was actually buying all those presents. In a political sense I think the left is trying to hold on to child hood fantasies.
Yeah Kind of funny how Parents lie to their children
from the time of Birth. Easter bunny, Santa Claus flying reindeer. Kind of like our Senate and Congress, house of representatives all the way up to the White House. Talk about a landmine waiting to go off. But the real funny thing about all the Untruths for the greater good, is that No matter what in the end throw as much money at Capitalism as long as someone else pays the bill for Decades to come. The Medical industry is one of the most corrupt in this country. Whether it’s Trump’s administration or someone else’s isn’t going away anytime soon.
 
2

2channel lover

Audioholic Field Marshall
You have this wrong. Trump never tried to hammer out a real solution for health insurance with his first Congress. And that Congress was GOP controlled! Instead, he tried to repeal the ACA without any heath insurance plan to replace it. There wasn't even a proposal in the works for a replacement. It's no surprise that it got shot down.
You speak the truth.

He said want needed to be said about it to get the votes and basically bailed on hit. More or less moved on the repeal was shot down.
 
panteragstk

panteragstk

Audioholic Ninja
I agree with everything in your post but this. There is no way with modern medicine that people with the median US income could afford a significant hospital stay on their own.
Right, that's the kicker. I didn't really include that just because of the fact that if that happens, there are tons of other factors that make it all but impossible to afford.

If you're in the hospital for a long time, you're probably either going to lose your job, or be on disability. Both of those mean reduced income (usually). Really bad situation.

Reminds me of a Simpsons episode where the doctor discharges Home because "he's as well as his insurance is willing to pay for".
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Spartan
The main reason I don't want socialized health care is because our government is too stupid to do it right.
I have to respond to this. I live in the Washington DC/Maryland/Virginia are, where the majority are government employees or contractors. There are plenty of people in our government who are smart, work hard, and clearly understand the problems they face. I do get tired hearing people who live far removed, who may not understand the problems as well, and who simply blame all problems on 'the stupid government'. It's largely a GOP campaign mantra that sells well at home during election campaigns, but is far from reality.

It's elected politicians who deliberately play stupid. They pander to less-well informed voters in their states or districts, while doing the bidding of the political lobbies who represent large corporations who have a vested interest in continuing those 'stupid government' policies. Everyone recognizes those policies, such as our existing health care system, as inept or plain wrong.

Does any remember Senator Bill Frist? He was the GOP senator from Tennessee, and he was the Senate Majority Leader from 2003 to 2007. He was also an MD, a surgeon. Frist has a fortune in the millions of dollars, most of it the result of his ownership of stock in Hospital Corporation of America, the for-profit hospital chain founded by his brother and father. Frist's 2005 financial disclosure form lists blind trusts valued between $15 million and $45 million.

I don't know about you, but I don't want someone like this in charge of the Senate. He may have been an excellent surgeon and a good businessman. But as Senate Majority Leader, did he honestly represent the interests of the public, or did he represent his own and his family's substantial interests?

Most of us want reform. But elected politicians and their financial backers stand in the way.
 
2

2channel lover

Audioholic Field Marshall
Yeah, but as usual Comrade Bernie is over-simplifying and in effect lying about his Medicare For All proposal.

It is true IMO that we pay too much as a nation. And it's not just insurers who behave akin to racketeering, it is hospitals, medical providers, testing labs, imaging facilities, drug companies, pharmacies, and even nursing homes. Pricing of healthcare in the US is completely opaque, which fascinates me. In the 1950s there was so much frustration about opaque new car pricing and manufacturer-dealer collusion that a law was passed requiring window stickers on new cars. The legislation in Congress was sponsored by a senator from OK named Mike Monroney, and the resulting window sticker was popularly called a Monroney Sticker for a long time. Healthcare needs similar transparent pricing and, IMO, non-discriminatory (no negotiation) pricing.
To this in bold...as long as Tylenol that costs maybe $10-15 OTC costs over a $100 in a hospital...I 100% agree.

