Bernie Sanders under fire
 

Kind of interesting. It looks like mystery democrats have raised 1 million specifically to go after Bernie Sanders. The "Big Tent Project Fund," which so far is seeding two videos all over the place (I found out about this because one appeared to me on FB):

https://www.bigtentprojectfund.com/
(you can also see the videos there)

I have no idea the validity of the "Sanders wanted to dump nuclear waste on the Latino communities!" but it sure sounds like fake, even desperate scare tactics. Why does everything have to be scare tactics?

The democratic party is no longer debating policy or promising leadership to the U.S, and instead is a group of miscreants playing with Survivor-Style reality T.V. tactics, vying for position. It's tragic for the U.S. and honestly it's tragic how far that party has fallen.

The entirety of the joke of a first debate.
The recent debate gang-up against Bloomberg.
Warren's intentionally set-up sabotage of Sander's by using allegedly accidentally caught CNN recording.
How about the exchange between Buttiegieg and Klobuchar? HHAHAH Oh my God. "We all can't be as perfect as you Pete". My God that's a politician! A Politician! That's the kind of reply you get from an embarrassed teenager who has nothing of merit to say when they are pressured for God's sake.

There are so many more examples I haven't even touched on...

Isn't there some great irony in the Democrats using that name? If I'm not mistaken, Democrats don't vote for a candidate, the top of the party just picks whoever they think will work out? Or am I mistaken?

That's kind of what I've always thought?

Elites must be very scared of the prospect of grandpa Bernie going after them.

At this point, it would be a fan move for Trump to endorse Bernie, just so accumulated power of hatred and confusion in democRATic party would destroy it.

Trump has always endorsed Bernie. At every turn. Mostly just in terms of him getting screwed by Hillary in the last election (which is true), but still.

I fail to see how this is news.

This has been going on since day one. He's an independent, and taking the Democratic nomination from Democratic contenders is humiliating. I side with Andrew in that Sanders is the Democrat Trump, based on this alone.

But Sumac makes a good point, too. The "elites" must scared by the reported momentum the Sanders campaign has picked up.

Though I saw some reports today that there's Russian money going into the Sanders campaign as well. So who knows if this is really some homegrown political movement or just more discord sown by international interests.

Either way, putting "Sanders Under Fire" as a headline is the same as announcing "'Water Wet' Announce Shocked Scientists". Tomorrow's top headline will be "Warren Not a Native American!" or "Pete Buttigieg: Gay?"

As for the videos: more crap.

1. Sanders did co-sponsor the bill. But it wasn't his idea. It seems to be the brainchild of Texas legislators who let Maine and Vermont in on the deal. Sanders worked on it because interstate agreements have to go through Congress. Sanders argued that the waste needed to be put somewhere, and that the arid climate and deep water tables of West Texas was shown by scientists to be a safer storage site than the much more humid areas of Maine and Vermont.

More, Sanders has never tried to hide this. He's always been very open about the deal and surprisingly standoffish with environmentalist protesters who sought to shut him down. The man's convictions are his selling point. Love him or hate him: respect to a man who sticks by his guns and doesn't cower in the face of unpopular decisions.

2. There is no way that a budget will get to $60 trillion because a POTUS suggested it. The stonewalling of the GOP alone would wreck almost (if not all) of Bernie's plans. Not to mention the hate he's been getting from the Democrats isn't going to make for smooth sailing, either. I'd warrant that any litigation he passes is going to be hard fought and muddied by partisan fighting, considering he would have two parties to contend with.

CNN going after Bernie's plan:

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020...all-annotated/

The article brings up legitimate points, of course.

the fact that these people tried to derail him, not once, but twice, yet he seems their best chance to win, makes me start to wonder why.

I hear socialism and communism being bandied about..but the news media is so damn slanted now, you don't know what to believe anymore.

I don't think he's their best chance and never was, but I tend to think he's like the socialist version of Trump. The democrats can't control him and he won't play by their rules or play party politics and they don't like that. The only ones that ever had a shot are Biden and now Bloomberg, so the longer Bernie hangs in there the more votes that takes away from either of them.

At the current trajectory, it seems like it'll probably come down to Biden and Trump.

It's going to have to be Biden, which is nuts because the best chance they had at appealing to, or swaying the true middle vote or just-right-of-center vote were either Gabbard or Buttigieg. Seriously. I'm not saying that either of those two would've won. But if anyone thinks that putting babbling Joe into the race is going to save their party is as out of their minds as Biden himself.

I honestly think Bernie would get more votes than Biden in a race. But that's because every kid who doesn't know better or hasn't grown out of the "simplistic feels' in exchange for reality would vote for Sanders. Again not saying that he would win. Honestly I could see the culture war erupting into a straight up physical civil war if somehow a socialist was put into office.

