Question for Biden, Buttigieg, Bloomberg, and Klobuchar

[risky biz]

On average, other wealthy countries spend half as much per person on healthcare than the U.S.
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/how-do-healthcare-prices-and-use-in-the-u-s-compare-to-other-countries/#item-on-average-other-wealthy-countries-spend-half-as-much-per-person-on-healthcare-than-the-u-s

Total health expenditures = private and public healthcare spending

Question for Biden, Buttigieg, Bloomberg, and Klobuchar:

Why is spending half as much for everyone and covering the 10% of Americans who are uninsured going to bankrupt the wealthiest country in the world?

[BillB]

It's more complicated than you make it out to be. I think they mean it would bankrupt the government to fund it all. What is it...$3 trillion more a year? That's a lot of coin. Where is the money going to come from? You need a workable plan to raise that kind of money.

Right now you've got more than 100 million people getting everything paid by their employer. Are you going to put a huge new tax on employers (effectively forcing all employers to offer health insurance), or are you going to double the average Joe's personal taxes? I'm not sure how politically feasible either of those options are at the moment. And both have perilous potential for a chain reaction of unintended consequences.

There are also cultural reasons for the US's comparatively exorbitant costs. For example, becoming a doctor has long been viewed in the US as a practical way for a middle class kid to become upper-middle or upper class. How are you going to convince doctors to work for half as much, like they do in other countries? It won't be easy. It could take a generation to change that mindset. You might find you run into a big shortage of doctors and nurses in the meantime.

How is a country with a tradition of free enterprise and entrepreneurship going to deal with blanket price controls on drugs (leading to less R&D and fewer new medications)? Is that politically feasible? Will the pharmaceutical industry become another industry under the wing of and funded by the government? These are big leaps toward socialism in a country that is fundamentally anti-socialist.

And what about the patients? Right now you've got a large majority of Americans thinking they get something of higher quality (and in many cases they do) than other Americans who are less deserving. How are you going to convince them to give that up that advantage? These people vote. They are the same hard-hearted people who want to deport a Guatemalan single mother who cleans motel rooms. How do you think they'll react to being forced to giving her a cut of their healthcare benefits?

I guess the problem boils down to greed. America is a greedy place with a greedy culture. That's how it got so rich. Sure, America can technically afford to give everyone healthcare in the long run, but can it manage the cultural upheaval that goes along with it? I have my doubts.

[risky biz]

On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 10:07:56 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 4:55:08 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
> > On average, other wealthy countries spend half as much per person on healthcare than the U.S.
> > https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/how-do-healthcare-prices-and-use-in-the-u-s-compare-to-other-countries/#item-on-average-other-wealthy-countries-spend-half-as-much-per-person-on-healthcare-than-the-u-s
> >
> > Total health expenditures = private and public healthcare spending
> >
> > Question for Biden, Buttigieg, Bloomberg, and Klobuchar:
> >
> > Why is spending half as much for everyone and covering the 10% of Americans who are uninsured going to bankrupt the wealthiest country in the world?
>
> It's more complicated than you make it out to be. I think they mean it would bankrupt the government to fund it all. What is it...$3 trillion more a year? That's a lot of coin. Where is the money going to come from? You need a workable plan to raise that kind of money.

No, it isn't. That isn't even close. Why don't you get yourself informed before you start lecturing?

Balance below ignored because it's even less informed.

[joeturn]

You mis pronounced a word Its Blumberg

[BillB]

Lol...typical risky shanked punt

"The Urban Institute, a center-left think tank highly respected among Democrats, is projecting that a plan similar to what Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders are pushing would require $34 trillion in additional federal spending over its first decade in operation"

[Grunty]

On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 3:07:56 AM UTC-3, BillB wrote:
> On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 4:55:08 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
> > On average, other wealthy countries spend half as much per person on healthcare than the U.S.
> > https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/how-do-healthcare-prices-and-use-in-the-u-s-compare-to-other-countries/#item-on-average-other-wealthy-countries-spend-half-as-much-per-person-on-healthcare-than-the-u-s
> >
> > Total health expenditures = private and public healthcare spending
> >
> > Question for Biden, Buttigieg, Bloomberg, and Klobuchar:
> >
> > Why is spending half as much for everyone and covering the 10% of Americans who are uninsured going to bankrupt the wealthiest country in the world?
>
>
> It's more complicated than you make it out to be. I think they mean it would bankrupt the government to fund it all. What is it...$3 trillion more a year? That's a lot of coin. Where is the money going to come from? You need a workable plan to raise that kind of money.

Start by gradually cutting the enormous military spending and reallocating those resources to the public needs. Turn it into a truly defensive scheme, not an aggresive one.

The political-military establishment has repeatedly proven to be unsuccessful in achieving positive results proportionate to its costly attempts at regional wars/operations. That's the main burden on American people's shoulders. Ike got it clear, more than half a century ago.

It's time to re-equilibrate affairs at a planetary scale, and re-equilibrate the domestic affairs in the process. All the other pieces (healthcare, education, ecology) will reaccomodate themselves in a more equitative way.

> [...] These are big leaps toward socialism in a country that is fundamentally anti-socialist.

Sure. Big changes in history seemed so unthinkable to happen at the time.
Two classic milestones, far apart in time: the Roman Empire dismemberment and the French revolution.

> I guess the problem boils down to greed. America is a greedy place with a greedy culture. That's how it got so rich.

Right. It's just a matter of identifying the greediest part of the society, the one that is distorting/impeding the other parts' harmonical growth. In biology it's called a cancer. You have two ways to deal with a cancer: surgical (= violent revolutions) and biochemical (= popular vote). Let's opt for the second way, whenever possible...

> Sure, America can technically afford to give everyone healthcare in the long run, but can it manage the cultural upheaval that goes along with it? I have my doubts.

Precisely, the problem arises when upheavals turn economic. Then people put aside the cultural thing and, forced by the circumstances, reassign due priorities. ("It's the economy" - B.C.)

[VegasJerry]

On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 4:55:08 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:

It won't, and you can't show that it will.

[Tim Norfolk]

Income for regular family practitioners is going down, thanks to lowers rates of reimbursement.

[risky biz]

On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 3:45:34 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> Lol...typical risky shanked punt
>
> "The Urban Institute, a center-left think tank highly respected among Democrats, is projecting that a plan similar to what Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders are pushing would require $34 trillion in additional federal spending over its first decade in operation"

Healthcare expenses paid privately will be rerouted through taxes, moron. 'Additional federal spending' DOESN'T = additional healthcare costs.

And, 'OOOOH! Center-left think tank.' LOL. What happened to the BillB proclaiming how wonderful Canadian universal healthcare is?

As I said- Why don't you get yourself informed before you start lecturing?

Medicare For All would increase National Health Expenditure (NHE) by $7 Trillion over 10 years. $700 Billion a year more than NHE now and EVERYONE is covered, not 30 million with no healthcare coverage.

Below is a synopsis explaining how to easily cover that cost which I already posted at RGP if you're too lazy to do the research yourself. Once you've done that please explain why so many Democratic candidates and TV talking-heads (Chris Matthews: 'Will it increase taxes?) are LYING about affordability.


'National health care spending includes spending by the federal government, state and local governments, households, and employers. National health expenditures (NHE) are estimated annually by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) as the National Health Expenditure Accounts. Using our models’ projections and extending the CMS’s estimate for spending categories we do not model, we estimate that NHE for the 10-year period from 2020 to 2029 will total approximately $52 trillion dollars under current law.

