Yet cancer 5 year survival is identical in both the US and Canada.
They pay half as much per person as us and get the same results.
Bernie Sanders' "Medicare for All" would cost $32.6 Trillion Dollars
- Thread starter UCFKnight85
- Start date
They pay half as much per person as us and get the same results.
They don't get the same results. I literally just offered you an article, citing a study, showing that they are utterly awful when it comes to effectively delivering medically necessary procedures and in this article, they said that they are getting woeful results given the amount of spend.
They spend less than us? Who cares? Their government has mandated a monopoly on medical care delivery and they've rationed that care to fit the costs that they need. How is that better? They spend less and get less in terms of availability to medically required procedures - saying NOTHING about elective procedures.
So we replace a $3.5T government+market with a $3.2T government-only.
And we'll get all the same procedures? Nope!
Welcome to the UK NIH ... everyone's on a waiting list, no experimental procedures, some medicines just not covered.
Great! Least Common Denominator.
It costs. Someone pays for it.
And we'll get all the same procedures? Nope!
Welcome to the UK NIH ... everyone's on a waiting list, no experimental procedures, some medicines just not covered.
Great! Least Common Denominator.
It costs. Someone pays for it.
Last edited:
Interesting you say no experimental procedures. The EU approves drugs faster than the FDA. They have more options than we do almost all the time.
Our survival rate is equal, and our citizens don't have to linger on with debilitating conditions for months on end because they can't get seen.
False. Canada pays around 9 grand per person for healthcare. The US pays 10,500 per person.
Literally no one is saying that. I just linked a direct tweet from Bernie himself THANKING the Koch brothers for the support to his plan. You truly live in an alternate world.
But are we arguing for the Canadian system?
(Or the Swiss system when it comes to free market for that matter?)
Nope! We're arguing for the UK system! Go look at what is being suggested.
BTW, at least Canadians have the option to come to the US. Canada is great for retirement, but not always the best for people when they need procedures.
Again, we're talking about everyone having the worst possible, government system with no options to buy-up/supplement. That's the UK system.
SIDE NOTE: It doesn't hurt the Canadians, and almost everyone else, ignores our patents, so they don't have to help subsidize R&D costs.
Correct.
It will be 'cheaper' overall, make no mistake.
But the care will not be 'better,' median.
It will be like the worst HMO ever ... but with no option to sue.
This is socialism 101.
It's not about what you get, but what you give up ... for those without.
People will hate it once it's in-place.
And then the black market will really boom.
Ok guys I admit- I was wrong. The research was wrong.
It won't cost $32.6 Trillion - it will cost $42.6 Trillion. This comes from research by thehard right left wing site Vox.
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/20...-cost-medicare-college-sanders-deficits-taxes
It goes on:
What would be the effects of such an unprecedented spending binge? Federal spending, which typically ranges between 18 and 22 percent of GDP, would immediately soar past 40 percent of GDP on its way to nearly 50 percent within three decades. Including state and local government spending would push the total cost of government to 60 percent of GDP by that point — exceeding the current spending level of every country in Europe.
These numbers are not partisan. They come from the Congressional Budget Office, top liberal think tanks, and the lawmakers themselves. They are the left’s own figures.
To pay for this the government would have to tax all Corporate and Individual profits/earnings above $90,000 or install an 87% VAT.
Socialism is so feasible!
It won't cost $32.6 Trillion - it will cost $42.6 Trillion. This comes from research by the
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/20...-cost-medicare-college-sanders-deficits-taxes
It goes on:
What would be the effects of such an unprecedented spending binge? Federal spending, which typically ranges between 18 and 22 percent of GDP, would immediately soar past 40 percent of GDP on its way to nearly 50 percent within three decades. Including state and local government spending would push the total cost of government to 60 percent of GDP by that point — exceeding the current spending level of every country in Europe.
These numbers are not partisan. They come from the Congressional Budget Office, top liberal think tanks, and the lawmakers themselves. They are the left’s own figures.
To pay for this the government would have to tax all Corporate and Individual profits/earnings above $90,000 or install an 87% VAT.
Socialism is so feasible!
Yep, universal health Care is early impossible. You should let the UK, Canada, and every other first world country know that they are breaking the laws of physics.
Today's lesson in "socialized medicine gone horribly bad".
A Canadian man is terminally ill and has been stuck in a hospital for 2 years at the mandate of the government. During that time, he was abused, malnourished, and apparently was given food poisoning on multiple occasions.
He finally had enough and requested "self directed care" in which he gets to make decisions on how he lives until his death (what a crazy concept!). It was denied.
He then recorded 2 different hospital staff members. One basically told him he was going to kick him out of the hospital, without a home care plan approved, and/or extort him for $1,500 a day to stay. Which is illegal. The hospital worker then asks, "hey, why don't you just die already and used assisted suicide?"
The second worker is on tape also asking why the guy doesn't just off himself with the hospital's help.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/chron...pital-staff-offering-assisted-death-1.4038841
A Canadian man is terminally ill and has been stuck in a hospital for 2 years at the mandate of the government. During that time, he was abused, malnourished, and apparently was given food poisoning on multiple occasions.
He finally had enough and requested "self directed care" in which he gets to make decisions on how he lives until his death (what a crazy concept!). It was denied.
He then recorded 2 different hospital staff members. One basically told him he was going to kick him out of the hospital, without a home care plan approved, and/or extort him for $1,500 a day to stay. Which is illegal. The hospital worker then asks, "hey, why don't you just die already and used assisted suicide?"
The second worker is on tape also asking why the guy doesn't just off himself with the hospital's help.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/chron...pital-staff-offering-assisted-death-1.4038841
1. he'd be on Medicare and not private insurance after 2.5 years of not working.
