Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1. VA health care isn't a for-profit system so your "friend's" comments dont make sense.
2. Obamacare is the best the Democrats could cobble together due to opposition from GOP support of the gianormous for-profit machines of the oligarchy. So dont blame the dems. If it were up to the democrats we'd have your Australia system since about 50 years ago ...
1) The VA is still under budget pressures
2) Wrong, Democrats continue the thought of... "we can do everything countries like Denmark do by only taxing businesses and the wealthy. Furthermore, people who make above $XXXXX don't need to receive any benefits because wealth means evil. People who make between $XXXXXXX and $XXXXXX can get some benefits. People who make under $XXXXX get all the benefits. We can then divide the groups into sub groups divided by more groups and then we will create an agency that's job is to explain this to everyone because it's such a complicated piece of crap.
3) Hillary said she doesn't want universal healthcare. Bernie said he wanted universal healthcare. The Democratic Party sided with Hillary and rigged the primary, so she would win.
2) Wrong, Democrats continue the thought of... "we can do everything countries like Denmark do by only taxing businesses and the wealthy. Furthermore, people who make above $XXXXX don't need to receive any benefits because wealth means evil. People who make between $XXXXXXX and $XXXXXX can get some benefits. People who make under $XXXXX get all the benefits. We can then divide the groups into sub groups divided by more groups and then we will create an agency that's job is to explain this to everyone because it's such a complicated piece of crap.
3) Hillary said she doesn't want universal healthcare. Bernie said he wanted universal healthcare. The Democratic Party sided with Hillary and rigged the primary, so she would win.
1. Explain how "budget pressures" in a not for profit public system call for increasing "top line" excesses
2. Universal health care has been a progressive goal for a hundred years. It has been supported even by a number of conservatives over that time but ultimately thwarted always by for-profit free-market machines and the mighty AMA. The many dismal and convoluted compromises proposed by both parties over the years were only attempts to get something passed through compromising.
3. Hillary, besides being an ass, supported universal healthcare during Bill's administration but was trounced by the same profit forces. Her most recent differences with Bernie Sanders were a result of her conviction UHC can't get through congress based on her experiences during Bill's administration.
4. HRC and the DNC suck and got what they deserve. However your obsession with this once again veers completely off topic.
1900s–1920s
In the first 10–15 years of the 20th century Progressivism was influencing both Europe and the United States.[5] Many European countries were passing the first social welfare acts and forming the basis for compulsory government-run or voluntary subsidized health care programs.[6] The United Kingdom passed the National Insurance Act of 1911 that provided medical care and replacement of some lost wages if a worker became ill. It did not, however, cover spouses or dependents. U.S. efforts to achieve universal coverage began with progressive health care reformers who supported Theodore Roosevelt for President in 1912, though he was defeated.[7] Progressives campaigned unsuccessfully for sickness insurance guaranteed by the states.[8] A unique American history of decentralization in government, limited government, and a tradition of classical liberalism are all possible explanations for the suspicion around the idea of compulsory government-run insurance.[6] The American Medical Association (AMA) was also deeply and vocally opposed to the idea,[8] which it labeled "socialized medicine". In addition, many urban US workers already had access to sickness insurance through employer-based sickness funds.
Early industrial sickness insurance purchased through employers was one influential economic origin of the current American health care system.[9] These late-19th-century and early-20th-century sickness insurance schemes were generally inexpensive for workers: their small scale and local administration kept overhead low, and because the people who purchased insurance were all employees of the same company, that prevented people who were already ill from buying in.[9] The presence of employer-based sickness funds may have contributed to why the idea of government-based insurance did not take hold in the United States at the same time that the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe was moving toward socialized schemes like the UK National Insurance Act of 1911.[9] Thus, at the beginning of the 20th century, Americans were used to associating insurance with employers, which paved the way for the beginning of third-party health insurance in the 1930s.
1. Explain how "budget pressures" in a not for profit public system call for increasing "top line" excesses
2. Universal health care has been a progressive goal for a hundred years. It has been supported even by a number of conservatives over that time but ultimately thwarted always by for-profit free-market machines and the mighty AMA. The many dismal and convoluted compromises proposed by both parties over the years were only attempts to get something passed through compromising.
3. Hillary, besides being an ass, supported universal healthcare during Bill's administration but was trounced by the same profit forces. Her most recent differences with Bernie Sanders were a result of her conviction UHC can't get through congress based on her experiences during Bill's administration.
4. HRC and the DNC suck and got what they deserve. However your obsession with this once again veers completely off topic.
1) I'm just telling you what he said, he is a trusted friend, so I'll take his word that he is pressured to hand out prescriptions even when they aren't really necessary.
2) Bottom line, Obamacare is garbage and the previous system was flawed too, but at least the previous system was more affordable and wasn't one size fits all.
3) Hillary didn't support universal healthcare this election, she said it herself.
