J.R. said:

---

J.R. said:

---

here is an interesting question. how many of you rely on business and or govt to subside your HC? I pay 100% of premiums, plus a concierge doctor . just curious

---

so, all yall paying 100% of your premiums.?

---

unless you own your own business, the company subsidies. If not in money, in cohort. Employers will allow access to a larger cohort, which gives access to lower rates

I pay all of mine. My wife gets $225 toward hers. We pay all of our son's.

Even after we switched to a shorter mortgage, health insurance is our biggest expense.

I was'nt throwing shade at anyone, just trying to gauge how many people have their HC subsidized, but we are the only country in the world who depends on business to defer HC. Gotta be a better way.

J.R. said:

---

I was'nt throwing shade at anyone, just trying to gauge how many people have their HC subsidized, but we are the only country in the world who depends on business to defer HC. Gotta be a better way.

---

• Well, if you talk of it being a Government responsibility, you are a socialist.
• If you talk of going capitalism, you are putting profit before health care.

So, the question I have are all citizens entitled, yes entitled, to being taking care of when sick or injured? I say yes. Even Milton Friedman said that the first question at a hospital should be what is wrong, not who is you insurance provider.

From what I see, health care is a public utility, like electric, water, and solid waste. It is inefficient and cost prohibited to have competitive providers for a service that there is really no choice. If you get sick or injured you have to get treated. Even to make a determination of whether to go through with treatment it is expensive to be diagnosed. Just like you need to have electric. How do we handle electric utilities?

Well, they are allowed to operate and report to a Public Service Commission and rates can only be set and raised by showing the need and the value.

I think that is the model that would work best. Health care has gotten too expensive, technically complicated and is an item where people cannot make impartial decisions without undo influence. I think it fits the limited definition of a utility that requires regulation and controlled access.

The basic definition of a public utility -

Public utilities are entities that provide essential services to the public, such as water, electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications. These services are typically regulated by government agencies because they are considered essential for everyday living and economic activity. Public utilities often operate as natural monopolies due to the high infrastructure costs required to deliver these services, which makes it inefficient for multiple companies to compete in the same market.


I think health care has moved into this realm and should be treated as such. Just a thought, if you would have looked at that definition in 1955, telecommunications would NOT have been included. But, our society has developed where it is now necessary, so we view telecommunications as a public utility. Health care is similar, the cost of health care has changed and how we provide it and pay for it should change too.

well, I'm certainly NO socialist as I pay for my HC 100% out of pocket. No subsidy . I believe all citizens of the US are entitled to some modicum of HC.

J.R. said:

---

well, I'm certainly NO socialist as I pay for my HC 100% out of pocket. No subsidy . I believe all citizens of the US are entitled to some modicum of HC.

---

I get you, personally I think that the "labels" are marketing and propaganda.

Think about it, who thinks the same for all situations? What CEO uses the same mantra for everything? They would be pretty unsuccessful and unemployed. Do you want someone that is so tunnel visioned leading? There is a reason Milton Friedman was a professor at a University. No where on earth are all his ideas used. On the other side, the world would have been better off IF Keynes was only at a University!

J.R. said:

---

I was'nt throwing shade at anyone, just trying to gauge how many people have their HC subsidized, but we are the only country in the world who depends on business to defer HC. Gotta be a better way.

---

My employer subsidizes the employee's healthcare but family add ons are not subsidized.

I've been in medicine my whole career and I have seen explosive growth of the administrative state of healthcare but the number of doctors has remained the same. All working more to keep their take home pay the same throughout the years in the setting of decreasing pay to the providers. For example, I get paid less per case than I did 20 years ago....maybe 20-25% less. Overhead costs have gone up big in the same timeframe. Take home pay is simply maintained by doing more cases.

Now I will say my experience somewhat more typical of specialists as there have been (very complex) payment mechanisms to increase funding for the primary care folks. With that said, I don't think they are very excited as their take home probably hasn't kept up with inflation.

So the ridiculous health care costs (and I agree are ridiculous) are much much more then doctors pay. It funds the administrative super state that keeps us in compliance. This is an everchanging battle. It also pays for the overhead of all the people that need to be on the payroll to among other things code and chase the shell game of getting paid for the work performed. Insurance companies are masters at hiding the money.

Someone else posted the insane costs of some of those pharmaceuticals. They didn't even list the cancer drugs.

Something is going to have to give. Many of the students coming through, God bless them, are in 400 K debt by the time they are finished and ceiling of reward keeps getting lower.

So you guys have been jerking each other off for an entire page and yet you idiots still:

- Blame Republicans for OBAMAcare

- Cannot explain why Democrats are demanding a $62K / year subsidy to Big Insurance while the average healthcare costs / year is $14K / patient

- Claim to want to reduce costs but refuse to cap earnings of doctors and nurses

You guys' ability to mix stupidity, lack of understanding of health care, ignorance of economics, and political bigotry truly is like a master class in idiocracy.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

So you guys have been jerking each other off for an entire page and yet you idiots still:

- Blame Republicans for OBAMAcare

- Cannot explain why Democrats are demanding a $62K / year subsidy to Big Insurance while the average healthcare costs / year is $14K / patient

- Claim to want to reduce costs but refuse to cap earnings of doctors and nurses

You guys' ability to mix stupidity, lack of understanding of health care, ignorance of economics, and political bigotry truly is like a master class in idiocracy.