My best friend/golf buddy is now a retired medical professional and so many times we've gotten into the healthcare cost debate which ultimately becomes a chicken and egg debate. He says the non-insured, indigent care market forced healthcare into the stratosphere.

I'm sure indigent care was a factor, but uncontrolled pricing on drugs, tests, procedures, etc. was just dumped on insurance companies who were not going to bear the brunt of it either, so they ramped up their premiums, established new lines of coverages...collectively one drove the other, but they person holding the bill at the end of the day is us.
 
panteragstk

panteragstk

Audioholic Ninja
I have to respond to this. I live in the Washington DC/Maryland/Virginia are, where the majority are government employees or contractors. There are plenty of people in our government who are smart, work hard, and clearly understand the problems they face. I do get tired hearing people who live far removed, who may not understand the problems as well, and who simply blame all problems on 'the stupid government'. It's largely a GOP campaign mantra that sells well at home during election campaigns, but is far from reality.

It's elected politicians who deliberately play stupid. They pander to less-well informed voters in their states or districts, while doing the bidding of the political lobbies who represent large corporations who have a vested interest in continuing those 'stupid government' policies. Everyone recognizes those policies, such as our existing health care system, as inept or plain wrong.

Does any remember Senator Bill Frist? He was the GOP senator from Tennessee, and he was the Senate Majority Leader from 2003 to 2007. He was also an MD, a surgeon. Frist has a fortune in the millions of dollars, most of it the result of his ownership of stock in Hospital Corporation of America, the for-profit hospital chain founded by his brother and father. Frist's 2005 financial disclosure form lists blind trusts valued between $15 million and $45 million.

I don't know about you, but I don't want someone like this in charge of the Senate. He may have been an excellent surgeon and a good businessman. But as Senate Majority Leader, did he honestly represent the interests of the public, or did he represent his own and his family's substantial interests?

Most of us want reform. But elected politicians and their financial backers stand in the way.
I want to clarify what I mean by what you quoted. I don't mean individual people. I mean the groups in charge of making these huge decisions. A perfect example is something you already said in that Trump could have made the ACA better, but just wanted to repeal it. That hits the nail on the head of what I said perfectly.

Any reform that an administration does will probably be undone by the next administration. That is stupid. I don't understand why that's even a goal for the current administration.

I actually worked in DC too up until march of last year so I know what you are saying, but it seems like the people in charge aren't bright, or just don't care what the "right" decision is. It's very disheartening. Especially when I saw so many people forced to work for no pay during the shut down. What happens to our medical care when someone decides to shut down the government for a month?

That's what I mean by saying they're too stupid. I guess I shouldn't base that off the current administration, but that's what we've got for now. It was in no way an insult to those that do the real grunt work of the government.
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
I have to respond to this. I live in the Washington DC/Maryland/Virginia are, where the majority are government employees or contractors. There are plenty of people in our government who are smart, work hard, and clearly understand the problems they face. I do get tired hearing people who live far removed, who may not understand the problems as well, and who simply blame all problems on 'the stupid government'. It's largely a GOP campaign mantra that sells well at home during election campaigns, but is far from reality.
While I personally never worked for the USG, my wife was an employee of the DoE and DoA for over 10 years, and she would beg to differ with you, Swerd. Loudly. Especially the people she met in Washington. She got so fed up with the Feds she decided to retire early, and in that time went from being a slightly left of center Democrat to a rather right of center Republican. The only people I heard her having a lot of respect for were in the DoJ.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Spartan
While I personally never worked for the USG, my wife was an employee of the DoE and DoA for over 10 years, and she would beg to differ with you, Swerd. Loudly. Especially the people she met in Washington. She got so fed up with the Feds she decided to retire early, and in that time went from being a slightly left of center Democrat to a rather right of center Republican. The only people I heard her having a lot of respect for were in the DoJ.
My experience with the National Cancer Institute was quite different than your wife's. She's a lawyer, I'm a scientist – worlds apart. Sure I knew some empire builders and dead wood, but I also knew a lot of dedicated professionals. Our nation would be a lot worse off without their efforts.

