Socialism in action

2,447 Views | 82 Replies | Last: 4 mo ago by dimitrig
bearlyamazing
How long do you want to ignore this user?
[url=https://twitter.com/themarketswork/status/1227649138004615169][/url]

If a socialist like Sanders or Warren gets elected, our country is screwed. Anyone who thinks medicare for all and the green new deal can be paid for on the backs of the rich is out of their mind. There's not even the slightest chance that would work. There's just not a big enough base to draw from to pay for massively expensive items.

The dirty little secret none of the dems and most of you here won't talk about is the only way to significantly bring in enough taxes to pay for anything that's particularly expensive is by dipping into the huge pool that's the middle class. And when you take people's money away, they have way less money to spend so they don't spend it. You take a big chunk of the wealthy's money away, they have no incentive to expand and add new jobs. They find a way to shelter their income, too. They always do. You don't get rich by being fiscally stupid.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Essentially every country that is a financial power in the world has national insurance. Few do it on the back of the wealthy. Everyone pays something - it is a lot like Medicare. There are co-pays, payments withdrawn from salaries, supplemental insurance (the idea that there will be no insurance is unfounded), etc. There is some slight redistribution aspects in Medicare which I can elaborate upon, but it primarily is paid for by everyone. The same approach -everyone pays - is used in the UK, Australia, etc., and their are sound policy reasons for this approach, particularly with respect to cost control.
OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

Essentially every country that is a financial power in the world has national insurance. Few do it on the back of the wealthy. Everyone pays something - it is a lot like Medicare. There are co-pays, payments withdrawn from salaries, supplemental insurance (the idea that there will be no insurance is unfounded), etc. There is some slight redistribution aspects in Medicare which I can elaborate upon, but it primarily is paid for by everyone. The same approach -everyone pays - is used in the UK, Australia, etc., and their are sound policy reasons for this approach, particularly with respect to cost control.
Which is why Bernie's plan makes sense and Warren's doesn't.

Also, Warren is not a socialist or a democratic socialist.

Also, Bernie is a democratic socialist which is not the same as a socialist. Why he chose to label himself in such a moronic fashion I will never understand.
LMK5
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We certainly need to do something. A for-profit healthcare industry doesn't seem to be working all that well for people on the other end of the equation. I say look at countries that have tackled the health care dilemma but also have robust economies, then copy their framework. I'm thinking places like Germany, Switzerland, and Canada. Most countries have hybrid systems that incorporate both public and private insurance. Each country is a little different but they seem to be working well for their citizens, unlike ours.

bearlyamazing
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Many of the countries that have nationalized healthcare have long waiting times, too. Many Canadians come to America for healthcare.

One of the big problems paying for nationalized healthcare is that we already have a big tax burden here with income taxes, payroll/social security tax (double the tax at 15.3% for self-employed), property taxes, state taxes in most states, gas tax and sales tax. Our economy and economic growth would be crushed with the tax increases required to pay for a plan like MFA.

2/3 of the country are on employer paid/cost shared healthcare or Medicare/Medicaid. It's a noble goal to try and get to 100% but they have to come up with some other feasible way to get the other 1/3 better healthcare options without blowing up the economy. The deficit's already horrendously bad. It would explode with a MFA plan or if we bear all the burden, it will crush growth and consumer spending. No way to spin around that fact.
AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Do you have any sources to support ANY of your claims? Or are you just spitting up what Faux Nooz and Breitbart and InfoWars and all your Facebook "friends" are telling you?









Lemming
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
bearlyamazing
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AunBear89 said:

Do you have any sources to support ANY of your claims? Or are you just spitting up what Faux Nooz and Breitbart and InfoWars and all your Facebook "friends" are telling you?







Lemming
Typical lame lefty kneejerk response. I watch or read none of the above. It doesn't take a rocket science to understand. Get out of your bubble and think for yourself. It's not complicated economics.







Lefty in denial
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearlyamazing said:

AunBear89 said:

Do you have any sources to support ANY of your claims? Or are you just spitting up what Faux Nooz and Breitbart and InfoWars and all your Facebook "friends" are telling you?







Lemming
Typical lame lefty kneejerk response. I watch or read none of the above. It doesn't take a rocket science to understand. Get out of your bubble and think for yourself. It's not complicated economics.







Lefty in denial
AunBear isn't capable of reading other sources of information outside of mainstream media.


bearlyamazing
How long do you want to ignore this user?
According to this source, the amount of people without coverage is much lower than I posted.

https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/total-population/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearlyamazing said:

Many of the countries that have nationalized healthcare have long waiting times, too. Many Canadians come to America for healthcare.

One of the big problems paying for nationalized healthcare is that we already have a big tax burden here with income taxes, payroll/social security tax (double the tax at 15.3% for self-employed), property taxes, state taxes in most states, gas tax and sales tax. Our economy and economic growth would be crushed with the tax increases required to pay for a plan like MFA.