Under the single-payer enhanced reform, the new federal government program would provide more covered benefits than typical insurance offers today (including typical medical benefits but adding a new home- and community-based long-term services and supports benefit and adult dental, vision, and hearing benefits). All the costs would be covered by the federal government; no one would pay premiums or out-of-pocket costs (i.e., no deductibles and no copayments or coinsurance), including undocumented residents.

As a result, many people would get insurance for the first time, and many others would get significantly more generous insurance than they currently have. And with their new or improved insurance, many people would use more medical care than they do today.

The federal government would limit the fees paid to doctors, hospitals, and prescription drug manufacturers, which would help lower the program’s costs, compared with what it would be otherwise. In addition, the system would be simpler than our current “patchwork” system, so the administrative costs of running the program would be lower than in most private insurance plans; this also helps offset some of the new costs.

However, by our estimates, the increase in spending for people with this new generous coverage would outweigh the savings from lower prices for health care providers and lower administrative costs. As a result, total national spending would increase, even taking into account greatly reduced household, employer, and state government spending.

For this approach to reform, federal spending would increase by $34 trillion over 10 years, but health spending by individuals, employers, and state governments would decrease by $27 trillion, so national health spending would increase by $7 trillion over the same 10-year period, from $52 to $59 trillion.'
https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/dont-confuse-changes-federal-health-spending-national-health-spending


That's an increase in overall spending of $700 BILLION per year for much more comprehensive health insurance which covers ALL Americans.

How will that be paid for? A good first place to start is the hundreds of billions of dollars of annual tax giveaways for Donald Trump's personal social class.

Then we could take a look at the fact that the average American corporate tax rate paid is 11% compared to these countries in Europe, and elsewhere, which (surprisingly?) haven't gone bankrupt.

United Kingdom 19.00%
Finland 20.00%
Iceland 20.00%
Denmark 22.00%
Sweden 22.00%
Norway 23.00%
Japan 23.20%
Netherlands 25.00%
New Zealand 28.00%
Belgium 29.00%
Australia 30.00%


'Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, 91 profitable Fortune 500 companies paid $0 in taxes on U.S. income in 2018, according to a new report from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP). Across all 379 profitable companies in the Fortune 500 the effective tax rate was just 11.3%, just over half the 21% tax rate under the law.

“In 2018, the 379 companies earned $765 billion in pretax profits in the United States,” the report noted. “Had all of those profits been reported to the IRS and taxed at the statutory 21% corporate tax rate, the 379 companies would have paid almost $161 billion in income taxes in 2018.”

Instead, the companies only paid $86.8 billion, roughly 54% of what they owed.

But how?

Matthew Gardner, senior fellow at ITEP and lead author of the report, says that what companies doing is “entirely legal” — but that they can avoid paying taxes thanks to tax breaks.

“A whole host of tax breaks in the code collectively have this pernicious effect,” Gardner said. But he added, though legal, “this doesn’t exonerate these companies from wrongdoing.”

“What we are seeing is a product of the actions of Congress, aided and abetted by corporate lobbyists,” he explained. “This is the predictable consequence of creating tax breaks for any activity you can think of.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-tax-law-fortune-500-companies-pay-0-taxes-2018-213157006.html


If healthcare is unaffordable why are massive tax giveaways to corporations and billionaires affordable? And there are plenty of other profligate Republican expenditures which can be reallocated to serve ALL Americans.



'In the United States, a legion of administrative healthcare workers and health insurance employees who play no direct role in providing patient care costs every American man, woman and child an average of $2,497 per year.

Across the border in Canada, where a single-payer system has been in place since 1962, the cost of administering healthcare is just $551 per person — less than a quarter as much.

“The United States is currently *wasting* at least $600 billion on healthcare paperwork — money that could be saved by going to a simple ‘Medicare for All’ system,” said senior author Dr. Stephanie Woolhandler, a health policy researcher at Hunter College and longtime advocate of single-payer systems.

That sum would be more than enough to extend coverage to the nation’s uninsured, she said.'
https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2020-01-07/u-s-health-system-costs-four-times-more-than-canadas-single-payer-system

[risky biz]

Learn how to read, Jerry.

[risky biz]

Healthcare for all is eminently affordable without even touching the military budget.

And 28% of REPUBLICANS favor healthcare for all. I met one last Monday. And he didn't vote for Trump. He voted for the libertarian just like me.

[risky biz]

They aren't doing so bad:
Median $204,664
https://www.salary.com/research/salary/benchmark/family-physician-salary

But I wouldn't oppose higher rates of compensation adjusted also for area cost-of-living in rural and other underserved areas. The below-median are probably located there.

[BillB]

On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 1:08:31 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
> On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 3:45:34 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> > Lol...typical risky shanked punt
> >
> > "The Urban Institute, a center-left think tank highly respected among Democrats, is projecting that a plan similar to what Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders are pushing would require $34 trillion in additional federal spending over its first decade in operation"
>
> Healthcare expenses paid privately will be rerouted through taxes, moron.

That's what I said you idiot, on businesses or individuals, remember? You have the reading comprehension skills of a small child.

'Additional federal spending' DOESN'T = additional healthcare costs.
>

Nobody said it did.

> And, 'OOOOH! Center-left think tank.' LOL.

There have been numerous studies citing numbers around $3 trillion a year in additional federal spending. Stop making a fool of yourself. The day you correct me on something will be the day the Earth stops orbiting the sun.

> What happened to the BillB proclaiming how wonderful Canadian universal healthcare is?
>

Canadian healthcare is wonderful (IMO). It just won't be an easy transition in the US, that's all. You seem to have this childlike notion that all you have to do is elect Bernie Sanders and he'll sprinkle his socialist fairy dust everywhere, and POOF!...universal healthcare. It doesn't work like that. You are incredibly naive.

[Dutch]

This seems like a superficial calculation.

US health insurance companies rake in tens of billions of dollars in
profits annually.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2019/08/04/as-sanders-and-warren-attack-private-health-insurer-profits-soar/#6299b9b6532b


A government takeover of that business with no changes would simply
transfer those profits to the government. If you then made enrollment
mandatory those profits would increase dramatically. Then there is the
economies and efficiencies of scale, cost controls, consolidation and
simplification of managing the system. Sow the profits and savings back
into the system through lower costs. I'm not saying the transition would
be easy or painless but where is the flaw in that logic?

[Mossingen]

"BillB" wrote in message
news:87262764-2715-423e...@googlegroups.com...

_____________



Damn. I pretty much agree with all of that. America is greedy, but it
works. Incentivized individuals create things. That's why we've become a
superpower in such a short time.

I think health care is going to be a huge issue in the campaign. The
Democrat is going to have some insane plan that changes the culture, like
you say, but Trump is going to have to address it as well, and articulate
his own solution.

[Mossingen]

"BillB" wrote in message
news:b4d9b7d4-6076-4a3d...@googlegroups.com...

Canadian healthcare is wonderful (IMO). It just won't be an easy transition
in the US, that's all. You seem to have this childlike notion that all you
have to do is elect Bernie Sanders and he'll sprinkle his socialist fairy
dust everywhere, and POOF!...universal healthcare. It doesn't work like
that. You are incredibly naive.

___________


Yes. I have this same problem discussing healthcare with friends of mine,
and especially my millennial children. In my little hometown of Enid,
Oklahoma (population around 50,000) we have pretty good doctors, and at one
time had two brain surgeons who made over $100k a month. That's in one
small Oklahoma town. How much do brain surgeons make in NYC or SF?

Not to mention every other doctor and the insurance and hospital and
peripheral pieces of the health care industry. Changing that is going to
require a concerted effort by the President and the Congress, and likely the
courts. I don't think there is political will at this point to do it.