Can you imagine Trump's political appointees running the CDC during this COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic? It would be worse than when George W put that inept clown in charge of FEMA, and then Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans. It's almost that bad now because of the severe budget cuts the CDC has had imposed on it by right of center GOP pols who claim they can't trust stupid government. Their budget cuts guarantee the stupidity.

What do you mean when you say "Feds"? Were they career professionals or were they political appointees?
 
Last edited:
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
My experience with the National Cancer Institute was quite different than your wife's. She's a lawyer, I'm a scientist – worlds apart. Sure I knew some empire builders and dead wood, but I also knew a lot of dedicated professionals. Our nation would be a lot worse off without their efforts.

Can you imagine Trump's political appointees running the CDC during this COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic? It would be worse than when George W put that inept clown in charge of FEMA, and then that hurricane struck New Orleans. It's almost that bad now because of the severe budget cuts the CDC has had imposed on it by right of center GOP pols who claim they can't trust stupid government. Their budget cuts guarantee the stupidity.

What do you mean when you say "Feds"? Were they career professionals or were they political appointees?
Only a few were political appointees. Most were career professionals who were not attorneys. She also liked the scientists and technical experts she met, but mostly her clients in the government were SES level or middle managers.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Spartan
I want to clarify what I mean by what you quoted. I don't mean individual people. I mean the groups in charge of making these huge decisions. A perfect example is something you already said in that Trump could have made the ACA better, but just wanted to repeal it. That hits the nail on the head of what I said perfectly.

Any reform that an administration does will probably be undone by the next administration. That is stupid. I don't understand why that's even a goal for the current administration.

I actually worked in DC too up until march of last year so I know what you are saying, but it seems like the people in charge aren't bright, or just don't care what the "right" decision is. It's very disheartening. Especially when I saw so many people forced to work for no pay during the shut down. What happens to our medical care when someone decides to shut down the government for a month?

That's what I mean by saying they're too stupid. I guess I shouldn't base that off the current administration, but that's what we've got for now. It was in no way an insult to those that do the real grunt work of the government.
I get what you say. Those words "government is stupid", or "the government is the problem" tend to press my rant & rave buttons.

I didn't mean to single you out, and I'm sorry if my response made you feel that way.

That month-long government shutdown you experienced was no accident. The Trump and his right wing GOP backers intended it all along to deliberately demoralize federal employees, to encourage them to leave, as well as discourage any potential new hires from coming. It was fun seeing how Nancy Pelosi bloodied him into submission. He's been frightened of her ever since.
 
Last edited:
panteragstk

panteragstk

Audioholic Ninja
I get what you say. Those words "government is stupid", or "the government is the problem" tend to press my rant & rave buttons.

I didn't mean to single you out, and I'm sorry if my response made you feel that way.

That month-long government you experienced was no accident. The Trump and his right wing GOP backers intended it all along to deliberately demoralize federal employees, to encourage them to leave, as well as discourage any potential new hires from coming. It was fun seeing how Nancy Pelosi bloodied him into submission. He's been frightened of her ever since.
I didn't take offense at all. You gave me an opportunity to clarify so I didn't offend.

I agree that it was planned, but that was a rough month to sit through. I still got paid because I wasn't an actual employee, but the other guys weren't so lucky. Messed up thing to do.
 
davidscott

davidscott

Audioholic Field Marshall
Well I start my actual Medicare next month. Probably will ad part c and maybe part d also.
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Audioholic Slumlord
I get what you say. Those words "government is stupid", or "the government is the problem" tend to press my rant & rave buttons.