I don't know, I don't see it. Only about 50% of democratic voters appear to actually want socialism but I'm sure about 100% of them want to see a democrat take over (of course)... but he's not even really a democrat. I could see a ton of democrat voters just not voting at all if the choice is Sanders or Trump (Socialism vs. Man who Says Mean Things).

This other article on CNN is hysterical:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/29/polit...-28/index.html

"CNN does not endorse candidates. We strive for impartiality. It's not my role to tell you what to believe, or what to do with your ballot."

Yet it goes on to basically explain piece by piece why you shouldn't vote for Sanders.

:lol::lol::lol::lol: So says the declining news agency with lost viewership and the most biased programming I've ever seen. This must've been another Wolf Blitzer or Anderson Cooper "bombshell" report. LMAO!

Such as?

Because the more I read, the more I'm convinced people wouldn't be opposed to this. The biggest hurdles would be financing such a large endeavor and easing the transition into the new system.

I'm not fond of the $200 copay for top earners. I'd much rather this be the same for everyone.

If this thing was to go through, I don't think 4 years is long enough to adequately shift from one system to another.


This one is much more critical. Media is owned by billionaires. Who would want FDR Jr. to win?

If I'm remembering correctly I've heard that Bernie himself has even said that his plan would take 10 years to implement which means it would take his term has president plus two years if he happens to win re-election.

Interesting Fact the U.S has the worse rated healthcare system of any first world country.

The US is also the only country with Private Healthcare system of any first world country. Germany is Number #1 with its universal healthcare program.

Another interesting fact. U.S infant the death rate is significantly higher than any other first world country.

The Coronavirus seems to reinforcing the idea that Universal healthcare is better and more productive than private healthcare.

South Korea one of the first countries struck with this pandemic has a far lower death rate than the US. at .2% while the US death rate for the virus is at 6%.

The most interesting fact is that a Universal healthcare system would actually be cheaper and less expensive than the current system.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...mn/4055597002/

That fact that we still use this healthcare system is borderline insane and frankly barbaric.

* In Sanders’ proposal, everyone who is a US resident, including undocumented immigrants, gets coverage.

Yikes!

* Sanders would make it illegal to sell private health insurance that covers the benefits offered by Medicare for All. This provision would certainly be subject to lawsuits. A subsequent section says additional benefits not covered by Medicare for All (cosmetic surgery, for instance) could be covered by a supplemental insurance plan. This is the nationalization of an industry in an unprecedented way. It’s important to note here that about one-third of the American seniors who currently get Medicare get it through private Medicare Advantage plans offered by health insurance companies. Those plans would go away.

* Sanders promises Americans access to the doctors they currently see and more. But his system assumes that doctors will take part. Just as many doctors do not take part in the current Medicare and insurance systems, some would likely sidestep the government program and seek payment on a fee-for-service basis outside Medicare for All.

Which would be two chances (2024 or 2028) for a republican president to come in and dismantle whatever he starts to put into play.

You know how better it would be for doctors????? Half of the problems for Doctors is that they have fight and negotiate certain rates with the private insurance industry so essentially the revenue for their service fluctuates. The other problem is that when insurance is denied by the private insurance company any reason the doctor/hospital practice is footed the bill if the patient cannot pay which is extremely common.
If medicare for all would pass there would be set rates for services rendered, no more extremes or variable payments. One set payment and rate would expedite the process of services. Also if a patient needs a procedure that is non-life threatening the patient must wait for approval from insurance before a procedure can be done.

The medicare for all would stream line the process.

At what cost? And not just financially? Serious question. I mean if you've made your decision to support these tenets and social structure then you've surely balanced out all of the information rather than just finding talking points to fight for it.

And so take that how you will, but if you choose to take it as a segway into displaying the information, and how you came to this conclusion, then I'd like to hear it.

But if you can't back that up? Ehhhhh.... your argument here, not so much. But Id be interested in reading it if you've got the intel....

I can see it being abused, sure. And should it be, then let's make a push to close that loophole. But throwing everything out because there's a couple parts that aren't up to snuff seems pessimistic at best and spiteful at worst.

These two, not so much. There's a couple problems:

1. The second point dismantles the first.

2. If everyone is covered for everything, that means Medicare would shift from a private insurer to a government one.

In addition. . .

This section seems to ok private dealings between parties. So if you can find a doctor willing to go in on this, there's a work-around to the issue.

If we're going to throw out every course of action because of problems, then there's no point in doing anything at all. The initial implementation is obviously going to have issues. The idea is that, should we work at it, we can fix those issues as they arise.

No one is claiming this is going to be perfect. The plan is that it's better. No one should be going without access to medical services.