[risky biz]

On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 1:33:42 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 1:08:31 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 3:45:34 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> > > Lol...typical risky shanked punt
> > >
> > > "The Urban Institute, a center-left think tank highly respected among Democrats, is projecting that a plan similar to what Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders are pushing would require $34 trillion in additional federal spending over its first decade in operation"
> >
> > Healthcare expenses paid privately will be rerouted through taxes, moron.
>
> That's what I said you idiot, on businesses or individuals, remember? You have the reading comprehension skills of a small child.

No. That isn't what you said. Here's what you said:

'I think they mean it would bankrupt the government to fund it all. What is it...$3 trillion more a year? That's a lot of coin. Where is the money going to come from? You need a workable plan to raise that kind of money.'

You don't get to say some ignorant nonsense like that then later pretend that you said what I said. LOL.

> Right now you've got more than 100 million people getting everything paid by their employer. Are you going to put a huge new tax on employers (effectively forcing all employers to offer health insurance), or are you going to double the average Joe's personal taxes?

There you go spouting ignorant nonsense again.

Employees pay premiums, also, in almost every employer-sponsored plan. NOT 'getting everything paid by their employer'.

The $700 billion more a year in NHE to cover EVERYONE will not require raising taxes at all on the average employee.

YOU have 'the reading comprehension skills of a small child'.

> 'Additional federal spending' DOESN'T = additional healthcare costs.
> >
>
> Nobody said it did.

You didn't have to. You are quite obviously entirely and completely ignorant of the whole subject about which you have adopted your typically moronic and phony lecturing style.

> > And, 'OOOOH! Center-left think tank.' LOL.
>
> There have been numerous studies citing numbers around $3 trillion a year in additional federal spending. Stop making a fool of yourself. The day you correct me on something will be the day the Earth stops orbiting the sun.

'additional federal spending' is irrelevant, numbskull, if it is simply current NHE rerouted through a single-payer system.

The earth would have stopped orbiting the sun a long time ago if it was dependent on you being corrected by someone.

> > What happened to the BillB proclaiming how wonderful Canadian universal healthcare is?
> >
>
> Canadian healthcare is wonderful (IMO). It just won't be an easy transition in the US, that's all. You seem to have this childlike notion that all you have to do is elect Bernie Sanders and he'll sprinkle his socialist fairy dust everywhere, and POOF!...universal healthcare. It doesn't work like that. You are incredibly naive.

No, I'm not naive, you are just a dumb shit who can't admit that he got caught AGAIN shooting off his big mouth without knowing what he was talking about.

[risky biz]

What a couple of toadstools. LOL.

[risky biz]

Republican have articulated, stupid: 'If you aren't as fortunate as me, go die.'

[Mossingen]

"risky biz" wrote in message
news:81490768-c463-4c63...@googlegroups.com...

______________


You've always been a simpleton, risky. Let the adults converse. Go back to
arguing with Jerry and Clave.

[risky biz]

On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 4:47:58 PM UTC-8, Mossingen wrote:

Taiwan, population 23,000,000 adopted universal healthcare in 1979. They did it in one year. That was before the kind of computing power and technology we have now.

[risky biz]

You'll only get laughs when you call anyone else a simpleton.

[BillB]

On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 6:08:44 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
> On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 1:33:42 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 1:08:31 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
> > > On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 3:45:34 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> > > > Lol...typical risky shanked punt
> > > >
> > > > "The Urban Institute, a center-left think tank highly respected among Democrats, is projecting that a plan similar to what Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders are pushing would require $34 trillion in additional federal spending over its first decade in operation"
> > >
> > > Healthcare expenses paid privately will be rerouted through taxes, moron.
> >
> > That's what I said you idiot, on businesses or individuals, remember? You have the reading comprehension skills of a small child.
>
> No. That isn't what you said. Here's what you said:
>
> 'I think they mean it would bankrupt the government to fund it all. What is it...$3 trillion more a year? That's a lot of coin. Where is the money going to come from? You need a workable plan to raise that kind of money.'
>

You're such a scummy little liar. I said that, and then I said in the next paragraph (which you conveniently omitted) that it would require taxing either businesses or employees.

The point of my statement there was that it would require approximately $3 trillion a year in additional federal spending, to which you replied "not even close," because you don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about.

Instead of being a man and admitting you were wrong and I was right (AGAIN) you decided to try to lie your way out of it. Says a lot about your character or lack thereof.

> The $700 billion more a year in NHE to cover EVERYONE will not require raising taxes at all on the average employee.
>

More ignorance on display. Here are some quotes from your hero:

“Is healthcare free? No, it is not. So what we do is exempt the first $29,000 of a person’s income. You make less $29,000, you pay nothing in taxes. Above that, in a progressive way, with the wealthiest people paying the largest percentage, people do pay more in taxes.”

“You’re going to pay more in taxes. Are people going to pay more in taxes? Yes.”

"On a separate CNN townhall hosted by Chris Cuomo in Des Moines, Iowa on Jan. 25, 2016, Sanders promised that “yes, we will raise taxes, yes we will.”
During another CNN interview, Sanders also claimed that Americans would be “delighted to pay more in taxes.”"

[BillB]

On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 4:42:53 PM UTC-8, Mossingen wrote:

America isn't a superpower anymore. Donald Trump saw to that. Superpowers don't let other countries fire missiles at them with impunity. The US went from being a superpower to Iran's bitch.

> I think health care is going to be a huge issue in the campaign. The
> Democrat is going to have some insane plan that changes the culture, like
> you say, but Trump is going to have to address it as well, and articulate
> his own solution.

Trump's solution is the same as always, to lie to his gullible cult members. For example, like he did in the State of the Union speech when he said Republicans would always protect those with pre-existing conditions as they simultaneously litigate the opposite side of the issue.

[BillB]

On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 4:47:58 PM UTC-8, Mossingen wrote:

> Not to mention every other doctor and the insurance and hospital and
> peripheral pieces of the health care industry. Changing that is going to
> require a concerted effort by the President and the Congress, and likely the
> courts. I don't think there is political will at this point to do it.

Obama had his chance and he blew it. You probably won't see another opportunity like that for 25 years.

[Dutch]

His solution is people with good insurance get good medical care and
everybody else can suck it.

[Dutch]

With a bit of luck the Donald Trump presidency will result in such a
violent backlash that a US government with that level of political will
will emerge. Now that would be karma. Maybe Trump will go down in
history in a positive way after all, for being so terrible that he
launched America into making the changes it has needed for decades.

[BillB]

On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 9:23:20 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:

> Trump's solution is the same as always, to lie to his gullible cult members. For example, like he did in the State of the Union speech when he said Republicans would always protect those with pre-existing conditions as they simultaneously >litigate the opposite side of the issue.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jan/15/donald-trump/trumps-claim-he-saved-pre-ex-conditions-part-fanta/

[risky biz]

The full picture, idiot, is that paying for healthcare through taxes RATHER than through private expenditure is meaningless except to the extent that single-payer will be able to control costs and LOWER expenditure for healthcare and consequently cover Americans currently uninsured by reversing the massive recent tax giveaways to the American plutocracy. And numerous means in addition to that are available, too.

All you did was repeat the lame handwringing bullshit about
'double the average Joe's personal taxes', 'huge new tax on employers', and 'I think they mean it would bankrupt the government to fund it all. What is it...$3 trillion more a year?' You don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. You just ignorantly repeated bullshit you saw on television which mentions only one side of the equation using words like 'double', 'huge new tax', 'bankrupt', and the clincher, 'TRILLION'. That last is only propagandistically effective because the average person can't imagine that we spend $4.4 TRILLION a year on healthcare RIGHT NOW. Multiply that by 10 and you have $44 TRILLION over the next 10 years. That's WITHOUT taking into account the piggish cost increases the healthcare and pharma industries have been cranking into the system like an addict with a speedball. They've only moderated that (slightly) recently because they know they're being watched more closely than 5+ years ago.