...
And we know how it goes without governments ;) .
 
JerryLove

JerryLove

Audioholic Samurai
that was truly one of the more BS vid clips I've watched lately. Does any Bernie supporter even begin to understand there is no 'free' !!!!! I'll give Bernie his propaganda due though, he's even got my 10 year old grandson believing in his free this and free that bullshit.
It's not Sanders that is claiming things are free. That's a straw-man propped up but the opposition and even believed, at least when commented on without thought, by some supporters.

What is bullshit is your claim.

I have a sneaking suspicion you don't object to building a wall with our tax dollars, even though it does naught but harm; but you seem to clearly oppose that our tax dollars go to making lifesaving healthcare available and affordable.

Did you know that the US government (Federal and State combined) spends more on healthcare (adjusted for population) than any country in the world... and somehow we manage to still only actually provide healthcare to a small percentage of the population (Those one Tricare, Medicare, Medicaid, and subsidized ACA care).

Do you know what would happen if we could magically mirror Germany's healthcare system today?

Everyone in the US would have access to healthcare.
Taxes would go *down*.
The average American would also save $5000/year in insurance expenses.
Not to mention what we'd save in personal outpayments to medical.
And we'd eliminate more than half of all bankruptcies in the US.

We'd also end up with more hospitals in rural areas, lower infant mortality, and you'd be more likely the be able to get the doctor of your choice (since basically all doctors will be in the one network), etc.

Single payer would also reduce the administrative costs of doctor's offices by 80%.

Again: all using *fewer* tax dollars than we do now.

I wonder why anyone would oppose it.

But the right is *forced* to prop straw-men. Otherwise they have to say things like.
"We oppose affordable college"
"We think people shouldn't be able to get needed healthcare"
"We want healthcare prices to be the highest in the world, and without giving the best care in exchange".

"Medicare for all" isn't the best solution.. partially because (in a mostly partisan vote) the right wing outlawed Medicare from bargaining for better prices like every other country does... but it is a solution that we can assert as a step in the right direction and one that avoids the gridlock of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
 
JerryLove

JerryLove

Audioholic Samurai
Most small children believe in santa clause and as they get older they find out that someone was actually buying all those presents. In a political sense I think the left is trying to hold on to child hood fantasies.
My only childhood fantasy is to want my money to do good, preferably for me, rather than support subsidies to oil companies, pharmaceutical conglomerates, and a military industrial complex.

The fact is I do pay taxes and do fund a government. I want roads, bridges, healthcare, industry oversight, affordable education, opportunities and a social safety net.

What do you want from it? Because the right seems to spend it on private prisons.
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
It's not Sanders that is claiming things are free. That's a straw-man propped up but the opposition and even believed, at least when commented on without thought, by some supporters.
True. Sanders says taxes would go up, but hasn't specified by how much. However, Sanders is using the term Medicare inappropriately for his Medicare-For-All proposal. His proposal has no premiums, no deductibles, and no co-pays. Medicare has all of those things. It also eliminates private coverage while Medicare depends on it, in two ways. First, there's Medicare Advantage plans. Second, Medicare's viability depends on providers charging privately insured people more to cover their costs.

Did you know that the US government (Federal and State combined) spends more on healthcare (adjusted for population) than any country in the world... and somehow we manage to still only actually provide healthcare to a small percentage of the population (Those one Tricare, Medicare, Medicaid, and subsidized ACA care).
This is incorrect. Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, and Tricare cover a total of over 40% of Americans. Medicaid alone covers 19.3% of Americans, according to the latest USG figures I found. And I'm not counting other programs, like those for Native Americans.

Do you know what would happen if we could magically mirror Germany's healthcare system today?