---

Where are you getting this stuff???

No one BLAMED Republicans for Obamacare/ACA.

You keep asking about the 62k and NOBODY has said that ACA was efficient or cost effective, to the contrary EVERYONE has agreed it is too expensive. The only thing it did was get coverage to more people, but at a cost we can't afford. So, I don't get where you are going with this? That ACA is too expensive and rewards the wrong people? Agree. We all agree.

This one is strange from you. You want to get into wage controls by the Government? Do you really want to go down that road? Also, Doctors, Nurses and Med Techs deserve their pay.

• Do you want a wage control Doctor operating on your heart, brain or spine?
• Do you want a wage-controlled Nurse taking care of your recovery in ICU or controlling your anesthesia?
• Or a wage control tech running the machines spewing radiation into your body?

The only thing that has been said is that there needs to be something to substitute for the inefficient, costly, and insurance-based program in place, but millions rely on.

You keep trying to make this conversation about something that it is not. No one disagrees on that ACA is not the answer.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

So you guys have been jerking each other off for an entire page and yet you idiots still:

- Blame Republicans for OBAMAcare

- Cannot explain why Democrats are demanding a $62K / year subsidy to Big Insurance while the average healthcare costs / year is $14K / patient

- Claim to want to reduce costs but refuse to cap earnings of doctors and nurses

You guys' ability to mix stupidity, lack of understanding of health care, ignorance of economics, and political bigotry truly is like a master class in idiocracy.

---

nah, I'm just interested in ole Hammskin Hank and his socialized medicine. so you trade unsurance for paste for momma's kindergarters.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

So you guys have been jerking each other off for an entire page and yet you idiots still:

- Blame Republicans for OBAMAcare

- Cannot explain why Democrats are demanding a $62K / year subsidy to Big Insurance while the average healthcare costs / year is $14K / patient

- Claim to want to reduce costs but refuse to cap earnings of doctors and nurses

You guys' ability to mix stupidity, lack of understanding of health care, ignorance of economics, and political bigotry truly is like a master class in idiocracy.

---

Where are you getting this stuff???

No one BLAMED Republicans for Obamacare/ACA.

You keep asking about the 62k and NOBODY has said that ACA was efficient or cost effective, to the contrary EVERYONE has agreed it is too expensive. The only thing it did was get coverage to more people, but at a cost we can't afford. So, I don't get where you are going with this? That ACA is too expensive and rewards the wrong people? Agree. We all agree.

This one is strange from you. You want to get into wage controls by the Government? Do you really want to go down that road? Also, Doctors, Nurses and Med Techs deserve their pay.

• Do you want a wage control Doctor operating on your heart, brain or spine?
• Do you want a wage-controlled Nurse taking care of your recovery in ICU or controlling your anesthesia?
• Or a wage control tech running the machines spewing radiation into your body?

The only thing that has been said is that there needs to be something to substitute for the inefficient, costly, and insurance-based program in place, but millions rely on.

You keep trying to make this conversation about something that it is not. No one disagrees on that ACA is not the answer.

---

You and junior just want to give endless blowjobs to Big Insurance billionaires. You guys are like the rettaarrdd who always posts Big Pharma progaganda.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

So you guys have been jerking each other off for an entire page and yet you idiots still:

- Blame Republicans for OBAMAcare

- Cannot explain why Democrats are demanding a $62K / year subsidy to Big Insurance while the average healthcare costs / year is $14K / patient

- Claim to want to reduce costs but refuse to cap earnings of doctors and nurses

You guys' ability to mix stupidity, lack of understanding of health care, ignorance of economics, and political bigotry truly is like a master class in idiocracy.

---

Where are you getting this stuff???

No one BLAMED Republicans for Obamacare/ACA.

You keep asking about the 62k and NOBODY has said that ACA was efficient or cost effective, to the contrary EVERYONE has agreed it is too expensive. The only thing it did was get coverage to more people, but at a cost we can't afford. So, I don't get where you are going with this? That ACA is too expensive and rewards the wrong people? Agree. We all agree.

This one is strange from you. You want to get into wage controls by the Government? Do you really want to go down that road? Also, Doctors, Nurses and Med Techs deserve their pay.

• Do you want a wage control Doctor operating on your heart, brain or spine?
• Do you want a wage-controlled Nurse taking care of your recovery in ICU or controlling your anesthesia?
• Or a wage control tech running the machines spewing radiation into your body?

The only thing that has been said is that there needs to be something to substitute for the inefficient, costly, and insurance-based program in place, but millions rely on.

You keep trying to make this conversation about something that it is not. No one disagrees on that ACA is not the answer.

---

You and junior just want to give endless blowjobs to Big Insurance billionaires. You guys are like the rettaarrdd who always posts Big Pharma progaganda.

---

Have you ever had to pay for medical for your family? Have you ever had to actually figure out how to get medical paid for and make a decision beside some MAGA talking point? Your solution HURTS people. Your lack of empathy for those that actually are paying these rates and ACA is all they have is very telling. Sort of like people talking doing away with jobs and investment accoutrements in the same breath. No real life experience besides having money and being one of the haves.

