Universal Healthcare

What does 34% of the population Black/Latino have to do with healthcare costs being roughly double the cost of other first world nations. Let me know when you come up with a coherent answer to that one.

 

Don't go into a big demonization rant because you can't handle reality. The link I gave you gives some spending numbers. If you don't like those numbers .. present some of your own - Twirling around crying "NO NO NO" is not an argument for much

OH but wait .. I have more numbers for you This should really send you for a loop !

1. United States — $10,209
2. Switzerland — $8,009
3. Luxembourg — $6,475
4. Norway — $6,351
5. Germany — $5,728
6. Sweden — $5,511
7. Ireland — $5,449
8. Austria — $5,440
9. Netherlands — $5,386
10. Denmark — $5,183
11. France — $4,902
12. Canada — $4,826
13. Belgium — $4,774
https://www.businessinsider.com/cost-of-healthcare-countries-ranked-2019-3

Pick any one on the list but Switzerland ... 50-60% of the cost of our system.

 

Yes, I've seen these figures before.

Sorry, but they've been thrown out since at least the early 90s, and guess how many people care?

It's just BS math dude! Those are different countries, and have dick all to do with anything. Honestly, you sound like me trying to tell my wife that we'd be able to save some money by staying at that hotel half a mile from the beach that is right over a club that plays boom boom boom music until 2am.

I don't care! Nobody cares! Stop thinking that anybody cares! If you want that stuff, then do that and be you! It ain't happening at the federal level, ain't happening in my state, but you be you!!!!!

What is so hard to figure out?

This nonsense has been peddled for decades now, and to no avail! Stop! Just... stop

 

Yeah, nada.

 

So what do you suggest then? Also, yes you were describing Sanders plan, in general.

 

I already answered that one, too.









42.5% of the native black and Hispanic population are on Medicaid compared to just 17% of whites and 15% of Asians. 57.5% of the immigrant Hispanic population are on Medicaid. There are >87M blacks & Hispanics in the country, of whom >37M are below the government defined poverty line for Medicaid eligibility. Comparatively, there are 197M white, non-Hispanics in the country, of whom only 33.5M are below the government defined poverty level for Medicaid. So despite the fact that there are more than twice as many white, non-Hispanics in the country than there are blacks & Hispanics combined, there are still fewer white people on Medicaid than there are blacks & Hispanics. Also think about the fact that the white population is almost ten years older than the Hispanic population, with whites over 65 outnumbering Hispanics over 65 by 10-1. And there's still fewer whites on Medicaid. Having that many poor people being on state relief absolutely drives up the cost for everyone else. It's also why we can't afford Medicare for all.

 

Better than George Soros

 

Venezuela is not any standard to measure socialism. And what we "evil liberals" advocate is socialist capitalism, which is what we already sort of have. Look at Japan. Look at Australia. Look at Western Europe. That is what we should strive for. Socialism is working in these places.

 

Now Now .. Just because you don't like reality - does not mean the Math is BS.

We spent 3.5 Trillion on healthcare - 10,000 per person ... other first world nations spend roughly 5,000. Our system is broken and we need to throw it out.

 

Thank you for the information .. you have done your homework.

The problem with your claim though - is that your homework does not support your claim. Notice we have 30% - latino hispanic - whereas Europe has 26% on average.

In other words - European first world nations have a similar % of - latino/hispanic - yet manage to provide healthcare at roughly half the cost.

While one could claim a slight increase in cost over that of other first world nations - this does not account for our cost being roughly double that of these nations - at best - only a tiny fraction - perhaps 1% of the difference.

 

Good ol "George" one of Trumps benefactors. The other being the Rothschild/ Rockefeller Consortium

 

I am sure we have vastly different ideas of what those individuals contributed to America.

 

I don't understand what's so unfeasable about it. If anything, it should be easier and cheaper at the state level. After all Medicare already covers the most expensive patients (the elderly). What makes it so much more difficult at a state level?

 

I honestly don't understand the "why" of making private insurance illegal. You would think some reporter would have asked Bernie Sanders that after all this time since he's been running on that for years. I personally think it would be disastrous but it's less and less my country and belongs more and more to the Bernie-bro's and the AOC's.

 

While that may or may not be true - what does this have to do with the fact that these groups were the one's that bailed Donald out of bankruptcy ?

 

What does them bailing him out of bankruptcy have to do with anything..

Carnegie bailed the American government from bankruptcy.

So what.

 

There is already a bill to let 55 and above buy in to Medicare. As part of a compromise measure to get some real healthcare reform, I would support that, but again, it tells me nothing about how that would effect the entire healthcare system.

Anyway, an "at cost" Medicare buy in premium would probably be a lot more than you think. It would be fun to hear the sputtering when supporters of that find out what the actual rates would be.

 

If you don't understand what it takes to set up that kind of insurance operation you probably shouldn't be in this thread.

 

You were the one that brought up Soros - What would you like to say about him ?

Wilbur Ross was the person who - while working for the R/R consortia - bailed Trump out. Wilbur is now commerce secretary. Quid pro quo.

 

That totally avoided my comment. Let me try again, in brief; was there a massive movement of poor and working poor people from States that didn't adopt the Medicare expansion of Obamacare to States that did?

 

That number is known. It's 30% lees than private and it's better.
I can guide you through it if you want to confirm that, but I won't do it for you.

 

I think the point @Robert E Allen is trying to make is that Universal Health Care is coming, like it or not. The only influence the right may have is in making it slightly less damaging.

 

This sounds like a dismissal rather than an answer. Just because you can't answer my question in a coherent answer doesn't mean I don't understand the topic. Actually, I would say the onus is on you to make your case since you've been unable to articulate a "why" to your position. It seems like it's just something you feel, not anything you've actually thought about.

 

My suspicion that you don't understand the topic is growing.

The 30% figure is how much lower the average provider rate paid by Medicare is than by private insurance. That doesn't tell you anything about how much a Medicare buy in premium would be. If you think those figures are well known let's see them.

 

I'll give you one little one.
You would need to write all the programs to handle billing.