Everyone in the US would have access to healthcare.
Taxes would go *down*.
The average American would also save $5000/year in insurance expenses.
Not to mention what we'd save in personal outpayments to medical.
And we'd eliminate more than half of all bankruptcies in the US.
What do you know about the German healthcare system? While everyone in German has access to healthcare, there is a multi-payer system with a private coverage for anyone above a not-so-high income level. Also, provider fees are dictated by federal government, so healthcare professionals earn substantially less than their counterparts in the US. I don't know where you came up with the $5000/year figure.

I agree that healthcare bankruptcies are a problem, but Medicare For All is not the appropriate remedy.

We'd also end up with more hospitals in rural areas, lower infant mortality, and you'd be more likely the be able to get the doctor of your choice (since basically all doctors will be in the one network), etc.
Not the unless the government provided them. Rural hospitals are closing at an alarming rate because they get a larger percentage of Medicare and Medicaid patients than hospitals in large metro areas, and Medicare and Medicaid pay on average 25% less than private insurance. Private insurance is subsidizing Medicare and Medicaid. The Medicare For All bill assumes Medicare pricing schedules. Have you read the bill?

Single payer would also reduce the administrative costs of doctor's offices by 80%.
Single-payer would reduce administrative costs, but I'm not sure if 80% is accurate.

Again: all using *fewer* tax dollars than we do now.

I wonder why anyone would oppose it.
Have you read the Medicare For All bill, Jerry?

There is no way we would get all of the benefits you want for fewer tax dollars. NFW.

But the right is *forced* to prop straw-men. Otherwise they have to say things like.
"We oppose affordable college"
"We think people shouldn't be able to get needed healthcare"
"We want healthcare prices to be the highest in the world, and without giving the best care in exchange".
This is bullshit, Jerry. You're better than this.

"Medicare for all" isn't the best solution.. partially because (in a mostly partisan vote) the right wing outlawed Medicare from bargaining for better prices like every other country does... but it is a solution that we can assert as a step in the right direction and one that avoids the gridlock of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
The Medicare For All bill not only includes negotiating for drug pricing, and if drug companies don't agree to the government's offer their patents can be confiscated and licensed to competitors. They are compensated for the patents, but can argue the amount of compensation only in a special court run by the Feds for issues like this (e.g. eminent domain). Read the bill.

Medicare For All is the enemy of the good, because it lays waste to too many Americans in the process, namely healthcare workers (they'll have to take a ~25% pay cut) and healthcare insurance industry workers (~500,000 of them) who will just be out of work. Then there's also the problem I've pointed out multiple times before of when you make services free with no deductibles or co-pays the demand for services goes up dramatically, so wait times will too. IMO, you are arguing from emotion and not the big picture.
 
JerryLove

JerryLove

Audioholic Samurai
True. Sanders says taxes would go up, but hasn't specified by how much. However, Sanders is using the term Medicare inappropriately for his Medicare-For-All proposal. His proposal has no premiums, no deductibles, and no co-pays. Medicare has all of those things. It also eliminates private coverage while Medicare depends on it, in two ways. First, there's Medicare Advantage plans. Second, Medicare's viability depends on providers charging privately insured people more to cover their costs.
Medicare advantage plans are essentially private companies siphoning out funds for heal care by reducing payments to healthcare providers, reducing coverage, and occasionally finding waste.

Some of those reductions are valuable, but would actually be done better by a single-payer system. (disclosure: I spend most of the last 15 years working for a medicare advantage plan)

This is incorrect. Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, and Tricare cover a total of over 40% of Americans. Medicaid alone covers 19.3% of Americans, according to the latest USG figures I found. And I'm not counting other programs, like those for Native Americans.
I stand exposed as hyperbolic... a minority are covered.

What do you know about the German healthcare system? While everyone in German has access to healthcare, there is a multi-payer system with a private coverage for anyone above a not-so-high income level.
That doesn't appear to be entirely accurate "Healthcare in Germany is funded by statutory contributions, ensuring free healthcare for all. In addition, you can also take out private health insurance (Private Krankenversicherung or PKV) to replace or top up state cover (gesetzliche Krankenkasse or GKV). " - https://www.expatica.com/de/healthcare/healthcare-basics/the-german-healthcare-system-a-guide-to-healthcare-in-germany-103359/

But it's also not the point. The point is that everyone has healthcare coverage (you said so yourself)... generally more comprehensive than in the US, and the per-capita costs are a bit over half the US.