Ever spend time as lower enlisted and have to live on 31k a year and then have to leave? I don't think so based on your posts or you wouldn't be so quick to take away the subsidies that allow people to have some sort of health coverage.

Got a better plan that can work in 3 weeks? Now is the time.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

So you guys have been jerking each other off for an entire page and yet you idiots still:

- Blame Republicans for OBAMAcare

- Cannot explain why Democrats are demanding a $62K / year subsidy to Big Insurance while the average healthcare costs / year is $14K / patient

- Claim to want to reduce costs but refuse to cap earnings of doctors and nurses

You guys' ability to mix stupidity, lack of understanding of health care, ignorance of economics, and political bigotry truly is like a master class in idiocracy.

---

Where are you getting this stuff???

No one BLAMED Republicans for Obamacare/ACA.

You keep asking about the 62k and NOBODY has said that ACA was efficient or cost effective, to the contrary EVERYONE has agreed it is too expensive. The only thing it did was get coverage to more people, but at a cost we can't afford. So, I don't get where you are going with this? That ACA is too expensive and rewards the wrong people? Agree. We all agree.

This one is strange from you. You want to get into wage controls by the Government? Do you really want to go down that road? Also, Doctors, Nurses and Med Techs deserve their pay.

• Do you want a wage control Doctor operating on your heart, brain or spine?
• Do you want a wage-controlled Nurse taking care of your recovery in ICU or controlling your anesthesia?
• Or a wage control tech running the machines spewing radiation into your body?

The only thing that has been said is that there needs to be something to substitute for the inefficient, costly, and insurance-based program in place, but millions rely on.

You keep trying to make this conversation about something that it is not. No one disagrees on that ACA is not the answer.

---

You and junior just want to give endless blowjobs to Big Insurance billionaires. You guys are like the rettaarrdd who always posts Big Pharma progaganda.

---

Have you ever had to pay for medical for your family? Have you ever had to actually figure out how to get medical paid for and make a decision beside some MAGA talking point? Your solution HURTS people. Your lack of empathy for those that actually are paying these rates and ACA is all they have is very telling. Sort of like people talking doing away with jobs and investment accoutrements in the same breath. No real life experience besides having money and being one of the haves.

Ever spend time as lower enlisted and have to live on 31k a year and then have to leave? I don't think so based on your posts or you wouldn't be so quick to take away the subsidies that allow people to have some sort of health coverage.

Got a better plan that can work in 3 weeks? Now is the time.

---

Hank just wants Momma's Govt Cheddar and doesn''t care whom it harms. what a turd who's done nothing in life but pontificate Fox News. ew Hammerskin Hank sounds just like his hero, fat boy who has NO compassion tilll chit goes bad and momma burns the biscuits! What is the Maga plan, Hank? oh that's right, be out in 2 weeks. Eff Trump

J.R. said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

So you guys have been jerking each other off for an entire page and yet you idiots still:

- Blame Republicans for OBAMAcare

- Cannot explain why Democrats are demanding a $62K / year subsidy to Big Insurance while the average healthcare costs / year is $14K / patient

- Claim to want to reduce costs but refuse to cap earnings of doctors and nurses

You guys' ability to mix stupidity, lack of understanding of health care, ignorance of economics, and political bigotry truly is like a master class in idiocracy.

---

Where are you getting this stuff???

No one BLAMED Republicans for Obamacare/ACA.

You keep asking about the 62k and NOBODY has said that ACA was efficient or cost effective, to the contrary EVERYONE has agreed it is too expensive. The only thing it did was get coverage to more people, but at a cost we can't afford. So, I don't get where you are going with this? That ACA is too expensive and rewards the wrong people? Agree. We all agree.

This one is strange from you. You want to get into wage controls by the Government? Do you really want to go down that road? Also, Doctors, Nurses and Med Techs deserve their pay.

• Do you want a wage control Doctor operating on your heart, brain or spine?
• Do you want a wage-controlled Nurse taking care of your recovery in ICU or controlling your anesthesia?
• Or a wage control tech running the machines spewing radiation into your body?

The only thing that has been said is that there needs to be something to substitute for the inefficient, costly, and insurance-based program in place, but millions rely on.

You keep trying to make this conversation about something that it is not. No one disagrees on that ACA is not the answer.

---

You and junior just want to give endless blowjobs to Big Insurance billionaires. You guys are like the rettaarrdd who always posts Big Pharma progaganda.

---

Have you ever had to pay for medical for your family? Have you ever had to actually figure out how to get medical paid for and make a decision beside some MAGA talking point? Your solution HURTS people. Your lack of empathy for those that actually are paying these rates and ACA is all they have is very telling. Sort of like people talking doing away with jobs and investment accoutrements in the same breath. No real life experience besides having money and being one of the haves.

Ever spend time as lower enlisted and have to live on 31k a year and then have to leave? I don't think so based on your posts or you wouldn't be so quick to take away the subsidies that allow people to have some sort of health coverage.

Got a better plan that can work in 3 weeks? Now is the time.

---

Hank just wants Momma's Govt Cheddar and doesn''t care whom it harms. what a turd who's done nothing in life but pontificate Fox News. ew Hammerskin Hank sounds just like his hero, fat boy who has NO compassion tilll chit goes bad and momma burns the biscuits!

---

Yeah, even the GOP is seeing that not extending at this point is going to kill them at the Midterms.