And before someone says "but anyone can go to the hospital!" Know that I mean going to a hospital, doctor, whatever without the fear of going into debt or bankrupt.

That's just not fair. We deserve better.

Yeah but we'll pay for this through a modest tax on wall street speculation!

:lol:

Think about how appealing that sentence is to the will-never-haves. Not the have-nots, mind you... the will-never-haves; which is a more accurate description of the deepest of the Bernie base.

Being a have-not shouldn't be a social pejorative, by comparison with the reality of the will-never-haves. "Have nots" get sick of their situation and work, and elevate their families. I will never hold a negative candle against someone whose current state is a "have not". But the "will-never-haves"? Those are true Socialist sheep. The real question is what is it that's really keeping the will-never-haves" in that structure and how do we address it? ;)

Speaking strictly anecdotally here, but as I've mentioned a few times, a few of my clients are doctors. They all swear up and down that it's not getting the private insurance companies to pay up that's the problem, it's getting the GOVERNMENT to pay what they're supposed to pay that's the problem. Which is why nobody takes MedicAid for anything, generally speaking. Oh, when you're on MedicAid, it says right there on the paper that it covers "everything": Basic medical, dental, even chiropractic and certain surgical procedures. BUT, if you shop around for a doctor, or a dentist, or a chiropractor, they'll just laugh if you ask them if they accept MedicAid; "NOBODY takes MedicAid unless they're fine with never getting paid."

So again, this is purely anecdotal, but I'm not about to call any of these people who I've known for so many years liars. They're the doctors, they're the ones working in these medical professions, pushing the paperwork, arguing with lawyers and insurance agents, and they ALL tell me that government-run "universal" healthcare would be a complete and total disaster. That the insurance companies will pay what they owe (eventually), but the government won't, and you can't take the government to court and try and force them to pay, because they are, in fact, The Government, and can do or not do whatever the hell they want.

What they tell me, in brief, is this: "None of the patients are going to be able to get an appointment to even see anybody for weeks or months at a time, and people aren't going to be getting their medication because none of these treatments and services are going to be paid for. Meanwhile, doctors are going to quit the profession in massive numbers because they'll be asked to to take on two or three times as many patients except now they're not going to be getting PAID to treat any of these people. And that's when the government is gonna start rationing care because there won't be enough doctors left to take care of these people. And then the entire system is gonna collapse and we'll all be even worse off than we seem to be right now."

SO, that's what they tell me, and I'm inclined to believe them because Jesus, where's the lie? And what's the opposing take, "It's already screwed up, let's just screw it up more"? Let's just dump millions of people onto a "universal" healthcare program, and have doctors and pharmacists and surgeons work twice as hard for basically no money at all? Let's cross our fingers and hope that THIS TIME a government-run program WON'T be a giant pile of red tape, systemic abuse and flat-out lies and bullsh*t? Look at the postal service, or the goddamn DMV. Universal, government-run healthcare in the United States IS NOT GOING TO WORK, EVER.

It's not because nobody cares, it's that you can't trust a group of people who can't even handle people's mail properly to run something so massive and complicated, where it's literally life-and-death sometimes. Perhaps it's easier in other countries because the bureaucrats over there aren't all a bunch of drooling f*ckwits like they are over here. But over here, they ARE a bunch of drooling f*ckwits, and it's for that simple reason that even having these conversations doesn't do anything except raise peoples' blood pressure. It ain't happening, and if it does, it AIN'T gonna go down as smooth as people wanna believe. People are gonna die. WAY more than already are, like it or not.

Wash your hands obsessively, cover your mouth, don't go to work if you're sniffling (or if someone else you work with is), don't smoke, get plenty of exercise, avoid narcotic drugs, avoid sugar. You'd be amazed how dramatically your health will improve (and STAY improved) if you do these things with gusto, and then you don't have to worry quite as much. Obviously a viral outbreak is cause for concern, as well as an extreme circumstance, but the same common-sense rules apply. What seems to be the hardest thing for people, though, is simply saving anything at all for ANY kind of emergency, be it health-related or otherwise, to which I say: All Life Is About Choices. One less iPhone upgrade = More than a typical doctor's visit and a prescription costs. Live within your means, life gets simpler across the board.

Easier said than done, I know, but most people aren't even trying, they're just idly waiting for the day when someone will come along and tell them "Relax, everything is 'free' now." And that ain't gonna happen. Might as well get real about it.

Put in the absolute simplest terms, the U.S. government couldn't collectively run a greenhouse, they can't run healthcare. Period, end of story, we shouldn't even be talking about that no matter how desperate we become for an alternative to the current situation. Streamline the system and reduce redundancies, reduce waste, increase transparency on the part of the insurance companies, yadda yadda, by all means, absolutely. But there HAS to be ways of doing that stuff that doesn't involve giving free reign to the most incompetent bunch of boobs to ever collectively fail upwards in life that's ever been assembled. That's a recipe for disaster.