2/3 of the country are on employer paid/cost shared healthcare or Medicare/Medicaid. It's a noble goal to try and get to 100% but they have to come up with some other feasible way to get the other 1/3 better healthcare options without blowing up the economy. The deficit's already horrendously bad. It would explode with a MFA plan or if we bear all the burden, it will crush growth and consumer spending. No way to spin around that fact.
You do understand that under medicare today, most people (81%) have insurance supplements that pay for a substantial portion of their costs? This is a huge shift in dollars from the employer to the individual. And you do understand that the individual (unless below certain poverty lines) pays premumims for the base coverage? There seems to be some misconception that medicare if free or a give away. It isn't. And part D (meds) is high co-pays. So there is a huge cost shift from employer to a retired individual. I really think you don't know how medicare works.

What Medicare does do is provide everyone that qualifies insurance, and contain costs by being a huge provider (for example, essentially no doctor can afford to not accept Medicare's lower payments since it is such a large provider). They theory is that if is essentially the only provider, the costs will go down even further. It is not free, most everyone on Medicare pays something. It is not perfect. Drug costs can be high, certain things are not covered, there are coverage gaps - thus, you need to pay for a supplement. There are other complaints as well, but the point is there is no perfect system - at least not one than is cost-effective.

I'm on Medicare. You clearly are not. It isn't a give away or budget buster. The Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund is expected to be adequately funded over the next 10 years and beyond because premium income and general revenue income for Parts B and D are reset each year to cover expected costs. Part A is still is positive, but expecting to need higher than planned premium increases starting in 2048 assuming Obamacare remains good law and some provisions in Trump's 2019 budget pass (so far there seems to be bipartisan support). If not, there will be higher than expected premiums sooner. There is more complexity, but in general, I'm not seeing where your claims come from.


Doctors and other health care providers will make less. Will that mean less doctors in the long run, maybe. What happens in most places is certain doctors, the top guys in specialities, become private doctors for the rich, who will pay above national health care prices. So for most things you see a national doctor and for the very serious stuff you may use a private doctor or health facility. That is how it works in Australia which has a system close to MFA. The Canadian system is different than Medicare, it's based on individual taxes and Canadians paying for a 30% co-pay. But provider costs are much lower due to the government monopoly, so that 30% is more manageable. Unlike Medicare, you must see you general doctor first (they are the gate keeper) and depending on the urgency of your condition you get seen by a specialist doctor or get a specialized test (this doesn't apply to emergencies obviously). So there can be less wait or more wait. That simply isn't the system under Medicare..

You need to remember that it is the individual, not the employer, who pays for medicare currently, so I don't get some of the discussion, unless Sanders is going to do a Warren and tax the wealthy, transactions, etc.. That is not my understanding. Sanders's version for financing Medicare-for-all includes raising employer-side payroll taxes by 7.5 percentage points in order to raise roughly $3.9 trillion over 10 years. On average, this is less than what employers are currently spending on premium contributions for their employees, so workers and employers should generally come out ahead under this system. Companies with younger employees will probably lose. those not covered by an employer plan will have to pay taxes instead of premiums (this probably is to fit within the SCOTUS legal decision on Obamacare). I think the supplemental insurance will stay be paid by individuals and I'm not sure what he is doing on co-pays, etc. There is a progressive tax rate which I will not try to explain.
The point is that while the structure of Sanders's plan is broadly progressive and broadly beneficial to most households and companies, the exact calculus of who ends up ahead and who does not hinges on a complicated set of factors. There will be some losers and winners. Sorta like Trump's tax cuts.

calpoly
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AunBear89 said:

Do you have any sources to support ANY of your claims? Or are you just spitting up what Faux Nooz and Breitbart and InfoWars and all your Facebook "friends" are telling you?









Lemming
You are correct. I lived in Denmark and when I need to see the doctor I got an appointment in a day or two. Here I have to wait 2-3 months to see the doctor and my company pays $24,000 a year for this crappy insurance!
bearlyamazing
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Before lecturing me on what I supposedly don't understand, stop to think that your income bracket likely puts you in a much different position than most retirees in terms of your medicare coverage and expenses.

I handle my dad's medicare bills and he pays far less than I do with my employer paid plan. That's the case with most retirees. But I wasn't saying medicare was free. Neither are most employer sponsored plans. I usually have paid anywhere from $500 to $1000 a month to cover me and my family and the company pays the rest. Many, many on medicare pay less than I do. I was just adding them to the list of people who have reasonably affordable healthcare coverage now compared to those who don't have health coverage currently.
bearlyamazing
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calpoly said:

AunBear89 said:

Do you have any sources to support ANY of your claims? Or are you just spitting up what Faux Nooz and Breitbart and InfoWars and all your Facebook "friends" are telling you?









