On 6/18/2021 8:52 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:> Fred Bloggs wrote: >> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 5:54:53 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote: >>> I frequent early retirement groups. Most of the posters have one or >>> more millions and are living of of the growth and dividends. >>> >>> All fine and good, but they are also very keen to control their >>> incomes to stay at a level to get a nice subsidy on their healthcare >>> insurance. >>> >>> The thread today had at least 20 of those happy millionaires >>> responding with glee that the ACA is still with us. >>> >>> My response, >>> >>> "Just to be contrarian, this is great! A bunch of millionaires happy >>> that people making $50k are paying part of their healthcare premium. >>> >>> And, the poor have coverage, but can't afford the deductible." >> >> The poor squander their incomes and have no concept of saving, that's >> why they can't afford the deductible. Sounds like you've bought into >> the everyone-is-a-victim fiction. > > The working poor have to pay social security and pay for many taxes > indirectly. That's why they can't save. Everyone is a victim of big > government. > >Big government victimizes the poor, small government devotes its limited resources to exterminating them, the only sunk cost into "social welfare" is the cost of a bullet, a very efficient model of operation for a small government.
ACA case dismissed for no standing.
Started by ●June 17, 2021
Reply by ●June 19, 20212021-06-19
Reply by ●June 19, 20212021-06-19
On 6/18/2021 8:57 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:> amdx wrote: >> I frequent early retirement groups. Most of the posters have one or >> more millions and are living of of the growth and dividends. >> >> All fine and good, but they are also very keen to control their >> incomes to stay at a level to get a nice subsidy on their healthcare >> insurance. >> The thread today had at least 20 of those happy millionaires >> responding with glee that the ACA is still with us. > > So the millionaires are glad they have Democrats in office. Obviously > they have no clue that those Democrats are moving very rapidly toward > wealth confiscation. Boy are they gonna be surprised when they have to > come out of retirement. > >Seems unlikely, like 75% of American men would sign up to take jizz-facials all day from anyone who claimed they had a million dollars, just in case the secret to having a million themselves was contained in the spunk.
Reply by ●June 19, 20212021-06-19
On 6/18/2021 7:37 PM, amdx wrote:> On 6/18/2021 2:44 PM, Fred Bloggs wrote: >> On Friday, June 18, 2021 at 11:37:26 AM UTC-4, amdx wrote: >>> On 6/18/2021 10:16 AM, Fred Bloggs wrote: >>>> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 5:54:53 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote: >>>>> I frequent early retirement groups. Most of the posters have one or >>>>> more >>>>> millions and are living of of the growth and dividends. >>>>> >>>>> All fine and good, but they are also very keen to control their >>>>> incomes >>>>> to stay at a level to get a nice subsidy on their healthcare >>>>> insurance. >>>>> >>>>> The thread today had at least 20 of those happy millionaires >>>>> responding >>>>> with glee that the ACA is still with us. >>>>> >>>>> My response, >>>>> >>>>> "Just to be contrarian, this is great! A bunch of millionaires happy >>>>> that people making $50k are paying part of their healthcare premium. >>>>> >>>>> And, the poor have coverage, but can't afford the deductible." >>>> The poor squander their incomes and have no concept of saving >>>> that's why they can't afford the deductible. >>>> >>>> I agree with that, depending on what poor means. >>>> >>>> Savings is a concept that many middle income and high income >>>> individuals have a problem with. >>>> >>> Some poor, just plain don't have any money left after housing and food. >> Are those the poor where both parents can't care for themselves, and >> then between the two of them have six similarly inferior children that >> the taxpayer is supposed to subsidize? Subsidizing this atrocious >> situation with very generous tax credits explains why budget deficits >> are now measured in trillions and not just billions. > > I'm on your side on this (although your demeanor has me wondering if > this is the real Fred Bloggs) > > We have 43% of the workers that pay no Federal Income taxes and many of > those get money back they never paid in. > > I think Financial education should start in Middle school.Looks like the Dems are up to something: <https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/national/rhode-island-to-require-students-to-take-financial-literacy-classes>>>> I'll freely admit, I'm probably the dumb one, I have probably paid >>> over $70k in extra insurance premiums, >>> >>> since 2012, because I avoided the ACA and kept a private plan the whole >>> time. I could have got a large subsidy. >> How come none of those crooks told you about subsidies all that time? > > Oh I knew about it, I was against the ACA and hoped it would get > thrown out. I voted with my wallet. > > > Mikek > > >
Reply by ●June 19, 20212021-06-19
