Most Democrats think "Medicare For All" means they can still keep their plans

Yep.

... and I lost my doctor, plan, and my premiums shot through the roof.

I miss my old HSA it was awesome. I could have had heart surgery and my HSA with plan would have taken care of 100% of it. Once you build it up, HSA's are magical. Too bad Obama nuked them.

 

It's not like it's hard work to become a doctor anyways. All the hours of study, sleepless nights as a resident, high stress situations... meh... give those fools peanuts. I am sure they will stick around.

 

Well, that is not really true. Single payer in no way reduces cost of healthcare unless you limit resources like Canada and other countries do so in effect, becomes an even larger mandatory spending slice of the pie. As it is now, by 2027 about 80% of the budget will be mandatory spending with no single payer addition.

 

it depends, doctors like Ben Carson who works for our President earned it.

others just give out pain pills and adderral

 

yep, a public option would be nice

 

No doubt, BUT as I stated "But that's RACIST and Discriminatory and would be struck down by some activist judge".

 

Not going to increase significantly as one still needs to have the brains AND desire to get into med school. Lowering standards to increase admission's isn't the answer.

 

LOL!!!! YOU'RE NOT INFORMED!!! It was a study OF OECD countries, not BY OECD countries!!!! LOL!!!!

It was done by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, academic researchers, and the Commonwealth Fund.

 

How in hell do you figure THAT???? (This should be good!!)

Are you really that out-of-touch?

 

That's a fake right wing theory.

No, that's a fake right wing theory.

No, that a fake right wing assertion to concoct an attack on the left.

 

Not always. Some people don't know enough to prepare for a crisis or haven't the intelligence to do so and must be forced by law to do their part and do it for themselves in the process.

 

"Pharma products" are not intended to cure.... just to manage symptoms, because there is so much more money in it.

 

I was suggesting employer-provided private health insurance.

 

we already have that, well with most employers anyways

 

Very true. There is money in making people sick and even more money in keeping them sick.

 

Which is exactly how it's done in the nations with long standing nationalised healthcare. Private insurance is readily available, if you enjoy giving your money to shysters.

 

Our public health care is higher quality than our private healthcare. The choice to use private insurance is not related to medical outcomes, it's related to either vanity (I MUST have a private bathroom and a 'personal doctor'), or hypochondriacal overuse of 'allied health' like massage therapy and other such fluff.

 

Ok you're not a serious contender. Bye.

 

It's not really something that is theoretical, when you use for profit insurance you have to pay both the doctor and the insurance company, but you also have to pay the insurance company at a rate that is profitable. Single payer healthcare is simply a public trust fund used to pay the doctor. When you use the single payer option, you are only paying the medical expenses, there is no for profit insurance company who needs to be paid too. Which is why countries that have the single payer healthcare option spend less per capita than countries that don't have the single payer option.

It is true that medical expenses can at times be unpredictable, especially when inflation and life expectancy increases, however this is also true for private insurance. You're bringing up the inflating price of medicare, while completely ignoring the fact that private insurance also inflated, both the medical expenes and the insurance expenses inflated. It is fiscally impossible for a for profit insurance company to run at a rate that is cheaper than a single payer option, because you are having to pay for both the medical expenses, as well as the expenses for the insurance company to operate at a profitable rate

 

Spoken like a true statist.

Here. I'll educate you.

The Federal income tax was started in 1913. So, for the first 137 years of this country we didn't need a fricking Federal income tax.

 

It's not my responsibility to take care of stupid unaccountable people.

 

The Commonwealth Fund is a left-wing biased organization.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/commonwealth-fund/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/flawed-study-ranks-united-states-as-the-worst-health-care-system

 

Funny. I kept my doctor and my plan. I also have an HSA, and my premiums are about the same as they were 5 years ago

 

What you are claiming is either (a) a lie, or (b) you are HIGHLY atypical.

https://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/report/obamacares-cost-sharing-too-high-even-hsas

Lucky you. What happened to me happened to Millions of Americans.

 

Not did we have anywhere close to as many people as we do now. Comparing the first 150 years of this country to life in American after the industrial revolution, depression, multiple wars etc is just silly.