Lemming
You are correct. I lived in Denmark and when I need to see the doctor I got an appointment in a day or two. Here I have to wait 2-3 months to see the doctor and my company pays $24,000 a year for this crappy insurance!
Come on, man. Who waits 2-3 months to see a doctor and pays 2k a month for a crappy healthcare plan? And what's your contribution?

I don't buy that for a second. And if it's true, you need to find somewhere else to work.
calpoly
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearlyamazing said:

calpoly said:

AunBear89 said:

Do you have any sources to support ANY of your claims? Or are you just spitting up what Faux Nooz and Breitbart and InfoWars and all your Facebook "friends" are telling you?









Lemming
You are correct. I lived in Denmark and when I need to see the doctor I got an appointment in a day or two. Here I have to wait 2-3 months to see the doctor and my company pays $24,000 a year for this crappy insurance!
Come on, man. Who waits 2-3 months to see a doctor and pays 2k a month for a crappy healthcare plan? And what's your contribution?

I don't buy that for a second. And if it's true, you need to find somewhere else to work.
My contribution is $150/month (BTW $2k/month for my family of 4). I'm waiting 2 1/2 months to see a neurologist. When in Denmark I saw the neurologist in two days. Stop spreading lies. You have NO idea what you are taking about. All you do is repeat lies from Faux news.
bearlyamazing
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calpoly said:

bearlyamazing said:

calpoly said:

AunBear89 said:

Do you have any sources to support ANY of your claims? Or are you just spitting up what Faux Nooz and Breitbart and InfoWars and all your Facebook "friends" are telling you?









Lemming
You are correct. I lived in Denmark and when I need to see the doctor I got an appointment in a day or two. Here I have to wait 2-3 months to see the doctor and my company pays $24,000 a year for this crappy insurance!
Come on, man. Who waits 2-3 months to see a doctor and pays 2k a month for a crappy healthcare plan? And what's your contribution?

I don't buy that for a second. And if it's true, you need to find somewhere else to work.
My contribution is $150/month (BTW $2k/month for my family of 4). I'm waiting 2 1/2 months to see a neurologist. When in Denmark I saw the neurologist in two days. Stop spreading lies. You have NO idea what you are taking about. All you do is repeat lies from Faux news.
I don't watch Fox News, moron. I've had many jobs and none of the health plans were crappy like yours. Neither are the health plans of anyone else I've ever known.

Stop spreading Rachael Madcow MSDNC lies. YOU have no idea what you're talking about.
BearsWiin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Al Gore uses jets

AOC staff uses uber instead of the subway

lather rinse repeat this tired argument

heartofthebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearlyamazing said:

calpoly said:

bearlyamazing said:

calpoly said:

AunBear89 said:

Do you have any sources to support ANY of your claims? Or are you just spitting up what Faux Nooz and Breitbart and InfoWars and all your Facebook "friends" are telling you?









Lemming
You are correct. I lived in Denmark and when I need to see the doctor I got an appointment in a day or two. Here I have to wait 2-3 months to see the doctor and my company pays $24,000 a year for this crappy insurance!
Come on, man. Who waits 2-3 months to see a doctor and pays 2k a month for a crappy healthcare plan? And what's your contribution?

I don't buy that for a second. And if it's true, you need to find somewhere else to work.
My contribution is $150/month (BTW $2k/month for my family of 4). I'm waiting 2 1/2 months to see a neurologist. When in Denmark I saw the neurologist in two days. Stop spreading lies. You have NO idea what you are taking about. All you do is repeat lies from Faux news.
I don't watch Fox News, moron. I've had many jobs and none of the health plans were crappy like yours. Neither are the health plans of anyone else I've ever known.

Stop spreading Rachael Madcow MSDNC lies. YOU have no idea what you're talking about.
I regularly have to wait at least a month to see a doctor. Dentist is even more ridiculous, usually about 3-6 months. But I guess I have a crappy system too.
calpoly
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearlyamazing said:

calpoly said:

bearlyamazing said:

calpoly said:

AunBear89 said:

Do you have any sources to support ANY of your claims? Or are you just spitting up what Faux Nooz and Breitbart and InfoWars and all your Facebook "friends" are telling you?









Lemming
You are correct. I lived in Denmark and when I need to see the doctor I got an appointment in a day or two. Here I have to wait 2-3 months to see the doctor and my company pays $24,000 a year for this crappy insurance!
Come on, man. Who waits 2-3 months to see a doctor and pays 2k a month for a crappy healthcare plan? And what's your contribution?

I don't buy that for a second. And if it's true, you need to find somewhere else to work.
My contribution is $150/month (BTW $2k/month for my family of 4). I'm waiting 2 1/2 months to see a neurologist. When in Denmark I saw the neurologist in two days. Stop spreading lies. You have NO idea what you are taking about. All you do is repeat lies from Faux news.
I don't watch Fox News, moron. I've had many jobs and none of the health plans were crappy like yours. Neither are the health plans of anyone else I've ever known.

