Welcome to Dem Land

[Pam]

It's because he wants to use a tool called socialism to help people. A tool which has been tried many times in many countries and has failed to deliver anything other than a more concentrated power and wealth base. Sure people initially see programs which seem to help but then when they embrace the fullness of the concept which is an empty promise, they realize there is nothing there other than continued sacrifice with no possibility of gain in it for themselves or their loved ones. Socialism relies on the benevolence of Man and man is a flawed beast. Concentrate wealth and power in that system and the greed of man becomes the supreme. IMHO.

I don't understand what you are talking about. How is universal health care an "empty promise"? Every other major country on the Earth has it except us. People are dying and going bankrupt with our shitty health care system. The insurance industry is getting rich off the backs of sick people. The politicians who say we can't have it are taking bribes from insurance and drug companies. God forbid we live in a socialist hell hole like Sweden or Canada.

[Richard]

I don't understand what you are talking about. How is universal health care an "empty promise"? Every other major country on the Earth has it except us. People are dying and going bankrupt with our shitty health care system. The insurance industry is getting rich off the backs of sick people. The politicians who say we can't have it are taking bribes from insurance and drug companies. God forbid we live in a socialist hell hole like Sweden or Canada.

Universial "free" healthcare sounds good in theory,but according to these links it does not seem to be working very well.


https://www.city-journal.org/html/ug...are-13032.html

http://m.huffingtonpost.ca/bacchus-b...b_6004034.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.e3264fa1964d

U.K. Healthcare is also having serious issues.

To say we need to model our healthcare systems against others does not appear to be the answer,and people seem to dieing at a greater rate waiting for care.

I recently paid $450 cash for a lower back MRI where my friend with health insurance was charged $1850 using his insurance company for the exact same thing.

People look at it as free healthcare,it is not free because it is taken out in taxes so you do not see it and the results are the same,a percentage that pay taxes are paying for those who do not,when the ratio of those that cannot pay climbs,either the tax increases on those who can pay or the leval of service declines for all.

[Honky Tonk]

I recently paid $450 cash for a lower back MRI where my friend with health insurance was charged $1850 using his insurance company for the exact same thing.

Could you be a little more specific about the circumstances and what your's and your friend's "health insurance" constitutes?

[aj3647]

Universial "free" healthcare sounds good in theory,but according to these links it does not seem to be working very well.


https://www.city-journal.org/html/ug...are-13032.html

http://m.huffingtonpost.ca/bacchus-b...b_6004034.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.e3264fa1964d

"According to these links." Ok then, let's go down the list. City Journal is a magazine published by the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a conservative think tank.

The second is a HuffPost blog post written by a fellow at the Fraser Institute, which is a libertarian public policy think tank funded by the Koch Brothers.

The third link actually makes the opposite argument of what you are making, it paints the Canadian health care system in a mostly POSITIVE light. It does acknowledge that long wait times are a problem, but also points out that:
1) Healthcare outcomes in the Canadian healthcare system are very good, among the best for industrialized nations
2) The cost of health care, which higher than average for OECD nations, is still far below what Americans spend on health care.
3) Canadians are, by and large, very happy and satisfied with their health care system.

And "doesn't seem to be working well?" In comparison to what exactly? The American health care system? 57% of Canadians are satisfied with their national health care system, only 25% of Americans are satisfied with the care they receive through the U.S. health care system [[from your third link).

If Universal Health Care "isn't working well", then by comparison, how's the U.S. for-profit healthcare system working out? Great?

The argument that because the Canadian health care system has flaws means that it is not worthwhile or that our system is better is a flawed argument. When polled, most Canadians think the best way to fix their national health care system is to put MORE money into it, not less, and certainly not to privatize it.

[GMan]

I don't understand what you are talking about. How is universal health care an "empty promise"? Every other major country on the Earth has it except us. People are dying and going bankrupt with our shitty health care system. The insurance industry is getting rich off the backs of sick people. The politicians who say we can't have it are taking bribes from insurance and drug companies. God forbid we live in a socialist hell hole like Sweden or Canada.

It's an empty promise because it can't deliver what it promises.
The NHS in England has had to be propped up numerous times with infusions of money and reduction in services or longer wait times because of increasing demand. Concentrating a large amount of money and using a one size fits all approach dictated by bureaucrats is designed to fail and fraught with waste.
Better to let a regulated market approach find an efficient system which gives the consumer a stake in their healthcare decisions based on their individual needs and aversion to risk. [[ That what insurance is.) Did I have health insurance when I was in school but too old to be covered by my parents? Not that I knew of but I was ok with that risk and accepted it. When I started working I was given healthcare free. [[ I never saw a deduction in my paycheck.) That was great! I had surgery for an injury that occurred during one of my pass times. It was great. I was off work for 1 month / full pay and not 1 Bill. No Worries. Then Times changed, I have to pay for a portion of my healthcare but I get to choose what type of coverage I want to pay for. More coverage more money out of my pocket. Needless to say it makes you think about what type of risk I am willing to take. Now I have co-pays for everything /doctor visits and meds, I think about my condition before consulting my doc who is busy anyway.
I try to take better care of myself and I don't get involved in risky activities with the associated bad outcomes. I matured in a sense and didn't think healthcare was owed to me.
We can push for healthcare reform but is shouldn't be in the form of single payer. Got to get everybody involved.

[oladub]

I don't understand what you are talking about. How is universal health care an "empty promise"? Every other major country on the Earth has it except us. People are dying and going bankrupt with our shitty health care system. The insurance industry is getting rich off the backs of sick people. The politicians who say we can't have it are taking bribes from insurance and drug companies. God forbid we live in a socialist hell hole like Sweden or Canada.

I don't oppose a single payer plan like those of any Canadian province. I do object to a national plan. That is one place I differ from Bernie. As a Democrat, Bernie ignores the 10th. Amendment [[caveat: Many establishment Republicans do too). What would be so wrong about any blue state simply rewording the health care plan of any Canadian province? Vermont tried but was effectively shot down by [[un)ACA bureaucrats, under Obama, not that it was their business anyway. Canada has a hybrid plan in which each province manages their own healthcare plan although the national government collects the taxes and has some standards for redistributing those taxes to provinces. That's getting closer to being consistent with the 10th. Amendment - almost there. But which Democratic governor of a blue state is going to be first to get rid of most Rx profits, insurance company profits, bureaucrats, and lawyers? Who would thereafter finance their campaigns? They are as hypocritical as Republicans who promised to end the [[un)ACA and now want to keep all those bad actors at the table. Iceland would be a better example than Sweden because it has a similar single payer plan and only US two states have a smaller population than Iceland. If Iceland can successfully manage a single payer plan, so can any state.