header pic

Area51 Board (non-moderated) at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' Scout-Tennessee a51 Crowd- Enjoy ROWDY discussion covering politics, religion, current events, and all things under the sun

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: Some of you guys are starting to catch-on...

 (Read 618 times)

fuzzynavol

  • seeker of passage
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 10360
  • Liked:
Some of you guys are starting to catch-on...
« on: April 25, 2020, 02:00:16 PM »
A newly released poll shows that 69 percent of registered voters support Medicare for All, a plan which would create a national health insurance plan available for all Americans.

The poll also showed 46 percent of Republican voters supporting Medicare for All alongside 88 percent of Democrats and 68 percent of Independents.

The poll was conducted by the Washington, D.C. newspaper The Hill and the market research company HarrisX.

Cincydawg

  • Ombudsman for the Secret Order of the Odd Fellows
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 37426
  • Liked:
Re: Some of you guys are starting to catch-on...
« Reply #1 on: April 25, 2020, 02:09:14 PM »
Did they mention in the question asked about undocumented aliens being included?

harvestalvol

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3930
  • Liked:
Re: Some of you guys are starting to catch-on...
« Reply #2 on: April 25, 2020, 02:27:27 PM »
Count me as one of the converted. I now believe the Gov should pay for everything that we all want and need. Healthcare, education, phones, housing, clothes, food, cars, plumbing…. Why should anyone be required to work for stuff when the Gov can just give it to us? It’s our RIGHT! I’m sure this stuff is covered under the Constitution or it should be.

Can’t believe that I worked, saved and invested for 40 years to provide for my family when the Gov could have just given it all to me. Can I get a refund on what I have already paid? Plus interest of course. 

I can’t believe there are still folks around that think the Gov is here to protect our rights. What a joke. We gladly traded our rights for free stuff and given the Gov control. Bernie is the Man!

Cincydawg

  • Ombudsman for the Secret Order of the Odd Fellows
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 37426
  • Liked:
Re: Some of you guys are starting to catch-on...
« Reply #3 on: April 25, 2020, 02:45:34 PM »
Depending on how the question is worded, why wouldn't everyone be for "Medicare for ALL"?

It would be free, right?  Paid for by some billionaire, right?  

"Do you support a health insurance program for all Americans paid for by government?".

It's free.

scotchvol

  • Player
  • ****
  • Posts: 527
  • Liked:
Re: Some of you guys are starting to catch-on...
« Reply #4 on: April 25, 2020, 02:48:10 PM »
Did they mention in the question asked about undocumented aliens being included?
Yep, wouldn’t want any dirt poor people to get any medical care. /s

Cincydawg

  • Ombudsman for the Secret Order of the Odd Fellows
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 37426
  • Liked:
Re: Some of you guys are starting to catch-on...
« Reply #5 on: April 25, 2020, 02:51:42 PM »
Dirt poor or rich, they are not here legally.  My wife is an immigrant and came here legally.  If you are illegal, no soup for you.

harvestalvol

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3930
  • Liked:

harvestalvol

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3930
  • Liked:
Re: Some of you guys are starting to catch-on...
« Reply #7 on: April 25, 2020, 02:57:01 PM »
Yep, wouldn’t want any dirt poor people to get any medical care. /s
I think everyone, legal or not, should get everything for free. We should even give people in other countries free medical care. The Gov is paying, so we shouldn't have to worry?

Illegals and people in other countries should also get to vote in our elections. Being a liberal is very liberating. I feel so much better than when I was worried about working and paying bills and supporting myself. Damn it's good to be a liberal!

Cincydawg

  • Ombudsman for the Secret Order of the Odd Fellows
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 37426
  • Liked:
Re: Some of you guys are starting to catch-on...
« Reply #8 on: April 25, 2020, 02:58:06 PM »
Wasn't Obamacare going to take care of all this?  What went wrong?

I heard folks claiming it would be great.  I was personally annoyed because it deprived me of the policy I had and wanted to keep, but it was for the greater good I guess.  Cost me a lot of money.

DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 24168
  • Liked:
Scratch strikes out again
« Reply #9 on: April 25, 2020, 03:00:52 PM »
I don't understand the problems demonstrated by this chart which is a result of Govt. interference


The issue here is not providing health care, but who controls it. We believe health care is a matter between doctor and patient, not patient and bureaucrat…………… the free market has not failed, except when it's been overburdened by overregulation, mandates and litigation to the point that it is no longer free. Bleeding the patient didn't work as a medieval medical remedy. Neither will bleeding the taxpayer and using bogus numbers to justify it.

• The increase in medical malpractice lawsuits and the associated costs that keep going up have forced insurance companies to raise premiums for malpractice coverage. Doctors, in turn, pass the added costs on to patients.
"The litigation and malpractice insurance problem raids the wallet of every American," the Department of Health and Human Services said in the same report.
"Doctors alone spent $6.3 billion last year to obtain coverage. Hospitals and nursing homes spent additional billions of dollars."
• HHS has further said that reasonable limits placed on noneconomic damages in malpractice cases would save $60 billion to $108 billion a year.
"These savings would lower the cost of health insurance and permit an additional 2.4 million to 4.3 million Americans to obtain insurance," the department said.
Nearly 10% of the cost of health care services, figures PricewaterhouseCoopers, is attributable to medical malpractice lawsuits. Roughly 2% is caused by direct costs of the lawsuits while an additional 5% to 9% is due to expenses run up by defensive medicine.
PricewaterhouseCoopers also found that half of health care costs are due to wasteful spending and said that defensive medicine is the biggest producer of waste.
In Great Britain, where the government's in charge of health care, as many as 1 million people are waiting to get into hospitals at any given time, says the National Center for Policy Analysis.
In Canada, another country where the government metes out care, roughly 900,000 are waiting for hospital beds, the Fraser Institute reports. The New Zealand government says that 90,000 are on hospital waiting lists there.
"Those people constitute only 1% to 2% of the population in those countries," says NCPA President John Goodman, "but keep in mind that only about 15% of the population actually enters a hospital each year. Many of the people waiting are waiting in pain. Many are risking their lives by waiting. And there is no market mechanism in these countries to get care to people who need it first."
Yet we are constantly told that it's America's health care system that is substandard. A recent Reuters story that said "the U.S. system consistently ranks worse than other developed countries on many key measures" is typical of the noncritical reporting that convinces the public that American medical care is in shambles.
This is why a national columnist such as Marie Cocco can write without challenge that we have "a system that pretty much everyone believes is crumbling to the point of collapse."
The perception, though, is easily crushed by the asking of a single question: "If you needed the best health care in the world, where would you go to get it?"
The facts say:
• Survival rates in the U.S. for common cancers are higher, and in some cases much higher, than in Europe and Canada.
• Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed nations and spend less time waiting for care than Canadians and Britons.
• Americans have more access to new medical technologies than Canadians and United Kingdom residents, and are responsible for most health care innovations.

Government programs have a long, inglorious history of costing far more than their initial estimates indicate.
Medicare is a prime example.
It was created in 1965 to provide health care for Americans 65 and over. Federal actuaries estimated that the hospital insurance portion of the program, Part A, would cost a mere $9 billion by 1990. The real cost, however, was $66 billion.
When making projections for the entire program, at that time Parts A through C, the Ways and Means Committee number crunchers made a similar mistake. They figured it would cost $12 billion by 1990, but Medicare chewed through $107 billion in its first 25 years.
When a GOP president and GOP Congress added Medicare Part D — the prescription drug benefit — in 2003, the cost was estimated at $534 billion over 10 years.
Less than two years later, the government was forced to admit the entitlement would actually cost $1.2 trillion over its first decade.