But then, I just observe and report. ((Shrug))

B-b-but it's worth a try, right? It's not like we have anything to lose if it fails, right?

People like to rag on U.S. medical, but while there is room for criticism, a lot of it has become the cliche thing to do. It's just like how it was just popular to rag on the Justice League movie more than was necessary.

Free market ingenuity has done well in the medical field. My go to example for that is a great story about urgent care clinics that really defines the whole thing to the uninformed. What we need is not "free medical". We need more leeway to come up with real fixes that are less intrusive and more like whole fixes for problems.

Trust me, the worst feeling is when you realize that being intubated is not a fix and is more like a death sentence. Those processes change your entire point of view as to the current state of medical fixes. OR what's more? Try being in on a surgery. I've been in on a surgery where most people haven't been. We act like surgery is brilliant and glamorous. It's not man, it's barbaric and not precise at all, holy **** if I could tell some of you guys the stories. Seriously.

And so the point is that the real fix needs to come from an environment that nurtures ingenuity and actual fixes for better outcomes. Not "distributive care" fixes. We need "health problem fixes".

And let's not forget, about 90% of the high costs in healthcare and medicine is 100% legal fees and lawyers. Red tape. Yet no one is crusading against that.

If a surgery or medicine that costs $10,000 or $500 now could cost $300 or $20, shouldn't we be focused on that?

I've had medical professionals tell me point-blank they didn't go into debt and go to school for 8-10 years to work for free. That "compassion" is nice but they got into the gig mostly for the 7-plus-figure income, and without that they're going the f*ck home because the job is too much stress otherwise.

There's already reports of massive burnout and medical professionals taking early retirement across the board, because it's a sh*tty gig and the only thing that makes it "worth it" is the fact that you get to be in the 1%. They're still depressed and borderline suicidal, sometimes, but at least they're rich. If people can't get rich by being doctors, there simply won't be any more doctors because nobody is gonna do such a sh*tty job for free. Not in this country, anyway.

The burnout and early retirement thing has been happening for more than ten years now, by the way. Roughly as long as the talks about government-run healthcare have been a political bullet point in the mainstream media. Bottom line, it's not gonna matter WHO's footing the bill if all the competent doctors are all cashing out early.

Think about how competent (or NOT, rather) the average public defender is, and then consider the possibility that going forward, most or all U.S. citizens would be getting their care from the medical equivalent of a goddamn public defender: A barely-qualified, woefully under-prepared and over-worked hack, provided and paid for (in theory) by the government simply because he's the closest person to your house. "But it's free!" Brrrrrr. That's scary sh*t, man.

Also, this.

Which is wildly incorrect. I wish you'd stop spouting off whatever you think is correct, or at least post some data to back it up.

Twenty seconds on Google turned this report up. It's a study showing that malpractice costs account for about 10% of the costs of medicine. It goes on to say that malpractice reform may bring that down by about .5 percent.

I figured you MUST'VE heard this somewhere, so I dug a bit deeper and found this article. This is a list of 6 reasons why US healthcare is so expensive. Litigation pops up at #3, but even then it isn't because the doctors have to retain lawyers. It's because patients receive extra tests to ensure proper diagnosis. Apparently, that's what leads to lawsuits.

I do recall at one point you defending a self-proclaimed genius when he threatened to sue his alma mater over releasing his grades. I got the impression that litigation was a very casual and common part of life, one that is perfectly safe for people to pursue, regardless of the stakes.

On topic: the other reasons all tie back to private medical insurance. It creates high administrative costs and bars the government from negotiating better prices for drugs.

I'd also like to point out that I've never once heard any of my clients and friends, many of whom are or were doctors, never once spoke ill of nationalized healthcare and even argued for it's implementation.

It would be great if people in the US didn’t die from rationing their medicine like insulin or die cause their fundraiser didn’t get enough donations.

It’s time to join the rest of the civilized world

And this happens when? :lol:

No, really, I'd like to know. Because my Dad had diabetes from 1993 until the day he died in 2010, was on welfare and food stamps between 1991 until 1997, and lived off of a government disability check every month between 1997 and the day he died. No savings whatsoever. The highest his monthly check ever got was $1200, and that was way near the end; at first it was around $1000 and it gradually increased. After 1998, $100 of that was garnished by the government every single month, for payback on a $30,000 settlement he (supposedly) didn't claim properly, so he really only started each month with about $1100. Rent on our apartment was $700-750 (although sometimes I paid some or all of that). Cable and phone (when we bothered) was about $100 each. Then add food and utilities. If I didn't live with him and wasn't working, we both would'a starved, and he damn sure wouldn't have lived to 2010, especially because he had a serious drug problem that he wasn't overly concerned about.