I swear, I honestly believe EVERYONE in the Nation should have to serve as lower enlisted for 3 years, it gives you a perspective on having nothing and no control. Best experience of my life, glad it is over, but learned a hell of a lot.

It is not so much how it impacts you, since most of us have resources if you are posting on a Baylor political message board, but being with those that truly come from bad situations and seeing the limited options they have. Served with 2 Navajo Indians and some Sioux, talk about having limited resources. Visited the reservation with them... I agree with Eisenhower, anything the Government can do that will make our citizens lives better, I am all for.

what's the maggot plan for HC, Hank? Inquiring minds want to know.

Are Republicans, Democrats, MAGA, the group that claims to be more Christian, or does it depend?
I may not know a lot about the Bible but didn't he say something about caring for the poor? In a country which was once proud to be called a Christian nation why can't we afford basic insurance for the poor? Having said that we do need to make some reforms in the current plan.

BUDOS said:

---

Are Republicans, Democrats, MAGA, the group that claims to be more Christian, or does it depend?
I may not know a lot about the Bible but didn't he say something about caring for the poor? In a country which was once proud to be called a Christian nation why can't we afford basic insurance for the poor? Having said that we do need to make some reforms in the current plan.

---

oh, you mean give me your sick and downtrodden and less fortunate. Sounds just like Fat Boy.

J.R. said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Are Republicans, Democrats, MAGA, the group that claims to be more Christian, or does it depend?
I may not know a lot about the Bible but didn't he say something about caring for the poor? In a country which was once proud to be called a Christian nation why can't we afford basic insurance for the poor? Having said that we do need to make some reforms in the current plan.

---

oh, you mean give me your sick and downtrodden and less fortunate. Sounds just like Fat Boy.

---

That was non-binding...


(I know it is a poem on the Statue of Liberty, not policy before the MAGA crowd go nuts...)

J.R. said:

---

what's the maggot plan for HC, Hank? Inquiring minds want to know.

---

Hammerskin Hanky....where da plan at yo?

FLBear5630 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Are Republicans, Democrats, MAGA, the group that claims to be more Christian, or does it depend?
I may not know a lot about the Bible but didn't he say something about caring for the poor? In a country which was once proud to be called a Christian nation why can't we afford basic insurance for the poor? Having said that we do need to make some reforms in the current plan.

---

oh, you mean give me your sick and downtrodden and less fortunate. Sounds just like Fat Boy.

---

That was non-binding...


(I know it is a poem on the Statue of Liberty, not policy before the MAGA crowd go nuts...)

---

That was written to raise funds for the base. They needed the tired and poor to build it...

The only solution I can come up with is "Single Payer". I think that is the only place to head. The HC Insurance and Pharma Lobby's have done a masterful job coining the phrase "socialized medicine I have lived under a single payer in Europe and it was great. I'm currently under both US HC Thai HC. I wiped out a motorbike on a southern island and had to have a CT and MRI and meds. Hell, I got an MRI and CT within an hour. The care I received in the ER was outstanding. I walked out with all that care and an itemized bill of $1900 which insurance will pay a good portion. We Mercans think we have the"Best" everything which we don't. I love my country, but let's be honest....we have fallen as a power and are a laughing stock.

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Are Republicans, Democrats, MAGA, the group that claims to be more Christian, or does it depend?
I may not know a lot about the Bible but didn't he say something about caring for the poor? In a country which was once proud to be called a Christian nation why can't we afford basic insurance for the poor? Having said that we do need to make some reforms in the current plan.

---

oh, you mean give me your sick and downtrodden and less fortunate. Sounds just like Fat Boy.

---

That was non-binding...


(I know it is a poem on the Statue of Liberty, not policy before the MAGA crowd go nuts...)

---

That was written to raise funds for the base. They needed the tired and poor to build it...

---

Emma Lazarus was Jewish and wrote "The New Colossus" in regards to incoming Jews from Russia and Poland and other parts of Europe.

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Are Republicans, Democrats, MAGA, the group that claims to be more Christian, or does it depend?
I may not know a lot about the Bible but didn't he say something about caring for the poor? In a country which was once proud to be called a Christian nation why can't we afford basic insurance for the poor? Having said that we do need to make some reforms in the current plan.

---

oh, you mean give me your sick and downtrodden and less fortunate. Sounds just like Fat Boy.

---

That was non-binding...


(I know it is a poem on the Statue of Liberty, not policy before the MAGA crowd go nuts...)

---

That was written to raise funds for the base. They needed the tired and poor to build it...

---

Yes it was.

J.R. said:

---

The only solution I can come up with is "Single Payer". I think that is the only place to head. The HC Insurance and Pharma Lobby's have done a masterful job coining the phrase "socialized medicine I have lived under a single payer in Europe and it was great. I'm currently under both US HC Thai HC. I wiped out a motorbike on a southern island and had to have a CT and MRI and meds. Hell, I got an MRI and CT within an hour. The care I received in the ER was outstanding. I walked out with all that care and an itemized bill of $1900 which insurance will pay a good portion. We Mercans think we have the"Best" everything which we don't. I love my country, but let's be honest....we have fallen as a power and are a laughing stock.

---

I agree. I think the utility model, single payer or even a Nationalized system is the only way to get people health care.