bitrex wrote:> On 6/18/2021 8:57 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote: >> amdx wrote: >>> I frequent early retirement groups. Most of the posters have one or >>> more millions and are living of of the growth and dividends. >>> >>> All fine and good, but they are also very keen to control their >>> incomes to stay at a level to get a nice subsidy on their healthcare >>> insurance. >>> The thread today had at least 20 of those happy millionaires >>> responding with glee that the ACA is still with us. >> >> So the millionaires are glad they have Democrats in office. Obviously >> they have no clue that those Democrats are moving very rapidly toward >> wealth confiscation. Boy are they gonna be surprised when they have >> to come out of retirement. >> >> > > Seems unlikely, like 75% of American men would sign up to take > jizz-facials all day from anyone who claimed they had a million > dollars, just in case the secret to having a million themselves was > contained in the spunk.1 - That's not germane to what I said. 2 - Talking like a ghetto teenager is not likely to keep you young in the way you want. -- Defund the Thought Police
Reply by ●June 19, 20212021-06-19
amdx wrote:> On 6/18/2021 7:52 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote: >> Fred Bloggs wrote: >>> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 5:54:53 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote: >>>> I frequent early retirement groups. Most of the posters have one or >>>> more millions and are living of of the growth and dividends. >>>> >>>> All fine and good, but they are also very keen to control their >>>> incomes to stay at a level to get a nice subsidy on their >>>> healthcare insurance. >>>> >>>> The thread today had at least 20 of those happy millionaires >>>> responding with glee that the ACA is still with us. >>>> >>>> My response, >>>> >>>> "Just to be contrarian, this is great! A bunch of millionaires >>>> happy that people making $50k are paying part of their healthcare >>>> premium. And, the poor have coverage, but can't afford the >>>> deductible." >>> The poor squander their incomes and have no concept of saving, >>> that's why they can't afford the deductible. Sounds like you've >>> bought into the everyone-is-a-victim fiction. >> The working poor have to pay social security and pay for many taxes >> indirectly. That's why they can't save. Everyone is a victim of big >> government. >> >> > Do you honestly think that if the poor had an additional 7.55% in > their checks they would actually save it?The smart ones used to. The others had less. You are not going to change the fact that dumb people have less.> Social Security is the best thing they have going for them. They get a > disability policy, they get their children taken care of if they die,Wives and children have other means. They just don't use them like they used to. Before 1936 wives and children did not drop dead right after their father did.> they get their wife taken care of if they die and they get a > retirement policy for their old age.What they really get is a scam that has always been a Ponsi scheme and, since 1968, has had a "fund" filled with IOU's. -- Defund the Thought Police
Reply by ●June 19, 20212021-06-19
On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 12:25:31 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:> amdx wrote: > > On 6/18/2021 7:52 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote: > >> Fred Bloggs wrote: > >>> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 5:54:53 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote: > >>>> I frequent early retirement groups. Most of the posters have one or > >>>> more millions and are living of of the growth and dividends. > >>>> > >>>> All fine and good, but they are also very keen to control their > >>>> incomes to stay at a level to get a nice subsidy on their > >>>> healthcare insurance. > >>>> > >>>> The thread today had at least 20 of those happy millionaires > >>>> responding with glee that the ACA is still with us. > >>>> > >>>> My response, > >>>> > >>>> "Just to be contrarian, this is great! A bunch of millionaires > >>>> happy that people making $50k are paying part of their healthcare > >>>> premium. And, the poor have coverage, but can't afford the > >>>> deductible." > >>> The poor squander their incomes and have no concept of saving, > >>> that's why they can't afford the deductible. Sounds like you've > >>> bought into the everyone-is-a-victim fiction. > >> The working poor have to pay social security and pay for many taxes > >> indirectly. That's why they can't save. Everyone is a victim of big > >> government. > >> > >> > > Do you honestly think that if the poor had an additional 7.55% in > > their checks they would actually save it? > The smart ones used to. The others had less. You are not going to change > the fact that dumb people have less. > > Social Security is the best thing they have going for them. They get a > > disability policy, they get their children taken care of if they die, > Wives and children have other means. They just don't use them like they > used to. > > Before 1936 wives and children did not drop dead right after their > father did. > > they get their wife taken care of if they die and they get a > > retirement policy for