Why Trump is the worst President in modern history

[Teddy B 17,252]

6 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

whew. thank you so much for that. i was starting to feel about squirrely.

 

 

Speakin of squirrel, what's the blue plate special at Val's sammich shop tomorrow?

[smilesammich 10,727]

8 minutes ago, Teddy B said:

Speakin of squirrel, what's the blue plate special at Val's sammich shop tomorrow?

[IAMX 3,055]

33 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Again, not really saying single payer is bad, just pointing out it is not perfect.

Indeed. No system is perfect, but if I were to compare, I'd say Canada's system is far above and beyond the USA's system of healthcare, having had a laundry list of emergent and non-emergent care done in more than once province in Canada in the 6 years I've lived here.

 

The problems I see in Canada are very typical of countries with universal.. because populations change, resources need to be shifted. But at very least they have a handle on the actual costs of care. We can't say the same thing about the US. It's completely out of control and has been this way for longer than I've been alive.

Edited June 1, 2017 by IAMX

[JimandChristy 1,689]

[Teddy B 17,252]

1 minute ago, smilesammich said:

I'll take two and hold the peanut butter.

[smilesammich 10,727]

16 minutes ago, Teddy B said:

I'll take two and hold the peanut butter.

oh yeah. i got five on it.

 

[Bugs 455]

5 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

So it will be healthcare for those that aren't seriously sick.  If you do get sick, just wait a year or so and maybe you can see a specialist, or surgeon, or maybe you will die.  Actually, if you die, that will be the best for the single payer entity right?

 

I expect we will end up with single payer which appears be something President Trump is for.  I just hope everyone understands that wait times for serious illnesses will increase, just look at Canada.

 

Ah yes, the "wait times" argument.

 

Thing is, it really isn't an argument, just a minor gripe.  Sure, nobody likes to wait too long for anything, whether it's at stoplights, in a bank line, at the grocery register, or, heck, even for USCIS here.  But it doesn't mean people start clamoring to bring down the entire system - it just means people want to see the wait times fixed up a bit and shortened.

 

If you ask the vast majority of Canadians, as well as those from all other developed nations currently under a single payer system - yes, including those who hate waiting - they look at our system of health care with sheer horror and cannot imagine ever being forced off essential care or health care entirely due to unaffordability or pre-existing conditions. They would literally laugh out loud in your face if you ever asked if they were willing to switch their system to ours.

 

Heck, believe it or not even Americans are now back on board with a single payer system:

 

 

The only reason we still have yet to see its passage despite the above is due to the well-oiled corporate machine that has Washington in a complete stranglehold, a machine in where insurance companies freely spend on campaigns and publicly blow out of proportion petty issues in single payer systems, such as the "wait times" and grandiosely perpetuate these lies to scare Americans off.  They have done before with health care, they have done it with global warming, they have done it with banking regulation, and they will certainly do it again if single payer health care returns to the table.  See the dip in the chart above?  That is the result of what they did when universal health care was still on the table in early Obamacare talks.

 

Get rid of the ridiculous propaganda machine and I have absolutely zero doubt we would have already had a single payer system yesterday.  

 

It is really the most sane and economical solution.

 

Despite the "wait times."

 

[IAMX 3,055]

44 minutes ago, Leon & Mylen said:

 

Ah yes, the "wait times" argument.

 

Thing is, it really isn't an argument, just a minor gripe.  Sure, nobody likes to wait too long for anything, whether it's at stoplights, in a bank line, at the grocery register, or, heck, even for USCIS here.  But it doesn't mean people start clamoring to bring down the entire system - it just means people want to see the wait times fixed up a bit and shortened.

 

If you ask the vast majority of Canadians, as well as those from all other developed nations currently under a single payer system - yes, including those who hate waiting - they look at our system of health care with sheer horror and cannot imagine ever being forced off essential care or health care entirely due to unaffordability or pre-existing conditions. They would literally laugh out loud in your face if you ever asked if they were willing to switch their system to ours.

 

Heck, believe it or not even Americans are now back on board with a single payer system:

 

 

The only reason we still have yet to see its passage despite the above is due to the well-oiled corporate machine that has Washington in a complete stranglehold, a machine in where insurance companies freely spend on campaigns and publicly blow out of proportion petty issues in single payer systems, such as the "wait times" and grandiosely perpetuate these lies to scare Americans off.  They have done before with health care, they have done it with global warming, they have done it with banking regulation, and they will certainly do it again if single payer health care returns to the table.  See the dip in the chart above?  That is the result of what they did when universal health care was still on the table in early Obamacare talks.

 

Get rid of the ridiculous propaganda machine and I have absolutely zero doubt we would have already had a single payer system yesterday.  

 

It is really the most sane and economical solution.

 

Despite the "wait times."