Is it "socialized" under most on here's definition? Yeah, probably. But, I would rather the money go to treating people than Executive Bouses.

Capitalism in this Nation is broke. It is now who you know and patronage. Who do you think is going to re-build Gaza with Kurshner there? Same as who milked Iraq, Cheney and his cronies. At least with Government, we have elections where people at least pretend to have a say...

FLBear5630 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

The only solution I can come up with is "Single Payer". I think that is the only place to head. The HC Insurance and Pharma Lobby's have done a masterful job coining the phrase "socialized medicine I have lived under a single payer in Europe and it was great. I'm currently under both US HC Thai HC. I wiped out a motorbike on a southern island and had to have a CT and MRI and meds. Hell, I got an MRI and CT within an hour. The care I received in the ER was outstanding. I walked out with all that care and an itemized bill of $1900 which insurance will pay a good portion. We Mercans think we have the"Best" everything which we don't. I love my country, but let's be honest....we have fallen as a power and are a laughing stock.

---

I agree. I think the utility model, single payer or even a Nationalized system is the only way to get people health care.

Is it "socialized" under most on here's definition? Yeah, probably. But, I would rather the money go to treating people than Executive Bouses.

Capitalism in this Nation is broke. It is now who you know and patronage. Who do you think is going to re-build Gaza with Kurshner there? Same as who milked Iraq, Cheney and his cronies. At least with Government, we have elections where people at least pretend to have a say...

---

Where does the money go in Canada and the UK? Particularly Canada.

Putting our eggs in one basket like those two will lead to trouble and long term bad decisions. Full on political entities are not who needs to run medicine. People still don't get the services they need, but it just becomes institutionalized with no real chance for private help. The waste and grift in a government run system would be impossible to control. The ones who are supposed to adjudicate such issues will be the ones in control.

Independent medical research will be restricted greatly by the system and/or move to where single payer is not the system.

Most health issues need to be state regulated with entities in place for Federal response and coordination for national emergencies such as a pandemic or biological attack. This would be much more constitutional.

You can trace the high cost of common medical treatments to the 1970's when the move to mandate coverages and who provides insurance began. Once upon a time the regular Joe and Joanne could afford a doctor visit without having to need a copay. Now it is well beyond inflation what an office visit costs, much less the "price tag" on a procedure billed to insurance. The regulation has just encouraged a pricing shell game to make your insurance look better than it really is.

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

The only solution I can come up with is "Single Payer". I think that is the only place to head. The HC Insurance and Pharma Lobby's have done a masterful job coining the phrase "socialized medicine I have lived under a single payer in Europe and it was great. I'm currently under both US HC Thai HC. I wiped out a motorbike on a southern island and had to have a CT and MRI and meds. Hell, I got an MRI and CT within an hour. The care I received in the ER was outstanding. I walked out with all that care and an itemized bill of $1900 which insurance will pay a good portion. We Mercans think we have the"Best" everything which we don't. I love my country, but let's be honest....we have fallen as a power and are a laughing stock.

---

I agree. I think the utility model, single payer or even a Nationalized system is the only way to get people health care.

Is it "socialized" under most on here's definition? Yeah, probably. But, I would rather the money go to treating people than Executive Bouses.

Capitalism in this Nation is broke. It is now who you know and patronage. Who do you think is going to re-build Gaza with Kurshner there? Same as who milked Iraq, Cheney and his cronies. At least with Government, we have elections where people at least pretend to have a say...

---

Where does the money go in Canada and the UK? Particularly Canada.

Putting our eggs in one basket like those two will lead to trouble and long term bad decisions. Full on political entities are not who needs to run medicine. People still don't get the services they need, but it just becomes institutionalized with no real chance for private help. The waste and grift in a government run system would be impossible to control. The ones who are supposed to adjudicate such issues will be the ones in control.

Independent medical research will be restricted greatly by the system and/or move to where single payer is not the system.

Most health issues need to be state regulated with entities in place for Federal response and coordination for national emergencies such as a pandemic or biological attack. This would be much more constitutional.

You can trace the high cost of common medical treatments to the 1970's when the move to mandate coverages and who provides insurance began. Once upon a time the regular Joe and Joanne could afford a doctor visit without having to need a copay. Now it is well beyond inflation what an office visit costs, much less the "price tag" on a procedure billed to insurance. The regulation has just encouraged a pricing shell game to make your insurance look better than it really is.

---

Canadian healthcare is horrible (from personal experience). Wont bore anyone with details but it is not good.

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

The only solution I can come up with is "Single Payer". I think that is the only place to head. The HC Insurance and Pharma Lobby's have done a masterful job coining the phrase "socialized medicine I have lived under a single payer in Europe and it was great. I'm currently under both US HC Thai HC. I wiped out a motorbike on a southern island and had to have a CT and MRI and meds. Hell, I got an MRI and CT within an hour. The care I received in the ER was outstanding. I walked out with all that care and an itemized bill of $1900 which insurance will pay a good portion. We Mercans think we have the"Best" everything which we don't. I love my country, but let's be honest....we have fallen as a power and are a laughing stock.

---

I agree. I think the utility model, single payer or even a Nationalized system is the only way to get people health care.

Is it "socialized" under most on here's definition? Yeah, probably. But, I would rather the money go to treating people than Executive Bouses.