The U.S. will be short 124,400 front-line physicians by 2025, according to the Association of Medical Colleges.
That does not include the 15,585 new primary-care providers Obamacare is estimated to require.
Put together fewer doctors, more patients and government insurance, and that spells less access to care,

Infant mortality rates are often cited as a reason socialized medicine and single-payer systems are better than what we have here. But according to Dr. Linda Halderman, a policy adviser in the California State Senate, these comparisons are bogus.
Official World Health Organization statistics show the U.S. lagging behind France in infant mortality rates — 6.7 per 1,000 live births vs. 3.8 for France. Halderman notes that in the U.S., any infant born that shows any sign of life for any length of time is considered a live birth. In France — in fact, in most of the European Union — any baby born before 26 weeks' gestation is not considered alive and therefore doesn't "count" in reported infant mortality rates.
France reimburses its doctors at a far lower rate than U.S. physicians would accept.
As David Gratzer, a physician and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, wrote in the summer 2007 issue of City Journal: "In France, the supply of doctors is so limited that during an August 2003 heat wave — when many doctors were on vacation and hospitals were stretched beyond capacity — 15,000 elderly citizens died."


So if our health care is so good, why don't we live as long as everyone else?
Three reasons. One, our homicide rate is two to three times higher than other countries. Two, because we drive so much, we have a higher fatality rate on our roads — 14.24 fatalities per 100,000 people vs. 6.19 in Germany, 7.4 in France and 9.25 in Canada. Three, Americans eat far more than those in other nations, contributing to higher levels of heart disease, diabetes and some cancers.
These are diseases of wealth, not the fault of the health care system. A study by Robert Ohsfeldt of Texas A&M and John Schneider of the University of Iowa found that if you subtract our higher death rates from accidents and homicide, Americans actually live longer than people in other countries.
In countries with nationalized care, medical outcomes are often catastrophically worse. Take breast cancer. According to the Heritage Foundation, breast cancer mortality in Germany is 52% higher than in the U.S.; the U.K.'s rate is 88% higher. For prostate cancer, mortality is 604% higher in the U.K. and 457% higher in Norway. Colorectal cancer? Forty percent higher in the U.K.
But what about the health care paradise to our north? Americans have almost uniformly better outcomes and lower mortality rates than Canada, where breast cancer mortality is 9% higher, prostate cancer 184% higher and colon cancer 10% higher.
Then there are the waiting lists. With a population just under that of California, 830,000 Canadians are waiting to be admitted to a hospital or to get treatment. In England, the list is 1.8 million deep.
Universal health care, wrote Sally Pipes, president of the Pacific Research Institute in her excellent book, "Top Ten Myths Of American Health Care," will inevitably result in "higher taxes, forced premium payments, one-size-fits-all policies, long waiting lists, rationed care and limited access to cutting-edge medicine."
Before you sign up, you might want to check with people in countries that have the kind of system the White House and Congress have in mind. Recent polls show that more than 70% of Germans, Australians, Britons, Canadians and New Zealanders think their systems need "complete rebuilding" or "fundamental change."

Banning the sale of individual health care plans across state lines is another poor practice at the state level. Residents in one state where mandates force premiums higher are unable to shop for a less-costly plan in other states where mandates are less onerous.
This is a hardship that Congress could remove. Lawmakers have the authority to lift what is clearly an unconstitutional restraint of trade. Yet they leave the barrier in place, year after year.