Germany (https://www.who.int/countries/deu/en/):
Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2014)5,182

United States (https://www.who.int/countries/usa/en/):
Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2014)9,403

Also: Medical bankrupts isn't a thing.

Also, provider fees are dictated by federal government, so healthcare professionals earn substantially less than their counterparts in the US. I don't know where you came up with the $5000/year figure.
quick google search. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/09/americans-spend-twice-as-much-on-health-care-today-as-in-the-1980s.html.
Also: personal experience.

And yes, Doctors make about 1/3rd less. Now, shall we discuss the debt burden of medical school in the US vs Germany https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-doctors-are-drowning-in-medical-school-debt/

(and please don't think I'm holding Germany as some pinnacle system. I could have mentioned Canada or France.)

I agree that healthcare bankruptcies are a problem, but Medicare For All is not the appropriate remedy.
And I'll support a better plan.

But given "medicare for all" and "status quo". I'll take medicare for all.

"perfect" is the enemy of good.

Not the unless the government provided them. Rural hospitals are closing at an alarming rate because they get a larger percentage of Medicare and Medicaid patients than hospitals in large metro areas,
And uninsured.

Of course: hospitals are also more expensive when there's less competition and rates cannot be externally controlled.

and Medicare and Medicaid pay on average 25% less than private insurance. Private insurance is subsidizing Medicare and Medicaid. The Medicare For All bill assumes Medicare pricing schedules.
By "Private insurance" you mean "me". Patients are paying more than they should.

Hospitals have gone through numerous rounds of taking debt to buy hospitals. They are creating new debt burden and looking for profit centers.

Two times ago when I was in the ER, I had now fewer than four people attempting to collect money from me on the gurney before I had my first medical conversation (I ended up having my gall-bladder removed).

Right now, there's some third-party collection agency attempting to collect for a lab company inside a hospital for a debt we already paid the hospital for.

Have you read the bill?
No. I'm less arguing for the bill than I am arguing against the specious arguments against the entire idea.

Single-payer would reduce administrative costs, but I'm not sure if 80% is accurate.
https://time.com/5759972/health-care-administrative-costs/

Have you read the Medicare For All bill, Jerry?
No. I'm less arguing for the bill than I am arguing against the specious arguments against the entire idea.

There is no way we would get all of the benefits you want for fewer tax dollars. NFW.
You are likely right. I didn't say that the medicare for all bill would lower taxes. I said "if we could magically mirror Germany's healthcare system today?"

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that, in what's been long posts from both of us, you got sidetracked and that your straw-man isn't intentional.

Unless you are saying we wouldn't manage to lower taxes with the german system.

The Federal government spent about $1.1 trillion in healthcare. That's $3,363/person.
State governments spent about $605 billion (in 2016, which is the first year I found). That's $1,850/person

Combined: that's $5,213/person

Germany's total expenditure (not just government expenditure) is $5,182; but as you've pointed out, not everyone gets everything free; so actual tax spending is lower than that.

$5,182 <5,213

This is bullshit, Jerry. You're better than this.
But its true though.

The Medicare For All bill not only includes negotiating for drug pricing, and if drug companies don't agree to the government's offer their patents can be confiscated and licensed to competitors. They are compensated for the patents, but can argue the amount of compensation only in a special court run by the Feds for issues like this (e.g. eminent domain). Read the bill.
Good.

Patents exist for the public good. That's why they expire. If the patent isn't serving the public good, it should expire.

Or are you in favor of what's happened with, for example, insulin? Now imagine that was new!