Capitalism in this Nation is broke. It is now who you know and patronage. Who do you think is going to re-build Gaza with Kurshner there? Same as who milked Iraq, Cheney and his cronies. At least with Government, we have elections where people at least pretend to have a say...

---

Where does the money go in Canada and the UK? Particularly Canada.

Putting our eggs in one basket like those two will lead to trouble and long term bad decisions. Full on political entities are not who needs to run medicine. People still don't get the services they need, but it just becomes institutionalized with no real chance for private help. The waste and grift in a government run system would be impossible to control. The ones who are supposed to adjudicate such issues will be the ones in control.

Independent medical research will be restricted greatly by the system and/or move to where single payer is not the system.

Most health issues need to be state regulated with entities in place for Federal response and coordination for national emergencies such as a pandemic or biological attack. This would be much more constitutional.

You can trace the high cost of common medical treatments to the 1970's when the move to mandate coverages and who provides insurance began. Once upon a time the regular Joe and Joanne could afford a doctor visit without having to need a copay. Now it is well beyond inflation what an office visit costs, much less the "price tag" on a procedure billed to insurance. The regulation has just encouraged a pricing shell game to make your insurance look better than it really is.

---

Is the current research model working? or are we rewarding treating symptoms. Curing something is not as profitable as keeping someone on meds for 30 years.

We do not reward prevention or cures. We reward keeping people on treatments.

Sp what is the answer? How do we get more healthcare to more people, not less?

Interesting how we seem to avoid studying the countries with better healthcare systems like Australia & the Scandinavian countries and incorporating the best parts of their systems into a revamped one for us.

BUDOS said:

---

Interesting how we seem to avoid studying the countries with better healthcare systems like Australia & the Scandinavian countries and incorporating the best parts of their systems into a revamped one for us.

---

I have been under French HC living there, now living in Bangkok. Wiped out motorbike on an island the other day, had to go to the ER for a MRI and CT, 5 prescriptions. All done in 4 hrs. Bill was $1,950, but I have insurance. 1rstly, no way I get an MRI and CT same day in the US. That would have been a $20K bill in the US. BTW, best care I have ever received.

J.R. said:

---

The only solution I can come up with is "Single Payer". I think that is the only place to head. The HC Insurance and Pharma Lobby's have done a masterful job coining the phrase "socialized medicine I have lived under a single payer in Europe and it was great. I'm currently under both US HC Thai HC. I wiped out a motorbike on a southern island and had to have a CT and MRI and meds. Hell, I got an MRI and CT within an hour. The care I received in the ER was outstanding. I walked out with all that care and an itemized bill of $1900 which insurance will pay a good portion. We Mercans think we have the"Best" everything which we don't. I love my country, but let's be honest....we have fallen as a power and are a laughing stock.

---

Costa Rica and Argentina have single pay.

But if you want a good hospital one pony's up the extra cash to stay alive.

The US is certainly not a laughing stock in the Middle East.

Destroying Irans nuclear facilities made the US a host of friends….. including a lot of Arab ones.

BUDOS said:

---

Interesting how we seem to avoid studying the countries with better healthcare systems like Australia & the Scandinavian countries and incorporating the best parts of their systems into a revamped one for us.

---

i am with you. When in Denmark I asked about high taxes. They simply said not an issue as long as quality services are provided. Soon as services deteriorate we will protest.

Scandinavia has several systems worth investigating. I like that health care and education are not run as profit centers. You can get private if you choose, but the system is non-profit

FLBear5630 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

The only solution I can come up with is "Single Payer". I think that is the only place to head. The HC Insurance and Pharma Lobby's have done a masterful job coining the phrase "socialized medicine I have lived under a single payer in Europe and it was great. I'm currently under both US HC Thai HC. I wiped out a motorbike on a southern island and had to have a CT and MRI and meds. Hell, I got an MRI and CT within an hour. The care I received in the ER was outstanding. I walked out with all that care and an itemized bill of $1900 which insurance will pay a good portion. We Mercans think we have the"Best" everything which we don't. I love my country, but let's be honest....we have fallen as a power and are a laughing stock.

---

I agree. I think the utility model, single payer or even a Nationalized system is the only way to get people health care.

Is it "socialized" under most on here's definition? Yeah, probably. But, I would rather the money go to treating people than Executive Bouses.

Capitalism in this Nation is broke. It is now who you know and patronage. Who do you think is going to re-build Gaza with Kurshner there? Same as who milked Iraq, Cheney and his cronies. At least with Government, we have elections where people at least pretend to have a say...

---

Where does the money go in Canada and the UK? Particularly Canada.

Putting our eggs in one basket like those two will lead to trouble and long term bad decisions. Full on political entities are not who needs to run medicine. People still don't get the services they need, but it just becomes institutionalized with no real chance for private help. The waste and grift in a government run system would be impossible to control. The ones who are supposed to adjudicate such issues will be the ones in control.

Independent medical research will be restricted greatly by the system and/or move to where single payer is not the system.

Most health issues need to be state regulated with entities in place for Federal response and coordination for national emergencies such as a pandemic or biological attack. This would be much more constitutional.