It will only take a short series of 45-second television commercials repeated an adequate number of times for the general public to see someone has been feeding them rank bullshit. The bullshit you repeated and can't admit to now or ever.

[risky biz]

On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 9:23:20 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:

> America isn't a superpower anymore. Donald Trump saw to that. Superpowers don't let other countries fire missiles at them with impunity. The US went from being a superpower to Iran's bitch.

Give it a break with the 'BillB in Vancouver is more of a dick-wagging imperialist than Donald Trump'. You look like an ass.

America should never have invaded Iraq and the one and only reason Donald Trump committed that assassination was to excite fools similar to you.

[risky biz]

Yeah. And Kamala Harris is the one to watch. LOL. I'll bet she's having second thoughts now about endorsing Joe Biden, THAT SEGREGATIONIST.🤣

[VegasJerry]

On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 1:08:31 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:

You want to lose your family healthcare or not?
You want your kids safe in school or not?
You want more mercury and arsenic in your air and drinking water or not?
You can't a cut in your Medicare and Social Security or not?

Additional choices in whether to vote Democrat or Republican, on request.

[VegasJerry]

Knew you couldn't show.

[VegasJerry]

On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 1:33:42 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 1:08:31 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 3:45:34 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> > > Lol...typical risky shanked punt
> > >
> > > "The Urban Institute, a center-left think tank highly respected among Democrats, is projecting that a plan similar to what Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders are pushing would require $34 trillion in additional federal spending over its first decade in operation"
> >
> > Healthcare expenses paid privately will be rerouted through taxes, moron.
>
> That's what I said you idiot, on businesses or individuals, remember? You have the reading comprehension skills of a small child.

Yet tells ME I should learn to read...

[VegasJerry]

On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 4:42:53 PM UTC-8, Mossingen wrote:

Like, "I will get you a better medical plan; for everybody; and it will be cheaper?"

Like that one you bought?

Or, "I will repeal and replace" Obamacare; it will be a better plan; be for everybody; cost less and nobody will be dropped for preexisting conditions?"

Like this one you bought, too? Huh?

No wonder you're embarrassed and run and hide so much...

[VegasJerry]

On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 6:20:22 PM UTC-8, Mossingen wrote:

That's the problem, you don't. As has been pointed out, you're too stupid or too cowardly to convers. You run and hide.

> Go back to arguing with Jerry and Clave.

*****
> Because I don't because I can't
*****

Fixed your post.

[BillB]

On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 12:13:29 AM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:


> Give it a break with the 'BillB in Vancouver is more of a dick-wagging imperialist than Donald Trump'. You look like an ass.
>
> America should never have invaded Iraq and the one and only reason Donald Trump committed that assassination was to excite fools similar to you.

I'm not an "imperialist" (lol) and this has nothing to do with whether the US should or shouldn't have invaded Iraq 17 years ago. Nor was I "excited" about the killing of the Iranian general, which I already said I regarded as counter-productive and a probable war crime.

This is simply about responding to one incident out of self-defense and according to the laws of armed conflict.

I hate to break it to you, risky, but you just aren't very bright.

[risky biz]

On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 10:02:04 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 12:13:29 AM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
>
>
> > Give it a break with the 'BillB in Vancouver is more of a dick-wagging imperialist than Donald Trump'. You look like an ass.
> >
> > America should never have invaded Iraq and the one and only reason Donald Trump committed that assassination was to excite fools similar to you.
>
> I'm not an "imperialist" (lol) and this has nothing to do with whether the US should or shouldn't have invaded Iraq 17 years ago. Nor was I "excited" about the killing of the Iranian general, which I already said I regarded as counter-productive and a probable war crime.
>

~ This is simply about responding to one incident out of self-defense and according to the laws of armed conflict.

No shit, Sherlock. That's what Iran did.

> I hate to break it to you, risky, but you just aren't very bright.

Everyone saw exactly how bright you were with your lavishly ignorant comments regarding healthcare in this same thread and which you are now trying to forget without admitting you didn't know what the hell you were talking about. About 15W bright. Right around the brightness rating of a 'mood' light bulb.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[BillB]

On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 10:37:25 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:

> ~ This is simply about responding to one incident out of self-defense and according to the laws of armed conflict.
>
> No shit, Sherlock. That's what Iran did.

You're on Iran's side. That figures.

> > I hate to break it to you, risky, but you just aren't very bright.
>
> Everyone saw exactly how bright you were with your lavishly ignorant comments regarding healthcare in this same thread and which you are now trying to forget without admitting you didn't know what the hell you were talking about. About 15W bright. Right around the brightness rating of a 'mood' light bulb.
> 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

*I* didn't know?? LOLOL You goddamned fool. I said federal spending would have to increase about $3 trillion a year to which you replied "not even close". You were proven wrong (AGAIN). Then you showed you don't even understand your own country (the US I mean, not Iran) when you claimed it makes no difference whether the $3 trillion is spent through a private arrangement between employees and employers, or a tax grab and total control by the government. LOLOL WQhat a fucking idiot. Of course it matters. So fucking clueless it's not even worth a response, especially after I had already explained to you some of the cultural impediments of the latter arrangement in a previous post. Then, like the complete moron you are, you claimed Medicare for All would not result in a tax increase for regular Americans. I then showed you several quotes from your socialist hero that explicitly said it absolutely would.

Just because I'm not inclined to beat a dead horse after I've already stomped you into a grease spot doesn't mean you won. lol I'm not willing to waste my time teaching someone who doesn't want to learn, and you are about as dense as they come.

[risky biz]

On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 10:54:53 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 10:37:25 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
>
> > ~ This is simply about responding to one incident out of self-defense and according to the laws of armed conflict.
> >
> > No shit, Sherlock. That's what Iran did.
>
> You're on Iran's side. That figures.

Is that what it is, moron? Impressive analysis. You're brilliant, even if you do say so yourself.

> > > I hate to break it to you, risky, but you just aren't very bright.
> >
> > Everyone saw exactly how bright you were with your lavishly ignorant comments regarding healthcare in this same thread and which you are now trying to forget without admitting you didn't know what the hell you were talking about. About 15W bright. Right around the brightness rating of a 'mood' light bulb.
> > 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
>
> *I* didn't know?? LOLOL You goddamned fool. I said federal spending would have to increase about $3 trillion a year to which you replied "not even close". You were proven wrong (AGAIN). Then you showed you don't even understand your own country (the US I mean, not Iran) when you claimed it makes no difference whether the $3 trillion is spent through a private arrangement between employees and employers, or a tax grab and total control by the government. LOLOL WQhat a fucking idiot. Of course it matters. So fucking clueless it's not even worth a response, especially after I had already explained to you some of the cultural impediments of the latter arrangement in a previous post. Then, like the complete moron you are, you claimed Medicare for All would not result in a tax increase for regular Americans. I then showed you several quotes from your socialist hero that explicitly said it absolutely would.
>
> Just because I'm not inclined to beat a dead horse after I've already stomped you into a grease spot doesn't mean you won. lol I'm not willing to waste my time teaching someone who doesn't want to learn, and you are about as dense as they come.

Uh, huh. I'm sure everyone thinks you 'won'. 😎

[Dutch]

On 2020-02-11 10:54 p.m., BillB wrote:
> you claimed Medicare for All would not result in a tax increase for regular Americans. I then showed you several quotes from your socialist hero that explicitly said it absolutely would.