 

The wait times thing cited by the right often comes from emergency services, and there it makes no sense, but yes, from Canadians it's a common complaint regarding wait times for non emergent care. OTOH, the thing is, a lot of those in Canada who complain like to pretend to be in triage and self-assess or self-diagnose. That's not how it works in any first world country. You don't get to decide when and where you get emergency medical care if you want it funded, whether it be private insurance or universal. It's assessed in the hospital by triage.

 

To address the concern for US universal healthcare, I like the idea, but the lefts arguments are often bad. There is no stated right to healthcare. Polls are irrelevant. The most logical two ways to get it would be 1) Federally, US Constitutional amendment, passed by supermajority of states and both Congressional chambers, or 2) State universal healthcare. But states like California with their insane costs for it are doomed to fail if their healthcare plan comes to fruition. 

[Bugs 455]

8 minutes ago, IAMX said:

The wait times thing cited by the right often comes from emergency services, and there it makes no sense, but yes, from Canadians it's a common complaint regarding wait times for non emergent care. OTOH, the thing is, a lot of those in Canada who complain like to pretend to be in triage and self-assess or self-diagnose. That's not how it works in any first world country. You don't get to decide when and where you get emergency medical care if you want it funded, whether it be private insurance or universal. It's assessed in the hospital by triage.

 

To address the concern for US universal healthcare, I like the idea, but the lefts arguments are often bad. There is no stated right to healthcare. Polls are irrelevant. The most logical two ways to get it would be 1) Federally, US Constitutional amendment, passed by supermajority of states and both Congressional chambers, or 2) State universal healthcare. But states like California with their insane costs for it are doomed to fail if their healthcare plan comes to fruition. 

 

We don't need a constitutional amendment to install universal health care.  It just needs to be passed in a bill and paid for by taxation.

 

Yes, taxes will need to be increased for it to be viable.  But the amount paid in taxes would be less than what employers and individuals currently pay the insurance companies.

 

The benefits of course will be guaranteed care and zero sticker shock.  I don't mind the wait time for such an ease of mind on that.  Canadians will say the same.

 

 

 

Edited June 1, 2017 by Leon & Mylen

[IAMX 3,055]

5 minutes ago, Leon & Mylen said:

 

We don't need a constitutional amendment to install universal health care.  It just needs to be passed in a bill and paid for by taxation.

 

Yes, taxes will need to be increased for it to be viable.  But the amount paid in taxes would be less than what employers and individuals currently pay the insurance companies.

 

The benefits of course will be guaranteed care and zero sticker shock.  I don't mind the wait time for such an ease of mind on that.  Canadians will say the same.

 

 

 

Then a bill can undo it. Or legal challenges. Given the insane amount of clout the insurance industry has, good luck at ever having universal by a bill being passed, unless it comes in the form of a single payer mandate to the insurance industry like Ogarbagecare.

Edited June 1, 2017 by IAMX

[Bugs 455]

6 minutes ago, IAMX said:

Then a bill can undo it. Or legal challenges.

 

Of course.  But once a social safety net system is in place, it is extremely difficult to reverse it.  Ask Social Security, Medicare, etc, and ask all the developed nations that have universal care.

 

Legal precedent, as well as the Constitution itself, has has already established the US Government can pay for the welfare of Americans through taxation.

 

I have no concerns regarding either.

 

 

Edited June 1, 2017 by Leon & Mylen

[IAMX 3,055]

5 minutes ago, Leon & Mylen said:

 

Of course.  But once a social safety net system is in place, it is extremely difficult to reverse it.  Ask Social Security, Medicare, etc, and ask all the developed nations that have universal care.

 

Legal precedent has has already established the US Government can pay for the welfare of Americans through taxation.

 

I have no concerns regarding either.

While that social safety net you describe exists for SSI, Medicare, and so on, there's no social safety net for universal. 

 

The best example of the social safety net I can immediately think of is that virtually no politician in the country would run on the premise of completely gutting SSI, Medicare, and so on. However, in much of the country, it wouldn't affect their ability to get elected whatsoever by not promising this. 

 

Compare to Canadian conservatives.. every time they run on the premise of privatizing healthcare, they get a dump taken on them. They know better than to do it, so in this instance, it's a social safety net.

 

Too many Americans in the US don't want it, and for good reason, they don't trust their government. Other countries have different relationships with their government, but I don't see the light at the end of the tunnel for the US getting universal in my lifetime. Only possibly certain states, at best.

Edited June 1, 2017 by IAMX

[CaliCat 3,957]

3 hours ago, JimandChristy said:

 

Absolutely brilliant! This deserves a triple swig.  +1220!!!

[CaliCat 3,957]

2 hours ago, Teddy B said:

I'll take two and hold the peanut butter.

 

 

I'll have mine with snowflakes! LOL.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

The thing I hate about healthcare threads is it is hard to tell MDR from MDL