You can trace the high cost of common medical treatments to the 1970's when the move to mandate coverages and who provides insurance began. Once upon a time the regular Joe and Joanne could afford a doctor visit without having to need a copay. Now it is well beyond inflation what an office visit costs, much less the "price tag" on a procedure billed to insurance. The regulation has just encouraged a pricing shell game to make your insurance look better than it really is.

---

Is the current research model working? or are we rewarding treating symptoms. Curing something is not as profitable as keeping someone on meds for 30 years.

We do not reward prevention or cures. We reward keeping people on treatments.

Sp what is the answer? How do we get more healthcare to more people, not less?

---

The current research model can be adjusted by shifting reward toward prevention and cure. But, of course, the plans RFK have put forward to lessen symptom treatment have been met with a lot of resistance by Tempus types. If you want to keep on trucking toward symptom research, then keep trying to "get more healthcare to more people."
Prevention is good, but it is mostly common sense moderation and exercise. Not everyone needs the flu shot, or covid shot, or more than one doctor visit a year to keep up a doctor/patient relationship. If you want people to see a doctor when they need one, quit adding to the system that makes you pay hundreds of dollars a month to get a $35 copay one to four times a year for the healthy. What we have now is just bloating the beast.
Costs will come down with better outcomes if insurance companies and the government quit getting out of their lane. Force hospitals, doctors and clinics to compete with clear and simple pricing along with outcome reporting.
And just in case your ideas and mine are both wrong, let the states each have control of their health and insurance policies so we don't get stuck with one dud. Have state policies that work locally even as they *gasp* might not match what is done in another state on the other side of the continent.

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

The only solution I can come up with is "Single Payer". I think that is the only place to head. The HC Insurance and Pharma Lobby's have done a masterful job coining the phrase "socialized medicine I have lived under a single payer in Europe and it was great. I'm currently under both US HC Thai HC. I wiped out a motorbike on a southern island and had to have a CT and MRI and meds. Hell, I got an MRI and CT within an hour. The care I received in the ER was outstanding. I walked out with all that care and an itemized bill of $1900 which insurance will pay a good portion. We Mercans think we have the"Best" everything which we don't. I love my country, but let's be honest....we have fallen as a power and are a laughing stock.

---

I agree. I think the utility model, single payer or even a Nationalized system is the only way to get people health care.

Is it "socialized" under most on here's definition? Yeah, probably. But, I would rather the money go to treating people than Executive Bouses.

Capitalism in this Nation is broke. It is now who you know and patronage. Who do you think is going to re-build Gaza with Kurshner there? Same as who milked Iraq, Cheney and his cronies. At least with Government, we have elections where people at least pretend to have a say...

---

Where does the money go in Canada and the UK? Particularly Canada.

Putting our eggs in one basket like those two will lead to trouble and long term bad decisions. Full on political entities are not who needs to run medicine. People still don't get the services they need, but it just becomes institutionalized with no real chance for private help. The waste and grift in a government run system would be impossible to control. The ones who are supposed to adjudicate such issues will be the ones in control.

Independent medical research will be restricted greatly by the system and/or move to where single payer is not the system.

Most health issues need to be state regulated with entities in place for Federal response and coordination for national emergencies such as a pandemic or biological attack. This would be much more constitutional.

You can trace the high cost of common medical treatments to the 1970's when the move to mandate coverages and who provides insurance began. Once upon a time the regular Joe and Joanne could afford a doctor visit without having to need a copay. Now it is well beyond inflation what an office visit costs, much less the "price tag" on a procedure billed to insurance. The regulation has just encouraged a pricing shell game to make your insurance look better than it really is.

---

Is the current research model working? or are we rewarding treating symptoms. Curing something is not as profitable as keeping someone on meds for 30 years.

We do not reward prevention or cures. We reward keeping people on treatments.

Sp what is the answer? How do we get more healthcare to more people, not less?

---

The current research model can be adjusted by shifting reward toward prevention and cure. But, of course, the plans RFK have put forward to lessen symptom treatment have been met with a lot of resistance by Tempus types. If you want to keep on trucking toward symptom research, then keep trying to "get more healthcare to more people."
Prevention is good, but it is mostly common sense moderation and exercise. Not everyone needs the flu shot, or covid shot, or more than one doctor visit a year to keep up a doctor/patient relationship. If you want people to see a doctor when they need one, quit adding to the system that makes you pay hundreds of dollars a month to get a $35 copay one to four times a year for the healthy. What we have now is just bloating the beast.
Costs will come down with better outcomes if insurance companies and the government quit getting out of their lane. Force hospitals, doctors and clinics to compete with clear and simple pricing along with outcome reporting.
And just in case your ideas and mine are both wrong, let the states each have control of their health and insurance policies so we don't get stuck with one dud. Have state policies that work locally even as they *gasp* might not match what is done in another state on the other side of the continent.

---

Ok, let's start that we ALL agree that we have a bloated beast that is not serving anyone well. No one on this site is defending the status quo or even the Medical Insurance model. So, you guys constantly throwing out there that if we don't agree with you, we are pro-Insurance Company. It is a BS argument and I believe you know it.

The question is between totally private, or some type of Government provided and there are numerous models we don't have to go the worst. The people in Scandinavia seem happy with their system and innovation is still high. You mentioned Aussie, I have never heard any of the Aussies or New Zealanders I know complain of their system. Canada is a bit too socialist for me, you lose any efficiencies.