ALL he had was basic MediCare, which didn't cover much of anything. Funny thing, though... he never had to "ration" his medicine (insulin, blood thinners, heart meds, etc.), he got a box shipped to the house every month like clockwork. I wasn't living with him at the end, but according to him and my sister he was taking upwards of a dozen medications by then. When he needed a giant breathing machine the size of a small washing machine, he filed the forms and eventually got one (which did help us out a little bit with the electric bills, because by law they have to grant leniency to a person with life-saving electronic equipment in the house such as that). He couldn't pay for it, but he got it. And it's not like he never went to the hospital, he was ALWAYS in the hospital, every few months (he was especially prone to pneumonia and fluid in the lungs), sometimes for weeks. And oh, GOD, the heart surgeries... pacemaker/defib surgery, stent surgery, stent REPLACEMENT surgery, "routine" surgery to clear arterial blockage... After a while, I stopped counting or keeping track of what the hell he was in there for This Time and just hoped he'd get to come home at all.

He had a "game" he liked to play; when he'd come home from the hospital, especially post-surgery, he'd call me over and show me the bill. It would always be some astronomical amount, like $120,000. And then he'd show me what MedicAid covered from that, which would be like, $5000. I AM just making up numbers here to establish a broader factual point, so please don't get hung up on that. Point is, according to those pieces of paper, he was "expected" to pay more money for one surgery than he'd ever even see for the rest of his life, and he had WAY more than one surgery (or one DOZEN surgeries). He'd laugh, and say, "Ain't that some sh*t?" And I'd say, "So... what's the joke? What did you tell them?" Because I was young and naive, you see, and naturally assumed that you have to do what Words On Paper say you have to do.

He'd laugh harder, throw the paper in the wastebasket, and say "I told 'em my check's eleven hundred a month and I barely afford rent, I'll throw 'em fifty bucks here and there if I can. Maybe." And sometimes he actually would; I'd say 99.999% of the time, he didn't.

So I'm frankly at a loss for how these scenarios supposedly happen of people in America dying from not having access to a doctor, or medicine, simply because they didn't have any money. I've had "no money", and my Dad had "no money", WAY WORSE than some of these supposed people had "no money", and yet, stuff worked out. He was never once denied care or medicine or surgical treatment or access to a hospital, even though it was patently obvious that a lot of this sh*t was his own fault due to a terrible lifestyle, and doubly obvious that nobody was ever going to get a dime out of him. It's not like he juggled hospitals, or pharmacies, or pulled scams, he just went to the same places, every time, and every time he said, "Yeah, well, I'm broke, if I get something to give you, you'll get it." NEVER denied treatment, NEVER denied medicine, NEVER denied care. He eventually died, sure, but because everything finally caught up with him (he actually lived a bit longer than some doctors estimated he would), NOT because he was a poor person who's thus invisible and worthless to the American healthcare system. He died because he was a drug addict with a bad heart and diabetes and never took care of himself. If anything, the system was TOO lenient and forgiving with him. Don't get me wrong, I'm grateful, but... If ANYONE were ever gonna be denied care, based on any number of factors, SHOULDN'T it have been That Guy?

SO. If the American government is routinely in the business of denying people care because they're poor and thus in turn leaving them to die, well... they're bad at it. I simply don't believe that's true at all. My father was well-kept despite braying loudly like a jackass all the while, "Y'all ain't ever gettin' sh*t from me, now gimme the morphine and get this show on the road." And that's one of many stories I could tell you, about many, many people.

What I do believe, however, is that some people simply don't know how to, as my old man put it, "play the game" (or alternatively, "Work the system"), and that's how they end up in unfortunate situations. PART of why he was never denied any treatment or care was indeed the $50 or even $20 he'd toss them back once every blue moon. Because the dirty little secret is, paying medical bills is shockingly similar to shopping for a car; they put ridiculous numbers in front of you and you're then expected to haggle and sob-story them down, but nobody expects you to actually pay "sticker price" for your meds or your surgeries. Even a routine office visit to a general practitioner can see him try and charge you $100 for a placebo pill that costs 75 cents to manufacture, but you don't HAVE to pay that. As some of the doctors etc. I know have explained, "You start off by charging whatever you hope you can get away with, but after that it's a conversation." You're supposed to instigate a conversation that begins with, "I can't pay that, that's ridiculous!" and ends with the person across from you finally relenting, "Well, as long as you give us SOMEthing, then everything will be okay. Just give us what you can when you can." And some people do, some people don't. But that random $50 here and there, while it may not actually pay off what's owed, it will keep them from sending the collection agencies after you because you're at least pretending to give a sh*t. As long as you act like you INTEND to pay them, you're generally fine. THAT's the secret.