The National Center for Policy Analysis has published a study, "10 Surprising Facts About American Health Care," that shows how Americans get something for the extra dollars they lay out. To wit:
• "Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers." Breast cancer mortality: 52% higher in Germany and 88% higher in the United Kingdom than in the U.S. Prostate cancer mortality: 604% higher in the U.K., 457% higher in Norway. Colo-rectal cancer mortality: 40% higher among Britons.
• "Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians." Rates for breast cancer (9%), prostate cancer (184%) and colon cancer among men (10%) are higher than in the U.S.
• "Americans have better access to treatment of chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries." Roughly 56% of Americans who could benefit are taking statin drugs. Only 36% of the Dutch, 29% of the Swiss, 26% of Germans, 23% of Britons and 17% of Italians who could benefit receive them.
• "Americans have better access to preventive cancer screenings than Canadians." Nine of 10 middle-aged American women have had a mammogram; 72% of Canadian women have. Almost every American woman (96%) has had a pap smear; fewer than 90% of Canadian women have. Roughly 54% of American men have had a prostate cancer test; fewer than one in six Canadian men have. Almost a third of Americans (30%) have had a colonoscopy; only 5% of Canadians have had the procedure.
• "Lower-income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians." Nearly 12% of U.S. seniors with below-median incomes self-report being in "excellent" health, while 5.8% of Canadian seniors say the same thing.
• "Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the United Kingdom." Canadians and Britons wait about twice as long, sometimes more than a year, to see a specialist, have elective surgery or get radiation treatment.
• "People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed." More than seven in 10 Germans, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders and Britons say their health systems need either "fundamental change" or "complete rebuilding."
• "Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians." More than half (51.3%) of Americans are very satisfied with their health care services, while 41.5% of Canadians hold the same view of their system.
• "Americans have much better access to important new technologies like medical imaging than patients in Canada or the U.K." There are 34 CT scanners per million Americans. There are 12 per million in Canada and eight per million in Britain. The U.S. has nearly 27 MRI machines per million. Britain and Canada have 6 per million.
• "Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations." The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other single developed nation; the most important recent medical innovations were developed here.
Can the nationalized, universal systems in Britain, Canada or anywhere else improve on this? No, but we can ruin our health care by following the policies of countries where medical treatment is far below the American standard.

Australia and New Zealand, as well as Canada — complain that their systems need either "fundamental change" or "complete rebuilding."
That's because they wait longer for treatment and die sooner than Americans from common cancers and other diseases, according to a study by Dr. Scott W. Atlas, a Hoover Institution senior fellow and chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center.
Consider breast cancer mortality, which is 88% higher in Britain and 9% higher in Canada. Or prostate cancer mortality, which is 604% higher in Britain and 184% higher in Canada.
We have better cancer survival rates not only because we have better treatment, but because we have earlier detection. And we have earlier detection because we have better access to tests that screen for cancer.
For example, almost 90% of middle-aged U.S. women have had a mammogram, compared with 72% of Canadians; more than half of U.S. men — 54% — have had a prostate-specific antigen test, while only 16% of Canadians have had a PSA, and fully 30% of Americans have had a colonoscopy — the procedure for detecting colon cancer — compared with 5% of Canadians.
We also spend less time waiting for care. In fact, Canadians and Britons "wait about twice as long — sometimes more than a year — to see a specialist, have elective surgery such as hip replacements, or get radiation treatment for cancer," Atlas found.
Access to lifesaving drugs is also better in the U.S. Some 56% of Americans take statin drugs that reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease, compared with 36% of Dutch, 29% of Swiss, 23% of Britons and 17% of Italians.
Finally, we have better access to critical diagnostic equipment. The U.S. has 34 CT scanners per million people vs. 12 in Canada and eight in Britain. And we operate 27 MRI machines per million compared with six per million in Canada and Britain.
The U.S. medical industry is responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations in the world. It's no coincidence that since the mid-1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to Americans more often than recipients from all other countries combined.