Stop spreading Rachael Madcow MSDNC lies. YOU have no idea what you're talking about.
Typical right wing response. Insult the person because you are lying. I answered your questions honestly but since they don't fit you political agenda so you insult the person. You are pathetic.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
What I wonder about the people who complain about the cost of M4A is how they think as a society we can afford to have 20% of our GDP devoted to healthcare.

The real issue we have to solve is the cost of healthcare. The secondary concern is whether we pay for it through taxes and government paid for care or whether a combination of employers and employees pay for it directly.

I would favor any system that significantly reduces our healthcare costs writ large and doesn't unfairly burden people. In other words, I would far rather pay $10k extra in taxes to save $20k in medical costs (and when your employer pays premiums that is really coming out of your pocket).
tequila4kapp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LMK5 said:

We certainly need to do something. A for-profit healthcare industry doesn't seem to be working all that well for people on the other end of the equation. I say look at countries that have tackled the health care dilemma but also have robust economies, then copy their framework. I'm thinking places like Germany, Switzerland, and Canada. Most countries have hybrid systems that incorporate both public and private insurance. Each country is a little different but they seem to be working well for their citizens, unlike ours.
Just like we can't expect every country to overlay Jeffersonian Democracy on top of their unique culture it's probably folly to think we can simply adopt any other countriy's health system.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tequila4kapp said:

LMK5 said:

We certainly need to do something. A for-profit healthcare industry doesn't seem to be working all that well for people on the other end of the equation. I say look at countries that have tackled the health care dilemma but also have robust economies, then copy their framework. I'm thinking places like Germany, Switzerland, and Canada. Most countries have hybrid systems that incorporate both public and private insurance. Each country is a little different but they seem to be working well for their citizens, unlike ours.
Just like we can't expect every country to overlay Jeffersonian Democracy on top of their unique culture it's probably folly to think we can simply adopt any other countriy's health system.
Seems like we can certainly have SOMETHING better than this, given that every other first-world nation manages to cover more people for less money.
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Just to be clear on who pays for Medicare...

Everyone who is a regular employee, no matter their income, pays 2.9% of their income in payroll taxes for Medicare. Some higher income people pay an additional 0.9% of their income over a certain amount.

If you add all of that money up over the 50 years that most people work that's a tidy sum. That's on top of any premiums or deductibles recipients pay themselves once on Medicare.

I don't really have a problem with that. It means my retired parents have healthcare coverage and hopefully - unless the GOP gets its way - I will benefit, too. I just want to point out that in my particular situation about 50% of the expenses my employer and I currently pay for healthcare are going to Medicare.


dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?

As for Europe versus the US...

My aunt migrated from Northern Europe to the US. Here in the US (Bay Area) she was diagnosed with terminal cancer and they basically sent her home to die. She went abroad for healthcare and she is alive now almost 40 years since that diagnosis.

Even so, she will admit that if you are REALLY rich the healthcare is better in the US. For most people, though, US healthcare is a joke in comparison. In Europe her doctor still makes house calls and it is completely free for her - no co-pays, no deductibles, no nonsense.

How often does your doctor make house calls? How much do you pay for that insurance again?
LudwigsFountain
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

bearlyamazing said:

Many of the countries that have nationalized healthcare have long waiting times, too. Many Canadians come to America for healthcare.

One of the big problems paying for nationalized healthcare is that we already have a big tax burden here with income taxes, payroll/social security tax (double the tax at 15.3% for self-employed), property taxes, state taxes in most states, gas tax and sales tax. Our economy and economic growth would be crushed with the tax increases required to pay for a plan like MFA.

2/3 of the country are on employer paid/cost shared healthcare or Medicare/Medicaid. It's a noble goal to try and get to 100% but they have to come up with some other feasible way to get the other 1/3 better healthcare options without blowing up the economy. The deficit's already horrendously bad. It would explode with a MFA plan or if we bear all the burden, it will crush growth and consumer spending. No way to spin around that fact.
You do understand that under medicare today, most people (81%) have insurance supplements that pay for a substantial portion of their costs? This is a huge shift in dollars from the employer to the individual. And you do understand that the individual (unless below certain poverty lines) pays premumims for the base coverage? There seems to be some misconception that medicare if free or a give away. It isn't. And part D (meds) is high co-pays. So there is a huge cost shift from employer to a retired individual. I really think you don't know how medicare works.

What Medicare does do is provide everyone that qualifies insurance, and contain costs by being a huge provider (for example, essentially no doctor can afford to not accept Medicare's lower payments since it is such a large provider). They theory is that if is essentially the only provider, the costs will go down even further. It is not free, most everyone on Medicare pays something. It is not perfect. Drug costs can be high, certain things are not covered, there are coverage gaps - thus, you need to pay for a supplement. There are other complaints as well, but the point is there is no perfect system - at least not one than is cost-effective.