Now, is this great for your credit? No, definitely not, BUT, if you're that f*cking sick, credit's the least of your worries anyway, and if you're dead you won't need credit, period. SURVIVE first, figure the bills out later. That's like the very first thing you learn when you're poor. And then this goes back to living within your means. MAYBE you won't be able to own a house, or a boat, once this medical sh*t's over with, because now you owe money and your credit's not so good. MAYBE you'll have a hard time getting a loan on a new car, and have to settle for a sh*tty one and live in an apartment, for a while or forever. To that I say, OH WELL, be grateful to be alive and healthy when it's all said and done, if you're so fortunate, and stop worrying about then living up to a standard to which you feel "entitled"; NOBODY is "entitled" to anything. This is what it really comes down to; people aren't ultimately worried about whether or not they can handle their medical bills, they're simply worried that finding a way to handle them will force them to adopt a less-glamorous lifestyle. And I say "tough titties" to that. Those are some bad priorities.

Anyway. Point being, I'm sure maybe those horror stories actually happened, like, once or twice, and I empathize, BUT that is in no way the standard of life in the U.S for people in need of medical care. Not even close.
What ACTUALLY happens is, they treat you whether you have money or NOT, you dodge bill collectors for seven years, you live humble for a while until your credit gets settled, and then you move on. Or, in my Dad's case, you finally die of "natural causes" owing money to the whole world and everyone just kinda shrugs because they never figured you'd live this long anyway.

Is it perfect? No. Is it kind of weird that doctors and surgeons treat billing patients the exact same way the guy at the Chevy dealership does? Absolutely, that's weird as f*ck and I was gobsmacked the first time one of my friends admitted to me that's kinda how it works. I don't like the current system and I agree that it needs fixing up. But all this stuff about people in America being denied care and dropping dead because they're poor... it simply doesn't happen, and if it does it's SO rare that it hardly proves anything other than "Some people slip through the cracks", and that's true in every system no matter how pristine it appears from the outside.

(Cont.)

Part II

What people in the medical industry are terrified of - with good reason - is suddenly being overwhelmed by a few hundred million people who ALL behave exactly like my father did. Because if THEY don't pay, and then the government doesn't pay, well... SOMEbody has got to pay SOMEthing or this sh*t simply doesn't work, ya feel me? THAT is the issue.

But no, in the current situation, even people with nothing can get adequate - sometimes better than merely "adequate" - treatment and care even if they can't/won't pay for it. Because at the end of the day, the American healthcare system IS still a system that runs primarily on empathy and compassion, even if all they ever talk about is Money. They don't willingly, casually and routinely cast people off to die, that's a complete lie.

That all sounds incredibly "civilized", to me.

The problem is, empathy and compassion runs out eventually and someone has to give somebody some money or else nobody gets anything. That's why no sane person advocates for "making it all 'Free'" and then letting the government of all "people" run it. That simply isn't going to work. Maybe Over There, it simply cannot and will not work Over Here.

There needs to be some fixing, certainly, but it's not an all-or-nothing game. AND, it's not anywhere near as bad as hyperbolic talking heads will claim during an election year. Most people, even "poor" people, are doing Just Fine. Pretty much any American who isn't popping pills or jabbing themselves with needles is doing Just Fine. Like, literally, "Don't get a drug habit" is 7/10s of "making it". Everything else is gravy, baby.

So... yeah, I don't know. People swear things are bad, and I, having lived through "bad", have to question what their standards of "bad" are. Never in my 37 years have I ever known a single person, at any income level, with any preexisting condition, who was flat-out cast aside and told to go die. Doesn't happen.

Maybe NJ is just better than the entire rest of the world. THAT, I can actually believe. We have White Castle AND WaWa!

-------
I can't really speak to anything people do like GoFundMe or KickStarter or whatever, because I'm simply of a different generation and upbringing. Nobody I personally know who's my age or older would ever do anything like that, be it for medical bills or any other reason, because we were raised that asking people for money you didn't earn, regardless of reason, is simply vulgar. I fully understand that the younger generation (and likely some people my age) feels differently, and I respect that. If anyone wants to do it, and people want to contribute, I don't have a problem with that. It's a nice thing that people do, although I see some that are a little frivolous, but that's another topic. But to this day, most of my older friends and relatives snort that they'd rather die than go around begging for handouts, that they couldn't live with themselves knowing that they now "owed" so many people, and that they'd rather do without than live feeling ashamed and guilt-ridden that they couldn't take care of themselves the way they are "supposed to as an adult". Call it a hangup, I won't entirely disagree, but it's still how a lot of people are. I've never done one, probably wouldn't do one, but I'm not presently dying as far as I know, feel free to check back If and When. But I can't really say much about it other than, "I personally was raised in that, you don't ask other people for money, you handle your own sh*t, period. If people want to give, you accept and say thank you, but you DON'T ask." Because asking puts pressure on the other person(s) to contribute and if they don't they feel like a scumbag. Charity isn't charity if the person who's asking has a gun to your head, either literally or figuratively; then it's just extortion, be it through violence or guilt. And that's a little messed up, no?