I am a fan of Revenue Agencies and Utilities. Both have Government oversight, regulation and standards, but have to operate wholly on the revenue they produce.

So, with Toll Authorities, Ports or Airways they receive no taxes and have Boards with Government oversight, but are only allowed to operate their roadways. The roadways are better maintained, customer driven and not profit driven. Being revenue driven they push innovations (or at least some do). Everyone pays by law, even the Governor has to pay their tolls. Revenue Agencies are as close to Government run as a Business as you get since there are no taxes paid to them.

FLBear5630 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

The only solution I can come up with is "Single Payer". I think that is the only place to head. The HC Insurance and Pharma Lobby's have done a masterful job coining the phrase "socialized medicine I have lived under a single payer in Europe and it was great. I'm currently under both US HC Thai HC. I wiped out a motorbike on a southern island and had to have a CT and MRI and meds. Hell, I got an MRI and CT within an hour. The care I received in the ER was outstanding. I walked out with all that care and an itemized bill of $1900 which insurance will pay a good portion. We Mercans think we have the"Best" everything which we don't. I love my country, but let's be honest....we have fallen as a power and are a laughing stock.

---

I agree. I think the utility model, single payer or even a Nationalized system is the only way to get people health care.

Is it "socialized" under most on here's definition? Yeah, probably. But, I would rather the money go to treating people than Executive Bouses.

Capitalism in this Nation is broke. It is now who you know and patronage. Who do you think is going to re-build Gaza with Kurshner there? Same as who milked Iraq, Cheney and his cronies. At least with Government, we have elections where people at least pretend to have a say...

---

Where does the money go in Canada and the UK? Particularly Canada.

Putting our eggs in one basket like those two will lead to trouble and long term bad decisions. Full on political entities are not who needs to run medicine. People still don't get the services they need, but it just becomes institutionalized with no real chance for private help. The waste and grift in a government run system would be impossible to control. The ones who are supposed to adjudicate such issues will be the ones in control.

Independent medical research will be restricted greatly by the system and/or move to where single payer is not the system.

Most health issues need to be state regulated with entities in place for Federal response and coordination for national emergencies such as a pandemic or biological attack. This would be much more constitutional.

You can trace the high cost of common medical treatments to the 1970's when the move to mandate coverages and who provides insurance began. Once upon a time the regular Joe and Joanne could afford a doctor visit without having to need a copay. Now it is well beyond inflation what an office visit costs, much less the "price tag" on a procedure billed to insurance. The regulation has just encouraged a pricing shell game to make your insurance look better than it really is.

---

Is the current research model working? or are we rewarding treating symptoms. Curing something is not as profitable as keeping someone on meds for 30 years.

We do not reward prevention or cures. We reward keeping people on treatments.

Sp what is the answer? How do we get more healthcare to more people, not less?

---

The current research model can be adjusted by shifting reward toward prevention and cure. But, of course, the plans RFK have put forward to lessen symptom treatment have been met with a lot of resistance by Tempus types. If you want to keep on trucking toward symptom research, then keep trying to "get more healthcare to more people."
Prevention is good, but it is mostly common sense moderation and exercise. Not everyone needs the flu shot, or covid shot, or more than one doctor visit a year to keep up a doctor/patient relationship. If you want people to see a doctor when they need one, quit adding to the system that makes you pay hundreds of dollars a month to get a $35 copay one to four times a year for the healthy. What we have now is just bloating the beast.
Costs will come down with better outcomes if insurance companies and the government quit getting out of their lane. Force hospitals, doctors and clinics to compete with clear and simple pricing along with outcome reporting.
And just in case your ideas and mine are both wrong, let the states each have control of their health and insurance policies so we don't get stuck with one dud. Have state policies that work locally even as they *gasp* might not match what is done in another state on the other side of the continent.

---

Ok, let's start that we ALL agree that we have a bloated beast that is not serving anyone well. No one on this site is defending the status quo or even the Medical Insurance model. So, you guys constantly throwing out there that if we don't agree with you, we are pro-Insurance Company. It is a BS argument and I believe you know it.

The question is between totally private, or some type of Government provided and there are numerous models we don't have to go the worst. The people in Scandinavia seem happy with their system and innovation is still high. You mentioned Aussie, I have never heard any of the Aussies or New Zealanders I know complain of their system. Canada is a bit too socialist for me, you lose any efficiencies.

I am a fan of Revenue Agencies and Utilities. Both have Government oversight, regulation and standards, but have to operate wholly on the revenue they produce.

So, with Toll Authorities, Ports or Airways they receive no taxes and have Boards with Government oversight, but are only allowed to operate their roadways. The roadways are better maintained, customer driven and not profit driven. Being revenue driven they push innovations (or at least some do). Everyone pays by law, even the Governor has to pay their tolls. Revenue Agencies are as close to Government run as a Business as you get since there are no taxes paid to them.

---

In all cases, government provided healthcare gives too much power to too few. It needs yo be spread out to keep the kleptomaniacs and the megalomaniacs in check. You keep avoiding the problem of single payer policy blunders being massive by nature. There won't be enough checks on it to make its initial "simplicity" become a bureaucratic nightmare. It's like trying to keep from being robbed by putting all your assets in one fancy treasure chest. It will become a target of thieves.