I'm on Medicare. You clearly are not. It isn't a give away or budget buster. The Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund is expected to be adequately funded over the next 10 years and beyond because premium income and general revenue income for Parts B and D are reset each year to cover expected costs. Part A is still is positive, but expecting to need higher than planned premium increases starting in 2048 assuming Obamacare remains good law and some provisions in Trump's 2019 budget pass (so far there seems to be bipartisan support). If not, there will be higher than expected premiums sooner. There is more complexity, but in general, I'm not seeing where your claims come from.


Doctors and other health care providers will make less. Will that mean less doctors in the long run, maybe. What happens in most places is certain doctors, the top guys in specialities, become private doctors for the rich, who will pay above national health care prices. So for most things you see a national doctor and for the very serious stuff you may use a private doctor or health facility. That is how it works in Australia which has a system close to MFA. The Canadian system is different than Medicare, it's based on individual taxes and Canadians paying for a 30% co-pay. But provider costs are much lower due to the government monopoly, so that 30% is more manageable. Unlike Medicare, you must see you general doctor first (they are the gate keeper) and depending on the urgency of your condition you get seen by a specialist doctor or get a specialized test (this doesn't apply to emergencies obviously). So there can be less wait or more wait. That simply isn't the system under Medicare..

You need to remember that it is the individual, not the employer, who pays for medicare currently, so I don't get some of the discussion, unless Sanders is going to do a Warren and tax the wealthy, transactions, etc.. That is not my understanding. Sanders's version for financing Medicare-for-all includes raising employer-side payroll taxes by 7.5 percentage points in order to raise roughly $3.9 trillion over 10 years. On average, this is less than what employers are currently spending on premium contributions for their employees, so workers and employers should generally come out ahead under this system. Companies with younger employees will probably lose. those not covered by an employer plan will have to pay taxes instead of premiums (this probably is to fit within the SCOTUS legal decision on Obamacare). I think the supplemental insurance will stay be paid by individuals and I'm not sure what he is doing on co-pays, etc. There is a progressive tax rate which I will not try to explain.
The point is that while the structure of Sanders's plan is broadly progressive and broadly beneficial to most households and companies, the exact calculus of who ends up ahead and who does not hinges on a complicated set of factors. There will be some losers and winners. Sorta like Trump's tax cuts.

Can you be more specific about the bolded statement. The vast majority of Medicare beneficiaries don't pay any premiums for Part A. If you pay any amount of Medicare tax for more than 40 quarters, you are not charged a premium. Also it was my understanding that the Part A fund is expected to become exhausted far sooner than 2048, so I looked up the 2019 Medicare Trustee report and sure enough, that fund is projected for exhaustion in 2026. Personally, I think that's optimistic because the projections assume that the cost-savings provisions of the laws in place will be observed even though they typically get eliminated or watered down in the annual budget process. In fact, the trustees started recognizing this phenomenon a while back by inserting this caveat in the report:

"In view of these issues [primarily the one I noted above], it is important to note that the actual future costs for Medicare may exceed the projections shown in this report, possibly by substantial amounts."

If you're saying that Medicare are taxes are going to go up I couldn't agree more except I think that will happen far sooner that 2048.



Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
In France, I had to see a doctor, so the family I was staying with had their doctor make a house call. They warned me that I would have to pay out-of-pocket, not being a resident of France. It was $27.

The next year, I had to see a dermatologist. The family looked at me and shook their heads: No house calls AND it would cost more to see a specialist. I ponied up the $35.
helltopay1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DearBearly: liz Warren is not a socialist. She is a grifter who will do ( and has done) and will say( and has said) anything to advance her career. Her character was exposed for all time when she falsely claimed to be a Cherokee Indian not only on her University application form but also on subsequent law school & law firm application firms. When she was caught, her laughable excuse was that her "great grandfather had high cheekbones." A person asked for the time of day last week, and, when she accurately told the time, everyone present actually fainted. If Liz had a dime for every falsehood she has told, she would have more money than Bloomberg. I used to think Hillary lied 400 times a day, but, I think Liz was her tutor. Every Demo who has stayed in the race is a faux socialist. i.e. they all say socialist things 24 hours a day in order to stay viable with the radical left which now controls the party. Don't think thew far left has taken over thge party???Just ask Nancy---A year ago Nancy proclaimed that "impeachment had to be bi-partisan in order for it to be effective & warranted. What changed her mind???Easy--she was threatened with losing the speakership unless she changed her mind----everyone in Wash knows that--the only authentic 'socialist" in the race is Bernie---and, he really is much closer to communism than socialism---please google his entire life--he has despised thge Democratic party all his life-In addition, Hillary said three days ago that " nobody likes him." So--let me get this straight--the Demo party is probably going to nominate a 79 year old communist who had a heart attack recently who "nobody likes." The Demo party prior to 1975 or so used to be normal & sane. I know--I was around in 1975 and was a proud, informed Demo. Then, the seeds of insanity were planted during the Vietnam war, and, the result is plain for all to see. Time for a nightcap...
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Are Buttigieg and Klobuchar faux socialists too? They are definitely in the race.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dimitrig said:


As for Europe versus the US...