their old age. > What they really get is a scam that has always been a Ponsi scheme and, > since 1968, has had a "fund" filled with IOU's.That's not a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme is an investment scheme where investors are let to expect a dividend or other profit but is funded only by new investors. The Social Security fund may lend money to the rest of the Federal government, but it is not an investment scheme where people expect to reap more than they sowed and there is no reason to think the US government is not good for its debts. The actions of the Social Security fund are no different than company pension plans investing in bonds or the stock market. Again, not a Ponzi scheme. These are only Ponzi schemes if you don't know what a Ponzi scheme is. -- Rick C. ++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging ++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Reply by ●June 19, 20212021-06-19
On Friday, June 18, 2021 at 8:23:40 PM UTC-4, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:> On Friday, June 18, 2021 at 7:42:21 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote: > > On 6/18/2021 4:24 PM, Rick C wrote: > > > On Friday, June 18, 2021 at 11:37:26 AM UTC-4, amdx wrote: > > >> On 6/18/2021 10:16 AM, Fred Bloggs wrote: > > >>> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 5:54:53 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote: > > >>>> I frequent early retirement groups. Most of the posters have one or more > > >>>> millions and are living of of the growth and dividends. > > >>>> > > >>>> All fine and good, but they are also very keen to control their incomes > > >>>> to stay at a level to get a nice subsidy on their healthcare insurance. > > >>>> > > >>>> The thread today had at least 20 of those happy millionaires responding > > >>>> with glee that the ACA is still with us. > > >>>> > > >>>> My response, > > >>>> > > >>>> "Just to be contrarian, this is great! A bunch of millionaires happy > > >>>> that people making $50k are paying part of their healthcare premium. > > >>>> > > >>>> And, the poor have coverage, but can't afford the deductible." > > >>> The poor squander their incomes and have no concept of saving > > >>> that's why they can't afford the deductible. > > >>> > > >>> I agree with that, depending on what poor means. > > >>> > > >>> Savings is a concept that many middle income and high income > > >>> individuals have a problem with. > > >>> > > >> Some poor, just plain don't have any money left after housing and food. > > >>> Sounds like you've bought into the everyone-is-a-victim fiction. > > >> Ah, not really. My main point was that people with a net worth in the > > >> top 10% are structuring > > >> > > >> their income to take advantage of subsidies on their healthcare > > >> insurance. Paid for by people that > > >> > > >> have much less and earn a middle class income. > > >> > > >> I'll freely admit, I'm probably the dumb one, I have probably paid > > >> over $70k in extra insurance premiums, > > >> > > >> since 2012, because I avoided the ACA and kept a private plan the whole > > >> time. I could have got a large subsidy. > > > It's always easy peasy to point out problems. It's also easy peasy to come up with lame, knee jerk solutions like Larkin tends to do. But you don't even try. > > > > > > My solution is universal health care like they have in most civilized countries. Then everyone gets all the treatment they need and it is back to paying according to your ability... well, as much as the tax system is structured for that. > > > > > > It would not require much extra taxes, at least beyond what is paid out today. Those who are currently covered under employers' plans would essentially be covered by the employer paying into funding universal health care just as they today pay for insurance. Those who are covered by Medicare or Medicaid would not change. That covers the lion's share of medical costs. The remainder of uninsured would need to be covered by some extra taxes collected. Or, maybe the savings of eliminating the medical insurance industry would cover that. > > > > > > There are many details to figure out for sure, but it's not an intractable problem. That would completely remove the minimum income goal for the retired, well, from the medical insurance aspect at least. They still want to minimize their taxes in general. > > > > > This is like college loans, the government gets involved and all the > > easy money drives up costs. > You did not understand a single word I wrote. Universal healthcare would do the opposite because it would be paid for by the government, not the patients and like Medicare, the payments would be controlled. Most likely a workable system would result in most healthcare professionals working for a universal healthcare system like the NHS in Britain.Public insurance is not working very well in US right now, as measured by treatment outcomes. It's significantly worse, as in way worse. Going universal is the fastest way to destroy health care in America. All these stories you hear about wonderful public health care in more socialist countries is total fantasy. Public employment and regulation of the work environment turns people into apathetic and incompetent loiterers. Everyone raves about Sweden, but if you're over 70 and become seriously ill with COVID there, they put you on the drug induced euthanasia program- whether you want it or not. You and your family have no say in the matter. Most Americans wouldn't put up with these other national systems for 5 minutes. Universally available public insurance works, but Americans better avoid universal health care if they know what's good for them.