In 2007, a Canadian woman gave birth to extremely rare identical quadruplets — Autumn, Brooke, Calissa and Dahlia Jepps. They were born in the United States to Canadian parents because there was again no space available at any Canadian neonatal care unit. All they had was a wing and a prayer.
The Jepps, a nurse and a respiratory technician flew from Calgary, a city of a million people, 325 miles to Benefit Hospital in Great Falls, Mont., a city of 56,000. The girls are doing fine, thanks to our system where care still trumps cost and where being without insurance does not mean being without care.
Infant mortality rates are often cited as a reason socialized medicine and a single-payer system is supposed to be better than what we have here. But according to Dr. Linda Halderman, a policy adviser in the California State Senate, these comparisons are bogus.
As she points out, in the U.S., low birth-weight babies are still babies. In Canada, Germany and Austria, a premature baby weighing less than 500 grams is not considered a living child and is not counted in such statistics. They're considered "unsalvageable" and therefore never alive.
Norway boasts one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world — until you factor in weight at birth, and then its rate is no better than in the U.S.
In other countries babies that survive less than 24 hours are also excluded and are classified as "stillborn." In the U.S. any infant that shows any sign of life for any length of time is considered a live birth.
A child born in Hong Kong or Japan that lives less than a day is reported as a "miscarriage" and not counted. In Switzerland and other parts of Europe, a baby is not counted as a baby if it is less than 30 centimeters in length.
In 2007, there were at least 40 mothers and their babies who were airlifted from British Columbia alone to the U.S. because Canadian hospitals didn't have room. It's worth noting that since 2000, 42 of the world's 52 surviving babies weighing less than 400g (0.9 pounds) were born in the U.S.
It must be embarrassing to Canada that a G-7 economy and a country of 30 million people can't offer the same level of health care as a town of just over 50,000 in rural Montana. Where will Canada send its preemies and other critical patients when we adopt their health care system?
As we have noted, in Canada roughly 900,000 patients of all ages are waiting for beds, according to the Fraser Institute. There are more than four times as many magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) units per capita in the U.S. as in Canada. We have twice as many CT scanners per capita.
Expensive? Wasteful. Just ask the Jepps or the parents of Ava Isabella Stinson.



President Harry S. Truman said: “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount.  The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings…  If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.”

highVOLtage

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 4453
  • Liked:
Re: Some of you guys are starting to catch-on...
« Reply #10 on: April 25, 2020, 03:10:55 PM »
scotchvol wrote: "Yep, wouldn’t want any dirt poor people to get any medical care."

I think everyone, legal or not, should get everything for free. We should even give people in other countries free medical care. The Gov is paying, so we shouldn't have to worry?

Illegals and people in other countries should also get to vote in our elections. Being a liberal is very liberating. I feel so much better than when I was worried about working and paying bills and supporting myself. Damn it's good to be a liberal!

Indeed. It is enlightening to follow the liberal policy proposals to their logical conclusion.

Cincydawg

  • Ombudsman for the Secret Order of the Odd Fellows
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 37426
  • Liked:
Re: Some of you guys are starting to catch-on...
« Reply #11 on: April 25, 2020, 03:16:05 PM »
Politically, I don't think requiring Americans to pay taxes for health insurance for illegals is going to be popular at all.  Some will like the idea obviously, but I think they will be a minority.


harvestalvol

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3930
  • Liked:
Re: Some of you guys are starting to catch-on...
« Reply #12 on: April 25, 2020, 03:36:49 PM »
Wasn't Obamacare going to take care of all this?  What went wrong?

I heard folks claiming it would be great.  I was personally annoyed because it deprived me of the policy I had and wanted to keep, but it was for the greater good I guess.  Cost me a lot of money.
I think everything Obama did was great including Obamacare. He had us moving in the right direction and Trump came in and derailed the train. Obama was getting record numbers on welfare, students loading up on debt for worthless degrees, record low labor-participation rates, etc. Basically creating conditions for more free stuff from the Gov. I wish we could have kept him a couple more terms, just think we could get more stuff and work less. Isn’t that really the goal? Let the Gov pay for our stuff.

scotchvol

  • Player
  • ****
  • Posts: 527
  • Liked:
Re: Some of you guys are starting to catch-on...
« Reply #13 on: April 25, 2020, 05:09:34 PM »
I think everything Obama did was great including Obamacare. He had us moving in the right direction and Trump came in and derailed the train. Obama was getting record numbers on welfare, students loading up on debt for worthless degrees, record low labor-participation rates, etc. Basically creating conditions for more free stuff from the Gov. I wish we could have kept him a couple more terms, just think we could get more stuff and work less. Isn’t that really the goal? Let the Gov pay for our stuff.
No, the goal is making health care a right and not a luxury. No one is asking for botox and boob jobs, just health care on par with the rest of the civilized world. 

Our health care system is 3rd rate rate with a Gucci belt compared to most every other country. I guess we can be thankful we’re not Sudan. It’’s 3rd rate with a rope for a belt. 


 

Support the Site!