My aunt migrated from Northern Europe to the US. Here in the US (Bay Area) she was diagnosed with terminal cancer and they basically sent her home to die. She went abroad for healthcare and she is alive now almost 40 years since that diagnosis.

Even so, she will admit that if you are REALLY rich the healthcare is better in the US. For most people, though, US healthcare is a joke in comparison. In Europe her doctor still makes house calls and it is completely free for her - no co-pays, no deductibles, no nonsense.

How often does your doctor make house calls? How much do you pay for that insurance again?


All of the claims about how bad "socialist medicine" is in other countries falls apart when you ask the citizens of those countries if they'd like to move to the American system. Overwhelmingly they do not want that.
bearlyamazing
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calpoly said:

bearlyamazing said:

calpoly said:

bearlyamazing said:

calpoly said:

AunBear89 said:

Do you have any sources to support ANY of your claims? Or are you just spitting up what Faux Nooz and Breitbart and InfoWars and all your Facebook "friends" are telling you?









Lemming
You are correct. I lived in Denmark and when I need to see the doctor I got an appointment in a day or two. Here I have to wait 2-3 months to see the doctor and my company pays $24,000 a year for this crappy insurance!
Come on, man. Who waits 2-3 months to see a doctor and pays 2k a month for a crappy healthcare plan? And what's your contribution?

I don't buy that for a second. And if it's true, you need to find somewhere else to work.
My contribution is $150/month (BTW $2k/month for my family of 4). I'm waiting 2 1/2 months to see a neurologist. When in Denmark I saw the neurologist in two days. Stop spreading lies. You have NO idea what you are taking about. All you do is repeat lies from Faux news.
I don't watch Fox News, moron. I've had many jobs and none of the health plans were crappy like yours. Neither are the health plans of anyone else I've ever known.

Stop spreading Rachael Madcow MSDNC lies. YOU have no idea what you're talking about.
Typical right wing response. Insult the person because you are lying. I answered your questions honestly but since they don't fit you political agenda so you insult the person. You are pathetic.
Typical lefty ignorance and lack of self-awareness. Oh dear! Imagine me daring to insult you for you "honestly answering" my question then following up with "Stop spreading lies. You have NO idea what you are taking about. All you do is repeat lies from Faux news." Why that's not insulting at all! Thank you, sir! May I have another?

Talk about pathetic...
kjkbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Calpoly, do you personally only pay 150 a month for your family (and the company pays the other 1850)?
sp4149
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearlyamazing said:


Come on, man. Who waits 2-3 months to see a doctor and pays 2k a month for a crappy healthcare plan? And what's your contribution?

I don't buy that for a second. And if it's true, you need to find somewhere else to work.
Healthcare under our system is very uneven geographically, and thus unfairly provided on a national basis.
It's not surprising there is wide spread confusion.
Before I retired my wife had to go to urgent care and a hospital in Louisiana. Louisiana is a medically underserved state (one of four at the time) and our health plan treated every health provider in the state as a Preferred Provider and we got maximum coverage. Wouldn't happen in this state as some large health providers are not preferred providers and don't play well with my health plan.

In the Palm Springs area where my mother retired, local doctors were converting to concierge care, (at the time called the Florida plan) for an upfront $2,000 a year you could see your doctor the same day, other wise it was a one to two month wait. My wait time in San Diego to see my personal physician averages about four weeks as well.

Three years ago my mother (93) fell on her sidewalk bruising her head and arm. I was visiting that afternoon and found her in pain, head swollen and unable to use her right arm. I took her to two urgent care facilities who finally sent me to a hospital ER where we spent the night. She had a fractured eye socket, a concussion, and a broken hand. She was released with some tylenol and instruction to get her bone set. We got in that day to her concierge doctor who prescribed her some Tylenol 3 and referred her to an orthopedic clinic. The clinic had a two month wait list for treatment. I called every specialist in the area phone book and got the same answer.
In frustration I called a clinic in San Diego and got her an appointment the next day. So I packed her up and drove the 160 miles to my home in Chula Vista. The specialist asked why we didn't go to his office in Chula Vista? I wanted the soonest appointment and his office in Chula Vista would have meant waiting another day. For the remainder of her treatment she went to the Chula Vista office. Medicare and her AARP supplemental covered her treatment.

