I didn’t say the US has a universal healthcare system I said we administer a healthcare system. We spend plenty of government money on that system, if we were willing to make the compromises the ROW does we could have a universal system. Try telling US women their baby’s are going to be born in a ward vs a birthing suite (a simple example). We are spoiled. You want to be spoiled too, that’s why you come here.
Possibly the end of Obamacare?
- Thread starter Butler1000
- Start date
I didn’t say the US has a universal healthcare system I said we administer a healthcare system. We spend plenty of government money on that system, if we were willing to make the compromises the ROW does we could have a universal system. Try telling US women their baby’s are going to be born in a ward vs a birthing suite (a simple example). We are spoiled. You want to be spoiled too, that’s why you come here.
OK, we are making progress. Now you have given up your claim that practically everybody is covered by a health care system in USA. That means you admit that the poor and otherwise disadvantaged people do not have adequate health care.
Your example of birthing is a particularly poor one. Birthing services is no better in USA than in other developed countries with universal health care. Your reference to a dickens' birthing ward in the 19th century is pathetic.
I have actually had babies born in 3 countries, one in western Europe, one in USA, and one in Africa.
PS: Don't worry about me. I am a Canadian, and I am fortunate enough to be able to afford the best if I want it. My children went to the best Universities abroad, and I can afford medical services in Cape Town, Rochester or London, if I need it. You should worry, instead and in this season, about the disadvantaged Americans that are left without adequate health care.
Yes they are different, what don't you understand? The military is run by career military people that have decades of experience, the VA is run by political appointees. I also pointed out the fact that they spend so much on military spending and their deficit keeps going up, how do you expect them to fund universal heath care for all? The other countries that have universal health care spend a fraction of their money on military spending, where do you propose that money comes from? The VA is a poorly run government agency I can only imagine what universal heath care would look like
Again, your anti-American obsession is making you look stupid. The old and the poor have fantastic medical care, better than anyone in the GWN. They can go to your first choice hospital (or many local) and get far better care than you can short of shelling out thousands of dollars.
It speaks volumes that in your list of world class options you don’t include the one that’s free to you.
Oh really?
Annual military spending: $600B
Annual spending on Medicare/Medicaid: $1.29T
Annual spending on total healthcare: $3.5T
So military is about 1/6 of the size of healthcare. Again I ask you name one country in the world that administers a $3.5T per year healthcare marketplace across 50 jurisdictions?
I would argue that medicare and medicaid are rife with efficiency and fraud, no question about it. Which is why if you expanded to include entire healthcare it would be a boondoggle.The private market always delivers service with better efficiency and effectiveness than the government.
Discussing with you it is one step forward and one step backwards.
You are now claiming that all old and young have fantastic health care, better than in Canada. As most of the expenses to health care goes to care for the young and old, it can not possibly cost much to extend that fantastic health care to everybody.
Depends on your definition of “much”, estimate is $32T over 10 years (for scale, about 19 years of Canadian GDP).
https://www.mercatus.org/publicatio...costs-national-single-payer-healthcare-system
A doubling of all currently projected federal individual and corporate income tax collections would be insufficient to finance the added federal costs of the plan.
Maybe this is your opinion of "fantastic"!!
"People without insurance coverage have worse access to care than people who are insured. One in five uninsured adults in 2017 went without needed medical care due to cost. Studies repeatedly demonstrate that the uninsured are less likely than those with insurance to receive preventive care and services for major health conditions and chronic diseases."
Thanks to this idiot in the Whitehouse, the number of uninsured Americans is currently rising from the 27 million. Before Obamacare more than 44 million Americans were not covered.
https://www.kff.org/uninsured/fact-sheet/key-facts-about-the-uninsured-population/
Your math does not work. I repeat: As most of the expenses to health care goes to care for the young and old, it can not possibly be impossible to extend that fantastic health care to everybody.
Here are some numbers:
Relative Lifetime Per Capita Expenditure at Different Age Intervals, Life Table Cohort (Year 2000 Dollars)
(1) Relative Lifetime Expenditure During
Childhood (0–19) 7.8%
Young adult (20–39) 12.5%
Middle-aged adult (40–64) 31.0%
Senior years (65–84) 36.5%
Old senior years (85+) 12.1%
If young and old are covered, 56.4% of cost is already covered. As likely a fair percentage of people in age 20-64 have coverage, maybe the additional cost would only be something like 20%.
Yes, Republicans have been throwing around that that 32 trillion number this year to argue against single payer heath care. Too bad for that argument that the cost of the current system is estmated to be 33 trillion. Surely you already know this, as it made the news when that flaw in the argument was pointed out. But it wouldn't make your case if you told the whole story, would it?
That’s the Democrats response, which has been debunked but it’s easy to fool Dems where math is involved. Key example:
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ocasio20...e-for-all-could-be-paid-for-by-pentagon-waste
I don't see where in your link that my post was debunked.
Also, you're the one that brought up the study. The original study mentioned both the 32 and 33 trillion figures, so the study that you use as evidence doesn't make your point very well.
I can see you have been rehearsing the GOP talking points again. Do not accord with reality of course but they sond good and are good enough to fool the dumbest most gullible cohort in the world.
Why is medical related expenses the number one reason for bankruptcy in the US? And why bu most metrics does the US score so low in health outcomes relative to other western countries?