Bernie admitted there would be an increase in taxes but a more than
offsetting decrease in premiums and co-pays for the vast majority of
citizens. I think the culture shock could be lessened if it were
introduced in stages starting with a public option and a federal
individual mandate. Make the private insurers compete with that.
Employers won't pay $600 a month to Humana for 50% employee plans if
they can get government coverage for 10-20% of that.

[BillB]

You can't get government coverage for 10-20%. That's pure fantasy. I explained some of this in my original post. You're operating on the fallacious assumption that just because Canada gets away with only spending $5000 per capita, then all the US has to do is go public and they will also cut their per capita expenses in half. It's just not so. There are many deeply ingrained cultural reasons US healthcare costs double per capita. Look at the per capita cost of Medicare right now.

[risky biz]

On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 11:15:40 PM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:

I disagree. Private insurance would be getting the lower risk underwriting and the 'public option' would be getting the higher risk underwriting. It's a strategy for the failure of the public option. That's exactly why the candidates dependent on healthcare campaign contributions (or the candidates who own billions of dollars of healthcare and pharma stocks) are promoting it. It's a stopgap strategy for return to the status quo.

[risky biz]

On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 10:54:53 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:

~ Then, like the complete moron you are, you claimed Medicare for All would not result in a tax increase for regular Americans. I then showed you several quotes from your socialist hero that explicitly said it absolutely would.

Oh, really? Is this where I said 'Medicare for All would not result in a tax increase for regular Americans'?

'Healthcare expenses paid privately will be rerouted through taxes, moron.'
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gambling.poker/eUQui176wIw/oTR_W_6MBAAJ

[risky biz]

Presto! Genius BillB obliterates all the math with his 'deeply ingrained cultural reasons' eraser. LOL. This is too funny.

Almost all Democrats favor healthcare for all and even 28% of registered REPUBLICANS favor healthcare for all (which is one of the reasons why Bernie is the most electable candidate). Wow. What a towering wall of 'deeply ingrained cultural reasons' to overcome.

Why don't you do yourself a favor and put your 'deeply ingrained cultural reasons' eraser back in your school bag and just admit you weren't sufficiently informed about the basic and rather uncomplicated math of healthcare for all. It's nothing to be embarrassed about. Few people are.

[Clave]

On 2/11/2020 11:28 PM, risky biz wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 11:15:40 PM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:
>> On 2020-02-11 10:54 p.m., BillB wrote:
>>> you claimed Medicare for All would not result in a tax increase for regular Americans. I then showed you several quotes from your socialist hero that explicitly said it absolutely would.
>>
>> Bernie admitted there would be an increase in taxes but a more than
>> offsetting decrease in premiums and co-pays for the vast majority of
>> citizens. I think the culture shock could be lessened if it were
>> introduced in stages starting with a public option and a federal
>> individual mandate. Make the private insurers compete with that.
>> Employers won't pay $600 a month to Humana for 50% employee plans if
>> they can get government coverage for 10-20% of that.
>
> I disagree. Private insurance would be getting the lower risk underwriting and the 'public option' would be getting the higher risk underwriting.

WTF do you think the individual mandate is there for?

Do you have any idea at all what you're talking about?

[risky biz]

The great majority of private insurance is provided through employers. Who's healthier on average? Millions of employed individuals or millions of unemployed individuals?

Not to mention that a separate program that has to be largely supported by transfer payments would be a propaganda godsend for the 'healthcare for some' contingent.

I hope that isn't too woo-woo subtle for you to grasp.

[Clave]

On 2/11/2020 11:55 PM, risky biz wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 11:43:51 PM UTC-8, Clave wrote:
>> On 2/11/2020 11:28 PM, risky biz wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 11:15:40 PM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:
>>>> On 2020-02-11 10:54 p.m., BillB wrote:
>>>>> you claimed Medicare for All would not result in a tax increase for regular Americans. I then showed you several quotes from your socialist hero that explicitly said it absolutely would.
>>>>
>>>> Bernie admitted there would be an increase in taxes but a more than
>>>> offsetting decrease in premiums and co-pays for the vast majority of
>>>> citizens. I think the culture shock could be lessened if it were
>>>> introduced in stages starting with a public option and a federal
>>>> individual mandate. Make the private insurers compete with that.
>>>> Employers won't pay $600 a month to Humana for 50% employee plans if
>>>> they can get government coverage for 10-20% of that.
>>>
>>> I disagree. Private insurance would be getting the lower risk underwriting and the 'public option' would be getting the higher risk underwriting.
>>
>> WTF do you think the individual mandate is there for?
>>
>> Do you have any idea at all what you're talking about?
>
> The great majority of private insurance is provided through employers. Who's healthier on average? Millions of employed individuals or millions of unemployed individuals?

I'd say the insurance company middlemen were doing the best.

[BillB]

On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 11:43:41 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 11:22:51 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 11:15:40 PM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:
> > > On 2020-02-11 10:54 p.m., BillB wrote:
> > > > you claimed Medicare for All would not result in a tax increase for regular Americans. I then showed you several quotes from your socialist hero that explicitly said it absolutely would.
> > >
> > > Bernie admitted there would be an increase in taxes but a more than
> > > offsetting decrease in premiums and co-pays for the vast majority of
> > > citizens. I think the culture shock could be lessened if it were
> > > introduced in stages starting with a public option and a federal
> > > individual mandate. Make the private insurers compete with that.
> > > Employers won't pay $600 a month to Humana for 50% employee plans if
> > > they can get government coverage for 10-20% of that.
> >
> > You can't get government coverage for 10-20%. That's pure fantasy. I explained some of this in my original post. You're operating on the fallacious assumption that just because Canada gets away with only spending $5000 per capita, then all the US has to do is go public and they will also cut their per capita expenses in half. It's just not so. There are many deeply ingrained cultural reasons US healthcare costs double per capita. Look at the per capita cost of Medicare right now.
>
> Presto! Genius BillB obliterates all the math with his 'deeply ingrained cultural reasons' eraser. LOL. This is too funny.
>
> Almost all Democrats favor healthcare for all and even 28% of registered REPUBLICANS favor healthcare for all (which is one of the reasons why Bernie is the most electable candidate). Wow. What a towering wall of 'deeply ingrained cultural reasons' to overcome.
>

Maybe if they don't understand the question. Here's how it polls when you explain to them that they won't have a choice in the matter.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/428958-poll-voters-want-the-government-to-provide-healthcare-for


You must feel like a complete fucking idiot right about now.

> Why don't you do yourself a favor and put your 'deeply ingrained cultural reasons' eraser back in your school bag and just admit you weren't sufficiently informed about the basic and rather uncomplicated math of healthcare for all. It's nothing to be embarrassed about. Few people are.

If it's so uncomplicated, why didn't you know that federal spending would have to increase about $3 trillion a year ("not even close" LOL!)? Why didn't you know that a tax increase would apply to regular Americans? You have proven that you don't know shit about this issue, one that I have been studying for at least a decade.

[BillB]

On Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 12:01:54 AM UTC-8, Clave wrote:

> I'd say the insurance company middlemen were doing the best.

According to NAIC the entire healthcare insurance industry makes about $25 billion per year in profits. It's a lot of money, but we're talking about trillions of dollars a year in health care expenditures. It's not a large percentage. It doesn't really even begin to explain the US's exorbitant per capita healthcare costs.

[BillB]

On Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 12:20:02 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 12:01:54 AM UTC-8, Clave wrote:
>
> > I'd say the insurance company middlemen were doing the best.
>
> According to NAIC the entire healthcare insurance industry makes about $25 billion per year in profits.

See Figure 1:

https://naic.org/documents/topic_insurance_industry_snapshots_2018_health_ins_ind_report.pdf

[Clave]

Of course not -- prices are inflated across the board with a whole bunch
of causes. We need serious subsidies and regulations locked in for
decades to make much of a difference. People need to get used to the
idea ("Keep government hands off my Medicare!!!").