> > Same with healthcare. Subsides are not the fix, lower costs and the rate > > of increases is. > I'm not talking about subsidies. I'm talking about drop kicking the existing system, getting rid of insurance (which IS subsidized) replacing it with a single payer system. Most politicians say "Medicare for all", but I think Medicare is a mess. WAY TOO COMPLICATED. In most countries you might want to live in health care is just paid for. No fuss, no muss. Can't get much more simple. > > -- > > Rick C. > > +- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging > +- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Reply by ●June 19, 20212021-06-19
On 6/19/2021 12:17 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:> bitrex wrote: >> On 6/18/2021 8:57 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote: >>> amdx wrote: >>>> I frequent early retirement groups. Most of the posters have one or >>>> more millions and are living of of the growth and dividends. >>>> >>>> All fine and good, but they are also very keen to control their >>>> incomes to stay at a level to get a nice subsidy on their healthcare >>>> insurance. >>>> The thread today had at least 20 of those happy millionaires >>>> responding with glee that the ACA is still with us. >>> >>> So the millionaires are glad they have Democrats in office. Obviously >>> they have no clue that those Democrats are moving very rapidly toward >>> wealth confiscation. Boy are they gonna be surprised when they have >>> to come out of retirement. >>> >>> >> >> Seems unlikely, like 75% of American men would sign up to take >> jizz-facials all day from anyone who claimed they had a million >> dollars, just in case the secret to having a million themselves was >> contained in the spunk. > > 1 - That's not germane to what I said. > > 2 - Talking like a ghetto teenager is not likely to keep you young in > the way you want. > >I think anyone waiting on the Dems to "confiscate wealth" is going to be disappointed, are they going to "steal" from themselves? Lol
Reply by ●June 19, 20212021-06-19
On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 1:11:20 PM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:> On Friday, June 18, 2021 at 8:23:40 PM UTC-4, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Friday, June 18, 2021 at 7:42:21 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote: > > > On 6/18/2021 4:24 PM, Rick C wrote: > > > > On Friday, June 18, 2021 at 11:37:26 AM UTC-4, amdx wrote: > > > >> On 6/18/2021 10:16 AM, Fred Bloggs wrote: > > > >>> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 5:54:53 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote: > > > >>>> I frequent early retirement groups. Most of the posters have one or more > > > >>>> millions and are living of of the growth and dividends. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> All fine and good, but they are also very keen to control their incomes > > > >>>> to stay at a level to get a nice subsidy on their healthcare insurance. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> The thread today had at least 20 of those happy millionaires responding > > > >>>> with glee that the ACA is still with us. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> My response, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> "Just to be contrarian, this is great! A bunch of millionaires happy > > > >>>> that people making $50k are paying part of their healthcare premium. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> And, the poor have coverage, but can't afford the deductible." > > > >>> The poor squander their incomes and have no concept of saving > > > >>> that's why they can't afford the deductible. > > > >>> > > > >>> I agree with that, depending on what poor means. > > > >>> > > > >>> Savings is a concept that many middle income and high income > > > >>> individuals have a problem with. > > > >>> > > > >> Some poor, just plain don't have any money left after housing and food. > > > >>> Sounds like you've bought into the everyone-is-a-victim fiction. > > > >> Ah, not really. My main point was that people with a net worth in the > > > >> top 10% are structuring > > > >> > > > >> their income to take advantage of subsidies on their healthcare > > > >> insurance. Paid for by people that > > > >> > > > >> have much less and earn a middle class income. > > > >> > > > >> I'll freely admit, I'm probably the dumb one, I have probably paid > > > >> over $70k in extra insurance premiums, > > > >> > > > >> since 2012, because I avoided the ACA and kept a private plan the whole > > > >> time. I could have got a large subsidy. > > > > It's always easy peasy to point out problems. It's also easy peasy to come up with lame, knee jerk solutions like Larkin tends to do. But you don't even try. > > > > > > > > My solution is universal