I'unno, like I said, can't speak to it. But I'm fine with it in theory, it just doesn't mesh with how I was raised and a lot of what I still believe. But I don't think it's a bad thing or whatever. At least in principle. But I don't think people should rely on it or whatever, either.

((Shrug))

Shane Patrick Boyle died in 22017 after he started a gofundme for paying for insulin.

And Alec Raeshawn Smith died same year after losing his insurance and started to rationing his insulin.

I live in Canada. If you're wondering what the Healthcare is like here AMA.

Malpractice is only a single component. There are the patent fees, patent extension fees (drug companies continuing to file them to maintain exclusivity on the market so they can charge whatever for a decade at a time) and allll the legal fees surrounding this (as lawyers don't generally work for free).

So yeah, feel free to ask about free healthcare.

Leo no offense but they lied to you......
Here is a rank of health care system efficiency and guess what!!!!! The U.S. is ranked freaking 50th!!!!!!! 50th!!!!!!! our healthcare efficiency is rated worse then every 1st world country and rated worse then some developing countries!!!!! Study done by World Health Organization.
Link of report and study.
https://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf

Oh guess what LEO you are wrong again!!!!! Doctors will not necessarily suffer a pay cut meaning they will not leave in drones!!!!!!! The Netherlands and Australia, both countries who have universal healthcare systems their doctors earn more on average than our doctors!!!!!
Link
https://journal.practicelink.com/vit...ion-worldwide/

Infant mortality rate for countries. Now most 1st world countries infant mortality rates are between 2-3% and can be even as low as .5% from countries like Iceland. But the US has infant mortality rate is 6%!!!!! Thats twice of high if not more than certain countries!!!!! Its freaking ridiculous that the wealthiest country on earth has the highest infant mortality rate!.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2091rank.html

For anyone who says we will bankrupt the country with a universal healthcare system..... Well I got some bad news for you......You're wrong!!!!!!

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/...-amount-health

Also anyone who says that our system will be overwhelmed and that we won't be able to get appointment month on end.... Well guess what you're wrong!!!!!
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/pol...ecade-n1052016

Only 8% of Americans do not health insurance meaning we will not see a significant surge in patients.
Also we have more than enough doctors to accommodate the new patients!!!!!
https://www.who.int/gho/health_workf...ns_density/en/

Anyone who says that a private healthcare system is better is wrong. Anyone who says that a universal healthcare is more expensive is wrong. Anyone who say the quality of care is worse in a universal healthcare system compared to a private healthcare system is Wrong! Anyone who says we don't have enough doctors to support a universal healthcare system is Wrong!!!!!

#factsdontcareaboutyourfeelings!

These are all facts, not opinions or anecdotal stories like many of you are spewing out. These are cold, hard facts that are indisputable. I had to study the healthcare system in college, bc of my major/degree and this is where I learned most of these facts.

No one cares about Canada!!!!! :x

lol JK.

I have studied the Canadian healthcare system as well. While it is a higher rated healthcare system than the US there are many things that can be improved on. Its rated as the worse universal healthcare system if I recall correctly.

But I am curious have you had experience with both Canada and US healthcare system???? What improvements do you think could be made with the Canadian healthcare system?

So the free market is the problem? Businesses can't be trusted to act ethically and provide necessary-for-life products at reasonable costs? You're pointing out all my grievances with the system to support maintaining the system.

Also, how would this negatively impact a single payer health system? All accounts say that the government would have greater negotiating power should this happen.

Not the businesses, the legal red tape they had to deal with the ramifications of. Lawyers. Law firms. That appears to be most of the cost.

Should the government step in on THAT aspect? Yes. Because if that isn't shored up or policed, even in a socialized health care country where all health care is "free," when Bob the loser (meaning, someone "unwilling" and not unable to work) needs his medication that unfairly costs $10,000 a year that actually should cost $200 (which we'd all have to pay for), that's only going to continue to get worse. That's not sustainable.

Also, this is neither here nor there... but apparently everything that, say, Bloomberg spends on his campaign... all of that might be tax deductible and he gets it back at the end of the year? :lol: I'm not knocking him, I just find it interesting. Can anyone speak to the validity of that? Are we paying for his campaign?