2. Medicare doesn't cover full time home health care
3. Medicare does cover required hospital stays.
4. Medicare only pays 80% of the negotiated rate
Basically he'd be in the same spot but he'd be getting bills for 20% of his care.
2. Medicare doesn't cover full time home health care
3. Medicare does cover required hospital stays.
4. Medicare only pays 80% of the negotiated rate
Basically he'd be in the same spot but he'd be getting bills for 20% of his care.
He'd get the care he needs and be allowed to do the most basic thing possible - like dictate how he wishes to spend the rest of his life, however long that may be.
He wouldn't be held captive in a government run hospital, abused, then asked to kill himself when he dares to complain.
Wrong. This dude isn't held captive unless he wants care. His beef is that Canadian health care won't pay for his care at his house.
He's requesting it because he was systematically abused while in the government hospital, then told to off himself by the people that likely were abusing him.
And yet here you are, apologizing for socialized medicine by making him sound like a whiner.
You have 0 empathy!
Geez! That's nearly $4.3T/year! That's almost $1T/more than all current government + private.
Wow!
And that's $4.3T in new spending. So throw that on top of the current $3.8T budget and you can see the problem.
Glad BS and 85 have found out that universal healthcare would never work. I wish they would tell all the other civilized countries in the world this critical info.
I wish you would tell Sharon Shamblaw's 3 kids that dying of blood cancer in Canada was a more progressive decision than traveling to the US for life saving treatment. Tell them that even though they don't have a mom anymore, she sure was woke when they buried her!
The Great Socialist DNC Hope strikes again. ![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
Ocasio-Cortez: Socialized medicine is cheap because people will no longer have to pay for funerals pic.twitter.com/36rJRWFF0H
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) August 9, 2018
Ocasio-Cortez: Socialized medicine is cheap because people will no longer have to pay for funerals pic.twitter.com/36rJRWFF0H
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) August 9, 2018
Geeeeez. That's one of the dumbest statements I've ever read.The Great Socialist DNC Hope strikes again.
Ocasio-Cortez: Socialized medicine is cheap because people will no longer have to pay for funerals pic.twitter.com/36rJRWFF0H
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) August 9, 2018
Probably because if you watched the actual interview that statement was no where near what she said. It's almost as if 85 is a shit tier partisan troll who makes up bullshit and straight up lies.
The Vox article brings up a point that is largely ignored on the Mercatus paper: the study used the Sanders proposal that payments to care providers would be cut by 40%.
Now think about that for a second. They are suggesting that doctors, hospitals, and nurses would take a 40% cut in income and quality of care would not change. Anybody see the problem with that idea?
Now think about that for a second. They are suggesting that doctors, hospitals, and nurses would take a 40% cut in income and quality of care would not change. Anybody see the problem with that idea?
A lot of what she said is actually more stupid and ignorant than that. For instance, she has absolutely no idea what the difference is between a health care premium, and the penalty (tax) that people are currently assessed if they don't buy health insurance. She has no idea. A self proclaimed economics major.
And let's not forget that the reason that the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act is because they ruled that each of these monthly payments that everyday American make is a tax. And so, while it may not seem like we pay that tax on April 15th, we pay it every single month or we do pay at tax season if we don't buy, you know, these plans off of the exchange.
So, we're paying for this system. We -- Americans have the sticker shock of healthcare as it is, and what we're also not talking about is, why aren't we incorporating the cost of all the funeral expenses of those who died because they can't afford access to healthcare? That is part of the cost of our system.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1808/08/CPT.01.html
This thread is so funny. Like the red hats are going to convince everyone that this very common system of providing healthcare is impossible. Its the system used in every rich developed country. It works all over the world. We don't even need to guess at the numbers. We know it works already because it's functioning all over the world.
"But muh redhat comment!" - how FC starts every comment when losing an argument
Do you understand that every analysis done on single payer here in the US, by left wing, centrist, and right wing groups, have all come to the same conclusion? That it would be utterly not feasible, would destroy the economy, and is something that Americans simply will not go for? It's like you keep reading this and refuse to believe it, because "muh Sweden!".
Just saying that every other country does it (which, by the way, is a grossly ignorant generalization and wrong) doesn't make it any more feasible here. It's a dumb, lazy argument that relies on magic and feel good words and not facts or numbers.
Tell me why humans in other countries can be treated under a system that doesn't work for humans here.
Tell me why you can't read studies that answer this for you and understand basic numbers?
I read the study you linked and it seemed like it would work so you dug up another study.
Why won't you look at another country and realize. That country and our country are both full of humans that require the same care and maintenance. Our country has more money total and per capita yet we're the ones who can't afford it.
I "dug up" another study?
A left wing research site produced another study that increased the cost to $42.6T and admitted it's totally unfeasible, yet you're crying about me citing this.
What part of having to tax every corporate and individual profit above $90,000 at 100% is feasible to you?
How does everyone else achieve the impossibleI "dug up" another study?
A left wing research site produced another study that increased the cost to $42.6T and admitted it's totally unfeasible, yet you're crying about me citing this.
What part of having to tax every corporate and individual profit above $90,000 at 100% is feasible to you?
Redhats:
We're the greatest country to ever exist!
Also Redhats:
We can't figure a way to achieve what everyone else has figured out a way to achieve.
We're the greatest country to ever exist!
Also Redhats:
We can't figure a way to achieve what everyone else has figured out a way to achieve.
Latest posts
-
-
***Matt Lee Is a Cincinnati Bengal Backup #BuiltByUCF ***- Latest: firm_bizzle
-
-
-