Lives > Profit

Medicare For All is the enemy of the good, because it lays waste to too many Americans in the process, namely healthcare workers (they'll have to take a ~25% pay cut) and healthcare insurance industry workers (~500,000 of them) who will just be out of work.
Re insurance industry: as one of them I say "so what!" By that logic, you literally cannot cut spending on anything anywhere... after all, it goes to someone.

Ask most healthcare workers how much of their salary goes to healthcare expenses. You might find that a 25% pay cut, even if true, is an improvement in real income for most.

My wife worked in Dr.Offices. They tended to make <$12/hr...

Then there's also the problem I've pointed out multiple times before of when you make services free with no deductibles or co-pays the demand for services goes up dramatically, so wait times will too. IMO, you are arguing from emotion and not the big picture.
Yea. I've noticed that with police, fire departments, roads, and all other social services.

Ahh yes.. the boogie man of "wait times". *you* are speaking from emotion.

Well. I just waited 2 months to get in with a GI doctors. But then the year changed and he fell out of network. So now, for the stomach discomfot ruining my sleep: I get to have a first visit in April.

What *actually* happens is that access to healthcare improves and average outcome improves. We don't have to speculate, we can simply look. Meanwhile: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
You might find that a 25% pay cut, even if true, is an improvement in real income for most.
I could argue with you point for point again, but this one statement sums up the shallowness of your arguments. Somebody making $12/hr is not object of my concern, and you know better. It is physicians, RNs, PAs, radiologists, anesthesiologists, and other highly skilled people who aren't easily replaceable, and even many RNs make about six figures in metro areas. As I pointed out in an earlier post, PAs in the US make more than MDs in Denmark. I get it that you hate your employer and other insurance companies, there's a lot to hate. But what Sanders is discussing and has sold as a panacea to his blind followers is a stupid plan with no funding reality. What worries me most is that so many people support him without even understanding what he's really promoting.
 
JerryLove

JerryLove

Audioholic Samurai
I could argue with you point for point again, but this one statement sums up the shallowness of your arguments.
You could: but you'd be forced to admit an awful lot of errors (like I did when I admitted that 40% wasn't a "small fraction") and I'm not sure you can do that.

I thought you were better than that :(

Somebody making $12/hr is not object of my concern, and you know better. It is physicians, RNs, PAs, radiologists, anesthesiologists, and other highly skilled people who aren't easily replaceable, and even many RNs make about six figures in metro areas. As I pointed out in an earlier post, PAs in the US make more than MDs in Denmark.
And my concern is the preventable suffering and death of people.

Because I'm pretty sure that "RNs, PAs, radiologists, anesthesiologists, and other highly skilled people" in the rest of the first world are not living in poverty and, in fact, are more secure because of better social safety nets, free health insurance, and the lack of student debt.

But, again, the proof is in the pudding. (https://money.cnn.com/2018/05/04/news/economy/health-care-workers-shortage/index.html)

I guess the "more money" thing isn't preventing a shortage. (I'm not saying shortages aren't universal; I'm saying "if we did this there would be a shortage that doesn't presently exist" is false) Amazingly: they don't all seem to be fleeing Europe to come work here in the golden land.

I get it that you hate your employer and other insurance companies, there's a lot to hate.
I guess you really aren't better than that. That's at least the fourth time you've made an ad-homenim. I guess I should respond in kind?

I get it. You've compartmentalized and are now forced into cognitive dissonance to rationalize an irrational position while maintaining ego.

But what Sanders is discussing and has sold as a panacea to his blind followers is a stupid plan with no funding reality. What worries me most is that so many people support him without even understanding what he's really promoting.
In general terms: the progressive wing of the DNC is promoting the general welfare while suggesting that our tax dollars would be better used to help the American people than to line the pockets of the already wealthy.

I'll support a better plan. Where is the better plan? Remind me what the RNC health plan is.
 
Last edited:

newsletter
  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top