Yeah, and the local news the other day was warning people against buying insulin on Craigslist. Which is insane. :ohwell: That could so easily be fake. But I guess it's getting that bad for some that they'd actually risk it. My mom has had a hard time affording some of hers in recent weeks. I mentioned the Craigslist thing to her. She would never touch that, but was curious to see for herself. What she read to me sounded like drug dealers... Cash only, meet at a certain location, etc...

What have we become that there are essentially drug dealers who may be finding it profitable to sell what may be stolen or potentially fake insulin?

22017? What, was he a time traveler? Are you? :lol: J/K, I clearly know what you meant.

Anyway. Two examples of a bad outcome in a country of over 300 million people? Kinda like those odds, myself. Without writing another novel, these instances are SO rare and SO extreme that they hardly bear mentioning, and I'm pretty sure there were other factors in play as to why these individuals weren't taken care of, because again, I know plenty of people who have NOTHING and still get their meds and surgeries without any hassle, so something doesn't smell right. The sky simply isn't falling. Things can always be improved, and I've never denied that, certainly, but the whole "People in America are literally dropping dead in massive numbers because they can't afford healthcare" is a lie. If anything, a handful of people slip through the cracks - which is ALWAYS going to happen in ANY system - and it sucks for the people it happens to but is in no way indicative of how things are for the majority.

Some people die in car crashes BECAUSE they wore their seatbelt, and they might've lived if they'd gotten tossed through the windshield instead. Those are extreme cases, they don't mean that there's a problem with seatbelts altogether. It just means that sometimes Sh*t Happens.

I'm not gonna touch the back-and-forth arguing because I have better things to do, like pet my dog. All I'm gonna say, Redeemer, is that numbers tell a tale but not the whole story, statistics can be manipulated, and complicated issues don't have black-and-white, one-size-fits-all solutions. For one thing, if "only 8%" of Americans don't have health insurance, then that should technically mean we're doing pretty well altogether, no? Except I don't trust that "8%" number. 92% of Americans actually having health insurance seems astronomically high. But again, that's based on my own anecdotal information. Most people I know personally don't have any; either "Don't Need" or "Can't Afford" it. And that's their business. But right out of the gate, I'm casting a side-eye at that statistic because my personal experience says otherwise. I find it hard to believe that 8 out of every 10 Americans actually has anything past basic Medicaid. But that's me.

I'm a tough cat to go back-and-forth with, I admit, because while I acknowledge and respect so-called "factual" information, at the end of the day, I personally only call what I see, not what the paperwork says. I don't dismiss those things outright, mind you, I'll factor in any and all information, but I reserve the right at the end of the day to say, "Well, that's fine. What's on that paper simply has nothing to do with my own personal experience." And I allow for others to do the same. Because again, numbers only tell part of the story, and also, they can be completely made up sometimes.

What I do know for a fact is, once again, that nobody I know personally has ever been denied healthcare, medicine, etc., based on whether or not they had any money, even if they were literally dirt-poor. That's all I've been saying, and until I see differently, my position on the topic is not likely to change. Make of that what you will.

Your condolences regarding my father are duly noted. Just think, if he took better care of himself he might've lived to 95 like his Mom... or 105 like HER Mom... food for thought. Anyway, he dug his own hole, it is what it is. Thanks, though. Sorry to hear about yours, cancer is a bitch.
--------------

Something else I didn't really get into in the other posts, which a friend brought up to me recently, was freedom of choice, or lack thereof, in a government-controlled system. Remember when Obama said, "If you like your doctor/plan, you can keep it"? Wasn't true. A LOT of people I know got screwed over by that whole deal - mostly people who were making six figures or greater and already HAD good insurance, but they had to switch to something else and boy, were they not happy. They claimed to me, many times, that their newer coverage was substandard and the doctors simply not as good, BUT they were not "allowed" to do things as they always had before. And I think that's just plain sh*tty. Again, call them liars if you want, I don't think that's the case. I think it's simply a case of, as with anything, "You get what you pay for" and people who have the means to spend more are going to get better service in general, and can't much ever be done about that. "Leveling the playing field" so that "everyone" has access to the same mediocre service doesn't sound so great, to me. For example, one of my clients needed surgery, her old insurance didn't cover it, or didn't cover enough of it, I forget the specifics, but anyway, so she switched to a different provider that better suited her needs and finally got her procedure done. That kind of flexibility is important, and it's something that would be lost in a universal healthcare system.
-----------------

Re: TommyT, I generally hold Canada in contempt but I would definitely not be adverse to hearing your perspective on the conversation anyway, since you offered it. :tgrin: Seriously, I don't have any specific questions but by all means, chip in.