[BillB]

Just a little anecdote....I read an article last month about a woman in NYC who had a sore throat. She was about to leave on a holiday so she decided to go to the doctor to get it checked out. The doctor gave her the ok to go but ran some tests anyway. When she got back from holiday she was shocked to find a bill for $2500. The only explanation she could think of was that they billed her by mistake instead of the insurance company, but even that seemed impossibly high. She called her insurance company and they explained the $2500 was her copay. They had paid out the rest of the $25000 bill. Turns out the doctor had ordered expensive DNA testing to determine what possible strain of strep she might have. All the tests were negative. She got nowhere with her protests.

In Canada, that would have been a $75 bill for an uninsured person at any walk-in clinic. They would have given her some Tylenol and sent her on her way.

[Clave]

On 2/12/2020 1:09 AM, BillB wrote:
> Just a little anecdote....I read an article last month about a woman in NYC who had a sore throat. She was about to leave on a holiday so she decided to go to the doctor to get it checked out. The doctor gave her the ok to go but ran some tests anyway. When she got back from holiday she was shocked to find a bill for $2500. The only explanation she could think of was that they billed her by mistake instead of the insurance company, but even that seemed impossibly high. She called her insurance company and they explained the $2500 was her copay. They had paid out the rest of the $25000 bill. Turns out the doctor had ordered expensive DNA testing to determine what possible strain of strep she might have. All the tests were negative. She got nowhere with her protests.
>
> In Canada, that would have been a $75 bill for an uninsured person at any walk-in clinic. They would have given her some Tylenol and sent her on her way.

In America this is sometimes (often?) due to the high incidence of
malpractice charges. Physicians run more (and more expensive) tests so
they don't get sued for missing something.

[BillB]

That's definitely part of it. It's very difficult to successfully sue a doctor in Canada so long as he acted reasonably and according to established procedure. And even if you do sue and win, the damage awards are generally much much smaller.

But we can't forget that another incentive is billing. US doctors bill for ordering the test, for analyzing the results, and for consulting with you about the results. I'm also cynical enough in extreme cases like the one above to wonder if there is a kickback situation going on with the lab.

Another aspect is patient expectation. This also ties in with the cultural differences Ive been talking about. If an American goes to the doctor for a nagging back pain, he expects to be immediately dispatched for expensive imaging and other high tech treatments. The doctors oblige to keep their patients happy.

In Canada, doctors are a big fan of what they call "watchful waiting". The doctor will probably tell me the pain will likely go away on it's own, so let"s try some mild pain relief meds and give it a few months. If I balk at that and demand an MRI, they'll relent and put me on waiting list, which just happens to be three months. lol

[Dutch]

Why would the US government be incapable of bringing down costs? Other
governments do it.

[BillB]

How many examples do I have to give and how many fucking times do I have to repeat myself before it penetrates that rock hard cranium of yours?

[Dutch]

You're degenerating into arm waving and name calling even faster than
normal lately. "Cultural differences" is not an answer. Cultures evolve
when they have to.

[VegasJerry]

Yep.

[VegasJerry]

On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 11:43:51 PM UTC-8, Clave wrote:

I've shown he doesn't even know the difference between Medicare and Medicaid.

[VegasJerry]

And what Obamacare was to correct by having a say in what tests were to be performed. But the GOP called it Death Panels.

[BillB]

On Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 1:33:24 PM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:

> You're degenerating into arm waving and name calling even faster than
> normal lately. "Cultural differences" is not an answer. Cultures evolve
> when they have to.

What the fuck is wrong with you?? Cultural differences is an answer, and the answer. And I have explained it in detail, giving you several examples. I talked about US doctors and nurses making far more money than their counterparts in other countries, and the problems that would erupt if you suddenly enforced system-wide wage controls. I talked about the deeply ingrained distrust Americans have for government, particularly the federal government (and justifiably so). Would you trust Donald Trump with your healthcare? I disabused you of the notion that the exorbitant per capita costs were the result of insurance companies skimming health care dollars. I talked about the demands and expectations average Americans have for treatment compared to their Canadian counterparts. I talked about the culture of entrepreneurship and inventiveness in the US that leads to higher drug prices. I talked about the differences between the way US and Canadian doctors practice medicine. I talked about the litigious culture in the US. I pointed you to a survey which showed that only 1 in 10 registered voters would want Medicare for All if it meant abolishing private insurance. And on and on.

You ignored it all, and then have the nerve to ask me,"Why would the US government be incapable of bringing down costs?" Dutch, you're a fucking idiot.
If it was easy to cut US health care costs in half, it would have been done a long time ago. Stop being a moron. Pretend you actually have a high IQ like you claim to.

[Dutch]

You're a windbag.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/412545-70-percent-of-americans-support-medicare-for-all-health-care

Even a majority of Republicans support it.

[BillB]

You're an idiot, Dutch. Possibly even dumber than risky. That poll is about offering Medicare for All only to those who want it. When you explain to people it would be mandatory for all and abolish private insurance (Bernie's plan) support plummets to 10%. You really dont know that most Americans with private insurance dont want to trade it away? Why are you incapable of learning? Do you have a disability?

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/428958-poll-voters-want-the-government-to-provide-healthcare-forĺ

[Tim Norfolk]

I wouldn't be so sure about nurse salaries. In this area, registered nurses start at around $45,000, with very small raises, unless they get supervisor positions or advanced training. Nurse practitioners are making around $89,000 for family medicine.

[Dutch]

On 2020-02-13 2:16 a.m., BillB wrote:
> You're an idiot, Dutch. Possibly even dumber than risky. That poll is about offering Medicare for All only to those who want it. When you explain to people it would be mandatory for all and abolish private insurance (Bernie's plan) support plummets to 10%. You really dont know that most Americans with private insurance dont want to trade it away? Why are you incapable of learning? Do you have a disability?
>
> https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/428958-poll-voters-want-the-government-to-provide-healthcare-forĺ

Maybe, but at least I'm capable of pasting a working URL.

[BillB]

On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 8:32:22 AM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:

> I wouldn't be so sure about nurse salaries. In this area, registered nurses start at around $45,000, with very small raises, unless they get supervisor positions or advanced training. Nurse practitioners are making around $89,000 for >family medicine.

"According to the U.S. News and World Report, Registered Nurses in the United States in 2016 made an average salary of $68,450. The top five best paying cities were in California.

San Francisco - $136,610
Santa Cruz, California - $124,920
Vallejo, California - $124,380
San Jose, California - $120,680
Salinas, California - $120,120
While the lowest paying states are not published, the bottom-paid 10 percent earned less than $47,120."

The same article says the average salary for Canada is $51,000. I knew the salaries were higher in the US because US hospitals are always recruiting here in Canada and it is common knowledge here that many Canadian nurses move to the US for the money. California and Florida seem to be popular destinations.

[BillB]

On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 12:43:46 PM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:

> Maybe, but at least I'm capable of pasting a working URL.

It's annoyingly difficult with my phone. I already posted the correct link, which you conveniently ignored.

[risky biz]

It's more than your phone that's annoyingly difficult.

[risky biz]

An interesting quote from the libertarian 'study':

'Medicare for all has been in the headlines after a study by the libertarian-leaning Mercatus Center at George Mason University found it would lead to $32.6 trillion increase in federal spending over a 10-year period.

The study’s author, Charles Blahous, wrote in The Wall Street Journal earlier this month that even doubling taxes would not cover the bill for a single-payer health-care system.