4) I agree they got what they deserved!
5) I follow politics very closely, right at the source (full speeches, press conferences etc), so I don't need wikipedia.
1) I'm just telling you what he said, he is a trusted friend, so I'll take his word that he is pressured to hand out prescriptions even when they aren't really necessary.
2) Bottom line, Obamacare is garbage and the previous system was flawed too, but at least the previous system was more affordable and wasn't one size fits all.
3) Hillary didn't support universal healthcare this election, she said it herself.
4) I agree they got what they deserved!
5) I follow politics very closely, right at the source (full speeches, press conferences etc), so I don't need wikipedia.
1. Likely you misunderstood your friend. All doctors, inluding VA physicians, know that the public expect some kind of medical protocol as a response to any health concern ... so they prescribe to satisfy even if the cure could be accomplished without medication (diet, exercise, abstinence from toxic habits). The VA system is also a "teaching system" in most part, involving medical interns from medical schools and are supported as well by all kinds of phamaceutical companies running trials and tests developing and documenting new treatment protocols. This does tend to push medications, he is correct. But it's not to drive profit at the VA because there isn't any profit motive.
2. What "previous system?" There was no "system." Just a chaos cage match of greed. Obamacare, despite all its flaws, was the best that could be engineered and it considerably slowed the rise of health care costs as previously shown in this discussion with many links of proof analysis. While some peoples' costs have gone up, overall cost trajectories have been seriously checked.
3. Yes, as just demonstrated in the previous post, HRC took the most recent position that UHC could not get through congress - so she opposed Sanders' trying that again. That is not the same as being "against UHC" ideologically, as you have been inferring. She was all for it - just didn't believe it could pass.
4. Yes, most everyone knows the realities of the DNC so why do you continue to try to re-prove what no one is arguing against? Especially in context where there is no context to the topic?
5. Your posts often don't reflect that you "follow politics closely" with any comprehension. You'd do well to read Wikipedia historical summaries wherever they are relevant and compiled with appropriate sourcing. For instance you have just been declaring that progressives only want to convolute UHC and that HRC opposed UHC when in fact history clearly demonstrates otherwise.
1. Likely you misunderstood your friend. All doctors, inluding VA physicians, know that the public expect some kind of medical protocol as a response to any health concern ... so they prescribe to satisfy even if the cure could be accomplished without medication (diet, exercise, abstinence from toxic habits). The VA system is also a "teaching system" in most part, involving medical interns from medical schools and are supported as well by all kinds of phamaceutical companies running trials and tests developing and documenting new treatment protocols. This does tend to push medications, he is correct. But it's not to drive profit at the VA because there isn't any profit motive.
2. What "previous system?" There was no "system." Just a chaos cage match of greed. Obamacare, despite all its flaws, was the best that could be engineered and it considerably slowed the rise of health care costs as previously shown in this discussion with many links of proof analysis. While some peoples' costs have gone up, overall cost trajectories have been seriously checked.
3. Yes, as just demonstrated in the previous post, HRC took the most recent position that UHC could not get through congress - so she opposed Sanders' trying that again. That is not the same as being "against UHC" ideologically, as you have been inferring. She was all for it - just didn't believe it could pass.
4. Yes, most everyone knows the realities of the DNC so why do you continue to try to re-prove what no one is arguing against? Especially in context where there is no context to the topic?
5. Your posts often don't reflect that you "follow politics closely" with any comprehension. You'd do well to read Wikipedia historical summaries wherever they are relevant and compiled with appropriate sourcing. For instance you have just been declaring that progressives only want to convolute UHC and that HRC opposed UHC when in fact history clearly demonstrates otherwise.
1) No I asked him again for the sake of this thread and he specifically said they are pressured to prescribe to help their budget.
2) Obamacare has increased premiums triple digits and increased deductibles and lowered co-pays.
3) HRC wanted to double down on Obamacare and strongly believes the wealthy should not receive benefits whether it's healthcare or college tuition credits etc.
4) Because you keep bringing it up, drop it.
5) I follow the candidates and watch them in full. If you get your news/information from wikipedia, cnn, huffington post, fox news, facebook etc then you'd think I don't follow closely because they are so biased and only take snippets to meet their agenda.
do you use dental insurance? the govt doesn't get involved and yet it's still expensive
Very true. So much of health care insurance -- and dental insurance -- is provided through employers as a legacy from WWII. For decades, end customers have been divorced from knowing the costs of end procedures. With dentistry, at least, it is fairly simple to call & find out how much a dentist charges for a crown or for teeth cleaning. It is tough to get an analogous answer on the medical side.
Challenged you before on this. Easy to post a wisecrack. Back up your criticism with specific points you find untrue in the specific piece linked. Wikipedia can be lousy with error and bias. It can also be spot on accurate. It is up to the reader to verify whatever citations are included ... or confirm with verification research. Which have you done to debunk the link?
Thought so ...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