Two years ago I went to the nearest Urgent Care with what turned out to be a staph infection on my face. The facility was a preferred provider. However they wouldn't bill Medicare and my insurance would not process the claim without a Medicare Summary of Services. The two ignored each others requests until the Urgent Care turned in my bill to a debt collector who filed a negative report with the credit reporting agencies, with a large negative (100 points) effect. Turns out medical providers have to ask in writing to opt out of Medicare and this Urgent Care corporation actually accepted Medicare at other locations. The adjuster for my health insurance, reamed them a new one, citing all the laws and regulations they had violated that threatened their future business with Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Within two days they had submitted a claim to Medicare, which processed it in two days and the claim was entirely paid within a week, and a retraction of the negative credit report was sent by the collection agency. It took almost a year to resolve the issue. The urgent care provider had lied to me and my health insurer on three separate times during joint phone calls, promising action and then failing to deliver. Finally after four months they admitted their mistake. I was fortunate that I was retired. I had worked for the Navy and this negative credit report would have resulted in loss of security clearance and subsequent termination.

When you stop working and go on Medicare, you don't get the same preventive health care you got as an employee, even if you kept the same insurance plan (as I did). The biggest difference is that you no longer hace an annual physical exam, EKGs, or chest X-Rays to detect developing health conditions. The only lab work is drawing blood samples. The status quo with Medicare and our private plans is substandard...
helltopay1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dear Oski003: The answer is yes. Especially mayor Pete. He is the white version of Obama. He sounds terrific until you parse what he actually said. Ask the black residents of South Bend what they think of Pete. He has two wonderful things going for him: He sounds wonderful and he married a man. Yep----you are qualified to be president of the US.
calpoly
How long do you want to ignore this user?
kjkbear said:

Calpoly, do you personally only pay 150 a month for your family (and the company pays the other 1850)?

Yes I do. It's United Healthcare HMO.
OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sp4149 said:

bearlyamazing said:


Come on, man. Who waits 2-3 months to see a doctor and pays 2k a month for a crappy healthcare plan? And what's your contribution?

I don't buy that for a second. And if it's true, you need to find somewhere else to work.
Healthcare under our system is very uneven geographically, and thus unfairly provided on a national basis.
It's not surprising there is wide spread confusion.
Before I retired my wife had to go to urgent care and a hospital in Louisiana. Louisiana is a medically underserved state (one of four at the time) and our health plan treated every health provider in the state as a Preferred Provider and we got maximum coverage. Wouldn't happen in this state as some large health providers are not preferred providers and don't play well with my health plan.

In the Palm Springs area where my mother retired, local doctors were converting to concierge care, (at the time called the Florida plan) for an upfront $2,000 a year you could see your doctor the same day, other wise it was a one to two month wait. My wait time in San Diego to see my personal physician averages about four weeks as well.

Three years ago my mother (93) fell on her sidewalk bruising her head and arm. I was visiting that afternoon and found her in pain, head swollen and unable to use her right arm. I took her to two urgent care facilities who finally sent me to a hospital ER where we spent the night. She had a fractured eye socket, a concussion, and a broken hand. She was released with some tylenol and instruction to get her bone set. We got in that day to her concierge doctor who prescribed her some Tylenol 3 and referred her to an orthopedic clinic. The clinic had a two month wait list for treatment. I called every specialist in the area phone book and got the same answer.
In frustration I called a clinic in San Diego and got her an appointment the next day. So I packed her up and drove the 160 miles to my home in Chula Vista. The specialist asked why we didn't go to his office in Chula Vista? I wanted the soonest appointment and his office in Chula Vista would have meant waiting another day. For the remainder of her treatment she went to the Chula Vista office. Medicare and her AARP supplemental covered her treatment.

Two years ago I went to the nearest Urgent Care with what turned out to be a staph infection on my face. The facility was a preferred provider. However they wouldn't bill Medicare and my insurance would not process the claim without a Medicare Summary of Services. The two ignored each others requests until the Urgent Care turned in my bill to a debt collector who filed a negative report with the credit reporting agencies, with a large negative (100 points) effect. Turns out medical providers have to ask in writing to opt out of Medicare and this Urgent Care corporation actually accepted Medicare at other locations. The adjuster for my health insurance, reamed them a new one, citing all the laws and regulations they had violated that threatened their future business with Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Within two days they had submitted a claim to Medicare, which processed it in two days and the claim was entirely paid within a week, and a retraction of the negative credit report was sent by the collection agency. It took almost a year to resolve the issue. The urgent care provider had lied to me and my health insurer on three separate times during joint phone calls, promising action and then failing to deliver. Finally after four months they admitted their mistake. I was fortunate that I was retired. I had worked for the Navy and this negative credit report would have resulted in loss of security clearance and subsequent termination.