The policy’s proponents, however, point to a note in the study showing that health-care costs would also decrease by $2 trillion by 2031 if it became law.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has introduced a Medicare for all bill, has said that the Mercatus study is “grossly misleading and biased.”
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/403248-poll-seventy-percent-of-americans-support-medicare-for-all

Even in a “grossly misleading and biased” libertarian 'study' National Health Expenditure (NHE) DECLINES by $2 trillion. However, the Urban Institute estimates a $7 trillion increase. Although the latter is less supportive of my position I will consider that more accurate and carefully researched.
https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/dont-confuse-changes-federal-health-spending-national-health-spending

It won't take long to clarify to the electorate the misleading lies like:

'it would bankrupt the government'
'What is it...$3 trillion more a year? That's a lot of coin. Where is the money going to come from?'
'double the average Joe's personal taxes'
'How are you going to convince doctors to work for half as much, like they do in other countries?'
'the pharmaceutical industry become another industry under the wing of and funded by the government'
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gambling.poker/eUQui176wIw/Zn_NKdlbBAAJ

And a $7 trillion increase in National Health Expenditure (NHE)over 10 years ($700 billion more a year), if it truly is that high, can easily be covered by the recent MASSIVE hundreds of billions of dollars a year of tax giveaways to the plutocracy and an additional hundreds of billions of dollars a year to a corporate sector which was already paying the lowest taxes in the developed world.

We're, right now, wasting $600 BILLION A YEAR on inefficient healthcare administration and paperwork. Do you hear the same people complaining about the unaffordability of that?

[risky biz]

On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 3:14:39 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:

> On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 12:43:46 PM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:
>
> > Maybe, but at least I'm capable of pasting a working URL.
>

~ I already posted the correct link, which you conveniently ignored.

All anyone has to do is find it somewhere without knowing what it's supposed to look like. The BillB method of arguing for nonsense.

[risky biz]

You have given NO relevant examples and what you're repeating is nonsense.

[risky biz]

On Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 10:54:44 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 1:33:24 PM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:
>
> > You're degenerating into arm waving and name calling even faster than
> > normal lately. "Cultural differences" is not an answer. Cultures evolve
> > when they have to.
>

~ What the fuck is wrong with you?? Cultural differences is an answer, and the answer.

BillB has apparently given up on the math which he now realizes contadicts what he claims after I explained it to him.

[risky biz]

On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 2:16:30 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> You're an idiot, Dutch. Possibly even dumber than risky. That poll is about offering Medicare for All only to those who want it. When you explain to people it would be mandatory for all and abolish private insurance (Bernie's plan) support plummets to 10%. You really dont know that most Americans with private insurance dont want to trade it away? Why are you incapable of learning? Do you have a disability?
>
> https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/428958-poll-voters-want-the-government-to-provide-healthcare-forĺ

Ignore the link to nowhere. LOL.

That poll will quickly change when people are informed that Bernie's Medicare For All eliminates deductibles and co-pays and covers eyeglasses, dental, and hearing. They think the poll question is referring to replacing their current health insurance (which sometimes has lower deductibles and co-pays) with the current Medicare system (which sometimes has higher deductibles and co-pays). And they don't realize that Medicare For All will cover eyeglasses, dental, and hearing which is not covered by most private health insurance. That poll question, as it is asked, is deeply false.

And that coverage expansion is calculated into the Urban Institute estimate of its cost which is easily affordable and WILL NOT BANKRUPT the United States of America.

[risky biz]

On Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 12:01:54 AM UTC-8, Clave wrote:

> > The great majority of private insurance is provided through employers. Who's healthier on average? Millions of employed individuals or millions of unemployed individuals?

>
> I'd say the insurance company middlemen were doing the best.

Clave ran away rather than answer the question.

[Dutch]

excuses excuses

You can access different polls. Results vary depending on the specific
question and who is answering, but one trend is apparent. The idea of
single payer healthcare has gained support rapidly in the last five
years. Not as many Americans are dismissing it as pie-in-the-sky
socialism as they learn more about it, such as how common it is in the
developed world.

[Clave]

Most people of even your limited intelligence manage to realize that
combining weakness of wit with childish pissiness isn't a very good look.

So I'll ask again:

[risky biz]

On Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 12:25:55 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:

> On Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 12:20:02 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 12:01:54 AM UTC-8, Clave wrote:
> >
> > > I'd say the insurance company middlemen were doing the best.
> >

> > According to NAIC the entire healthcare insurance industry makes about $25 billion per year in profits.
>

> See Figure 1:
>
> https://naic.org/documents/topic_insurance_industry_snapshots_2018_health_ins_ind_report.pdf


Figure 1:
'The health insurance industry continued its tremendous growth trend as it experienced a significant increase in net earnings to $23.4 billion'

AND:

'Administrative expenses increased 17.7% ($13.9 billion).
Capital and surplus increased 10% ($14 billion)'

17.7%? Cooking the books?

[BillB]

You are an economic illiterate. The Urban Institute estimate you quoted said total health care expenditures would increase $700 billion a year, an amount roughly equivalent to ALL the profits of the Fortune 500.

[BillB]

On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 4:15:54 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:

> On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 2:16:30 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> > You're an idiot, Dutch. Possibly even dumber than risky. That poll is about offering Medicare for All only to those who want it. When you explain to people it would be mandatory for all and abolish private insurance (Bernie's plan) support plummets to 10%. You really dont know that most Americans with private insurance dont want to trade it away? Why are you incapable of learning? Do you have a disability?
> >
> > https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/428958-poll-voters-want-the-government-to-provide-healthcare-forĺ
>
> Ignore the link to nowhere. LOL.
>

> That poll will quickly change when people are informed...

LOL...sure it will. If only everyone was as informed and intelligent as you. smfh

[BillB]

On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 9:48:17 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:

> You are an economic illiterate. The Urban Institute estimate you quoted said total health care expenditures would increase $700 billion a year, an amount roughly equivalent to ALL the profits of the Fortune 500.

By the way, everyone should notice that risky's first post in this thread said the US would be spending "half as much" on total health care expenditures (under Crazy Bernie's socialist Utopia), and then a few posts later he's quoting the Urban Institute's estimate that expenditures will actually increase $700 billion a year. LOLOLOL And he thinks he educating me on the math. smfh.

[Clave]

Hard to talk American health care seriously with someone who doesn't
even know what the individual mandate does.

SMFH indeed.

[risky biz]

On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 7:47:23 PM UTC-8, Clave wrote:
> On 2/13/2020 7:10 PM, risky biz wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 12:01:54 AM UTC-8, Clave wrote:
> >> On 2/11/2020 11:55 PM, risky biz wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 11:43:51 PM UTC-8, Clave wrote:
> >>>> On 2/11/2020 11:28 PM, risky biz wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 11:15:40 PM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2020-02-11 10:54 p.m., BillB wrote:
> >>>>>>> you claimed Medicare for All would not result in a tax increase for regular Americans. I then showed you several quotes from your socialist hero that explicitly said it absolutely would.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Bernie admitted there would be an increase in taxes but a more than
> >>>>>> offsetting decrease in premiums and co-pays for the vast majority of
> >>>>>> citizens. I think the culture shock could be lessened if it were
> >>>>>> introduced in stages starting with a public option and a federal
> >>>>>> individual mandate. Make the private insurers compete with that.
> >>>>>> Employers won't pay $600 a month to Humana for 50% employee plans if
> >>>>>> they can get government coverage for 10-20% of that.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I disagree. Private insurance would be getting the lower risk underwriting and the 'public option' would be getting the higher risk underwriting.
> >>>>
> >>>> WTF do you think the individual mandate is there for?
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you have any idea at all what you're talking about?
> >>>
> >>> The great majority of private insurance is provided through employers. Who's healthier on average? Millions of employed individuals or millions of unemployed individuals?
> >>
> >> I'd say the insurance company middlemen were doing the best.
> >
> > Clave ran away rather than answer the question.
>

~ Most people of even your limited intelligence manage to realize that

> combining weakness of wit with childish pissiness isn't a very good look.
>
> So I'll ask again:
>
> WTF do you think the individual mandate is there for?