When you stop working and go on Medicare, you don't get the same preventive health care you got as an employee, even if you kept the same insurance plan (as I did). The biggest difference is that you no longer hace an annual physical exam, EKGs, or chest X-Rays to detect developing health conditions. The only lab work is drawing blood samples. The status quo with Medicare and our private plans is substandard...

I have to say this. Other than one 3 year period, I have been on Kaiser all of my life. All of my life people who don't have Kaiser have told me Kaiser sucks. When I had to go off of it, I couldn't get back on fast enough. I just checked online and my doctor will see me tomorrow for a physical if I want. I never have a problem reaching an advice nurse or making an appointment. I haven't heard of anyone whose insurance doesn't suck compared to mine (except the other people on Kaiser). Yeah, I'm limited to choosing from like a billion Kaiser doctors. I don't know where Kaiser got the reputation among some, but bless all of you who select the crappy HMO plan over the Kaiser option.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

sp4149 said:

bearlyamazing said:


Come on, man. Who waits 2-3 months to see a doctor and pays 2k a month for a crappy healthcare plan? And what's your contribution?

I don't buy that for a second. And if it's true, you need to find somewhere else to work.
Healthcare under our system is very uneven geographically, and thus unfairly provided on a national basis.
It's not surprising there is wide spread confusion.
Before I retired my wife had to go to urgent care and a hospital in Louisiana. Louisiana is a medically underserved state (one of four at the time) and our health plan treated every health provider in the state as a Preferred Provider and we got maximum coverage. Wouldn't happen in this state as some large health providers are not preferred providers and don't play well with my health plan.

In the Palm Springs area where my mother retired, local doctors were converting to concierge care, (at the time called the Florida plan) for an upfront $2,000 a year you could see your doctor the same day, other wise it was a one to two month wait. My wait time in San Diego to see my personal physician averages about four weeks as well.

Three years ago my mother (93) fell on her sidewalk bruising her head and arm. I was visiting that afternoon and found her in pain, head swollen and unable to use her right arm. I took her to two urgent care facilities who finally sent me to a hospital ER where we spent the night. She had a fractured eye socket, a concussion, and a broken hand. She was released with some tylenol and instruction to get her bone set. We got in that day to her concierge doctor who prescribed her some Tylenol 3 and referred her to an orthopedic clinic. The clinic had a two month wait list for treatment. I called every specialist in the area phone book and got the same answer.
In frustration I called a clinic in San Diego and got her an appointment the next day. So I packed her up and drove the 160 miles to my home in Chula Vista. The specialist asked why we didn't go to his office in Chula Vista? I wanted the soonest appointment and his office in Chula Vista would have meant waiting another day. For the remainder of her treatment she went to the Chula Vista office. Medicare and her AARP supplemental covered her treatment.

Two years ago I went to the nearest Urgent Care with what turned out to be a staph infection on my face. The facility was a preferred provider. However they wouldn't bill Medicare and my insurance would not process the claim without a Medicare Summary of Services. The two ignored each others requests until the Urgent Care turned in my bill to a debt collector who filed a negative report with the credit reporting agencies, with a large negative (100 points) effect. Turns out medical providers have to ask in writing to opt out of Medicare and this Urgent Care corporation actually accepted Medicare at other locations. The adjuster for my health insurance, reamed them a new one, citing all the laws and regulations they had violated that threatened their future business with Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Within two days they had submitted a claim to Medicare, which processed it in two days and the claim was entirely paid within a week, and a retraction of the negative credit report was sent by the collection agency. It took almost a year to resolve the issue. The urgent care provider had lied to me and my health insurer on three separate times during joint phone calls, promising action and then failing to deliver. Finally after four months they admitted their mistake. I was fortunate that I was retired. I had worked for the Navy and this negative credit report would have resulted in loss of security clearance and subsequent termination.

When you stop working and go on Medicare, you don't get the same preventive health care you got as an employee, even if you kept the same insurance plan (as I did). The biggest difference is that you no longer hace an annual physical exam, EKGs, or chest X-Rays to detect developing health conditions. The only lab work is drawing blood samples. The status quo with Medicare and our private plans is substandard...

I have to say this. Other than one 3 year period, I have been on Kaiser all of my life. All of my life people who don't have Kaiser have told me Kaiser sucks. When I had to go off of it, I couldn't get back on fast enough. I just checked online and my doctor will see me tomorrow for a physical if I want. I never have a problem reaching an advice nurse or making an appointment. I haven't heard of anyone whose insurance doesn't suck compared to mine (except the other people on Kaiser). Yeah, I'm limited to choosing from like a billion Kaiser doctors. I don't know where Kaiser got the reputation among some, but bless all of you who select the crappy HMO plan over the Kaiser option.
Ditto. I have stuck with Kaiser for exactly this reason. Yes, you are stuck within their network, but given that everything is in-house there are no headaches on waiting times or disputes between doctors and insurers or anything else.
Page 1 of 3
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.