LOL. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/19/politics/mike-bloomberg-health-care/index.html

"Bloomberg, however, would not seek to reinstate the individual mandate -- which requires Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty."
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gambling.poker/_DdNihJaBwI/eqjygsWfBgAJ

'limited intelligence, weakness of wit, childish pissiness'
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[Tim Norfolk]

The salaries I gave are typical for our area. I should know, as my wife was a hospital nurse, and now is a nurse practitioner.

[Mossingen]

"BillB" wrote in message
news:0e95daa8-280b-494f...@googlegroups.com...

________________


I remember when Bill and Hillary tried national health care back in the 90s,
and Bill held up a little plastic card that looked like a credit card and
said here is your national health card. That imploded almost the same day
and went nowhere.

There are powerful institutional and political interests that oppose
nationalized health care in the U.S., for the reasons you have identified.

However, it is a huge issue. My girlfriend is a white conservative, and she
voted for Trump, but healthcare is a huge issue for her. She is unsure what
Trump's solution is, and candidates like Klobachar are attractive to her
because of this one issue.

She knows Sanders will bankrupt the country with his plan, and that
socialism isn't the answer, but there does need to be some resolution. If I
was Trump, I'd get all the players in a room, the big corporations who own
the hospitals and the big insurance companies, and tell them to get involved
with a solution, otherwise someone like Sanders might win and they will not
like the solution forced upon them by the federal government. The private
healthcare industry needs to figure it out themselves or else the government
will do it for them. Trump could actually lead the way in this regard.

[Mossingen]

"Tim Norfolk" wrote in message
news:0a050f9d-27af-4ac3...@googlegroups.com...

>The salaries I gave are typical for our area. I should know, as my wife was
>a hospital nurse, and now is a nurse practitioner.

Is she excited about the prospect of the government taking over healthcare?

[VegasJerry]

Knew you couldn't answer that, either...

[Dutch]

On 2020-02-14 2:34 a.m., risky biz wrote:

> https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/19/politics/mike-bloomberg-health-care/index.html

Perfect platform for this election. salami it

>
> "Bloomberg, however, would not seek to reinstate the individual mandate -- which requires Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty."

Good, leave that for a later discussion, once the tumor in the White
House is removed successfully.

You don't start training for a marathon while you're undergoing
chemotherapy.

[BillB]

I didn’t doubt the accuracy of your figures, but it doesn’t represent the average. According to the article I posted it represents the bottom 10%. My orginal point stands. IDoctors and nurses get paid a lot more in the US, and if you want to compete with Canadian per capital costs you’re going to have to figure out a way to get health care professionals to accept steep wage reductions, and then have a plan in place to deal with the personnel shortage that will inevitably result. Contrary to what risky seems to believe, Bernie Sanders sprinkling his magic socialist fairy dust all over the place is not going to cut it.

[Dutch]

On 2020-02-14 10:48 a.m., Mossingen wrote:

> I remember when Bill and Hillary tried national health care back in the
> 90s, and Bill held up a little plastic card that looked like a credit
> card and said here is your national health card.  That imploded almost
> the same day and went nowhere.

It wasn't the right time or the right plan.

> There are powerful institutional and political interests that oppose
> nationalized health care in the U.S., for the reasons you have identified.

Of course, just like there are powerful interests working to allow
corporations to pollute the air and water, strip-mine in national parks
and promote smoking. People voting is more powerful than any of that.

>
> However, it is a huge issue.  My girlfriend is a white conservative, and
> she voted for Trump, but healthcare is a huge issue for her.  She is
> unsure what Trump's solution is, and candidates like Klobachar are
> attractive to her because of this one issue.

Trump's solution is the same as the rest of Republicans, cut
entitlements, cancel coverage for pre-existing conditions, and give tax
breaks to the wealthy. Let the undeserving suffer, fuck em, just like
Jesus said.

> She knows Sanders will bankrupt the country with his plan, and that
> socialism isn't the answer, but there does need to be some resolution.

Dismissing single-payer medical insurance by calling it "socialism" is
juvenile and self-defeating, and naive.

> If I was Trump, I'd get all the players in a room, the big corporations
> who own the hospitals and the big insurance companies, and tell them to
> get involved with a solution, otherwise someone like Sanders might win
> and they will not like the solution forced upon them by the federal
> government.  The private healthcare industry needs to figure it out

They have it figured out. It's a license to print money, why change that?

> themselves or else the government will do it for them.  Trump could
> actually lead the way in this regard.

LOL! You still believe Donald Trump is the answer to your problems, what
a deluded sap you are.

[Dutch]

To be clear, single-payer is centrally administered one-stop MEDICAL
INSURANCE. Health Care involves far more than that. My doctor is not a
government employee any more than he would be an employee of the dozens
of different insurance companies that he would be billing if he was
working in the US.

[Clave]

He has no fucking clue.

[Tim Norfolk]

Actually, yes. Trying to navigate the different requirements of all the insurance companies is a nightmare.

[VegasJerry]

Thus, Obamacare. The same as Romneycare but better.

[Mossingen]

"Tim Norfolk" wrote in message

news:8381397a-3ba5-4b0a...@googlegroups.com...

So, she thinks the Government will make things easier, with less red tape?
Interesting.

[Dutch]

On 2020-02-20 12:45 p.m., Mossingen wrote:
> "Tim Norfolk"  wrote in message
> news:8381397a-3ba5-4b0a...@googlegroups.com...
>
> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 1:50:30 PM UTC-5, Mossingen wrote:
>> "Tim Norfolk"  wrote in message
>> news:0a050f9d-27af-4ac3...@googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>> >The salaries I gave are typical for our area. I should know, as my
>> wife >was
>> >a hospital nurse, and now is a nurse practitioner.
>>
>>
>> Is she excited about the prospect of the government taking over
>> healthcare?
>
>
>> Actually, yes. Trying to navigate the different requirements of all
>> the insurance companies is a nightmare.
>
>
> So, she thinks the Government will make things easier, with less red
> tape? Interesting.

That's a no-brainer. Single Payer makes the doctor's administrative
function very easy. You see a patient, you treat the patient according
to his medical needs, you submit your fee. End of Story.

[VegasJerry]

On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 12:45:46 PM UTC-8, Mossingen wrote:
> "Tim Norfolk" wrote in message
> news:8381397a-3ba5-4b0a...@googlegroups.com...
>
> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 1:50:30 PM UTC-5, Mossingen wrote:
> > "Tim Norfolk" wrote in message
> > news:0a050f9d-27af-4ac3...@googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > >The salaries I gave are typical for our area. I should know, as my wife
> > >was
> > >a hospital nurse, and now is a nurse practitioner.
> >
> >
> > Is she excited about the prospect of the government taking over
> > healthcare?
>
>
> >Actually, yes. Trying to navigate the different requirements of all the
> >insurance companies is a nightmare.
>
>
> So, she thinks the Government will make things easier, with less red tape?
> Interesting.

What’s “interesting’ is your obvious Cut & Paste response. Straight out of the FOX/GOP playbook. (Jesus you’re so obviously in the GOP bubble. Do you EVER do any of your own thinking?)

So actually, yes. With the government it IS easier, as designed by Obama in Obamacare and copied mostly from Mitt RomneyCare in Massachusetts. Ain’t that ‘interesting?’