health care like they have in most civilized countries. Then everyone gets all the treatment they need and it is back to paying according to your ability... well, as much as the tax system is structured for that. > > > > > > > > It would not require much extra taxes, at least beyond what is paid out today. Those who are currently covered under employers' plans would essentially be covered by the employer paying into funding universal health care just as they today pay for insurance. Those who are covered by Medicare or Medicaid would not change. That covers the lion's share of medical costs. The remainder of uninsured would need to be covered by some extra taxes collected. Or, maybe the savings of eliminating the medical insurance industry would cover that. > > > > > > > > There are many details to figure out for sure, but it's not an intractable problem. That would completely remove the minimum income goal for the retired, well, from the medical insurance aspect at least. They still want to minimize their taxes in general. > > > > > > > This is like college loans, the government gets involved and all the > > > easy money drives up costs. > > You did not understand a single word I wrote. Universal healthcare would do the opposite because it would be paid for by the government, not the patients and like Medicare, the payments would be controlled. Most likely a workable system would result in most healthcare professionals working for a universal healthcare system like the NHS in Britain. > Public insurance is not working very well in US right now, as measured by treatment outcomes. It's significantly worse, as in way worse. Going universal is the fastest way to destroy health care in America.Sorry, I don't follow that. You say insurance is terrible, but universal health care would be worse? Then what's plan C that would be better that either of these? Outlawing insurance and making everyone pay their own way?> All these stories you hear about wonderful public health care in more socialist countries is total fantasy. Public employment and regulation of the work environment turns people into apathetic and incompetent loiterers. Everyone raves about Sweden, but if you're over 70 and become seriously ill with COVID there, they put you on the drug induced euthanasia program- whether you want it or not. You and your family have no say in the matter. Most Americans wouldn't put up with these other national systems for 5 minutes.What treatment is provided in the US that is withheld in Sweden? How is that driven by the fact of universal healthcare? Are they doing the same thing in Canada, the UK and all the many countries that have universal health care or is it just Sweden? Can you separate facts from your emotions?> Universally available public insurance works, but Americans better avoid universal health care if they know what's good for them.What is universal insurance??? The problem is paying for insurance. Are you saying we need to keep the ACA? What about the huge cost of insurance in the healthcare system? I don't mean the payments, I mean the cost of administrating insurance which provides zero benefit and actually limits health care in exactly the way you describe above. A dear friend of mine was denied coverage for a leukemia treatment that was working. The insurance company paid at first, then declined. She died. Others go bankrupt when the insurance stops paying for various reasons. Insurance is great until you get sick. Then look out.> > > Same with healthcare. Subsides are not the fix, lower costs and the rate > > > of increases is. > > I'm not talking about subsidies. I'm talking about drop kicking the existing system, getting rid of insurance (which IS subsidized) replacing it with a single payer system. Most politicians say "Medicare for all", but I think Medicare is a mess. WAY TOO COMPLICATED. In most countries you might want to live in health care is just paid for. No fuss, no muss. Can't get much more simple.So what's wrong with universal health care? Do you have any real arguments against it that aren't about the death panels? -- Rick C. --- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging --- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Reply by ●June 19, 20212021-06-19
On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 2:10:26 PM UTC-4, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:> On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 1:11:20 PM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote: > > On Friday, June 18, 2021 at 8:23:40 PM UTC-4, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Friday, June 18, 2021 at 7:42:21 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote: > > > > On 6/18/2021 4:24 PM, Rick C wrote: > > > > > On Friday, June 18, 2021 at 11:37:26 AM UTC-4, amdx wrote: > > > > >> On 6/18/2021 10:16 AM, Fred Bloggs wrote: > > > > >>> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 5:54:53 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote: > > > > >>>> I frequent early retirement groups. Most of the posters have one or more > > > > >>>> millions and are living of of the growth and dividends. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> All fine and good, but they are also very keen to control their incomes > > > > >>>> to stay at a level to get a nice subsidy on their healthcare insurance. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> The thread today had at least 20 of those happy millionaires responding > > > > >>>> with glee that the ACA is still with us. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> My response, > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> "Just to be contrarian, this is great! A bunch of millionaires happy > > > > >>>> that people making $50k are paying part of their healthcare premium. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> And, the poor have coverage, but can't afford the deductible." > > > > >>> The poor squander their incomes and have no concept of saving > > > > >>> that's why they can't afford the deductible. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I agree with that, depending on what poor means. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Savings is a concept that many middle income and high income > > > > >>> individuals have a problem with. > > > > >>> > > > > >> Some poor, just plain don't have any money left after housing and food. > > > > >>> Sounds like you've bought into the everyone-is-a-victim fiction. > > > > >> Ah, not really. My main point was that people with a net worth in the > > > > >> top 10% are structuring > > > > >> > > > > >> their income to take advantage of subsidies on their healthcare > > > > >> insurance. Paid for by people that > > > > >> > > > > >> have much less and earn a middle class income. > > > > >> > > > > >> I'll freely admit, I'm probably the dumb one, I have probably paid > > > > >> over $70k in extra insurance premiums, > > > > >> > > > > >> since 2012, because I avoided the ACA and kept a private plan the whole > > > > >> time. I could have got a large subsidy. > > > > > It's always easy peasy to point out problems. It's also easy peasy to come up with lame, knee jerk solutions like Larkin tends to do. But you don't even try. > > > > > > > > > > My solution is universal health care like they have in most civilized countries. Then everyone gets all the treatment they need and it is back to paying according to your ability... well, as much as the tax system is structured for that. > > > > > > > > > > It would not require much extra taxes, at least beyond what is paid out today. Those who are currently covered under employers' plans would essentially be covered by the employer paying into funding universal health care just as they today pay for insurance. Those who are covered by Medicare or Medicaid would not change. That covers the lion's share of medical costs. The remainder of uninsured would need to be covered by some extra taxes collected. Or, maybe the savings of eliminating the medical insurance industry would cover that. > > > > > > > > > > There are many details to figure out for sure, but it's not an intractable problem. That would completely remove the minimum income goal for the retired, well, from the medical insurance aspect at least. They still want to minimize their taxes in general. > > > > > > > > > This is like college loans, the government gets involved and all the > > > > easy money drives up costs. > > > You did not understand a single word I wrote. Universal healthcare would do the opposite because it would be paid for by the government, not the patients and like Medicare, the payments would be controlled. Most likely a workable system would result in most healthcare professionals working for a universal healthcare system like the NHS in Britain. > > Public insurance is not working very well in US right now, as measured by treatment outcomes. It's significantly worse, as in way worse. Going universal is the fastest way to destroy health care in America. > Sorry, I don't follow that. You say insurance is terrible, but universal health care would be worse? Then what's plan C that would be better that either of these? Outlawing insurance and making everyone pay their own way? > > All these stories you hear about wonderful public health care in more socialist countries is total fantasy. Public employment and regulation of the work environment turns people into apathetic and incompetent loiterers. Everyone raves about Sweden, but if you're over 70 and become seriously ill with COVID there, they put you on the drug induced euthanasia program- whether you want it or not. You and your family have no say in the matter. Most Americans wouldn't put up with these other national systems for 5 minutes. > What treatment is provided in the US that is withheld in Sweden? How is that driven by the fact of universal healthcare? Are they doing the same thing in Canada, the UK and all the many countries that have universal health care or is it just Sweden? Can you separate facts from your emotions? > > Universally available public insurance works, but Americans better avoid universal health care if they know what's good for them. > What is universal insurance??? The problem is paying for insurance. Are you saying we need to keep the ACA? What about the huge cost of insurance in the healthcare system? I don't mean the payments, I mean the cost of administrating insurance which provides zero benefit and actually limits health care in exactly the way you describe above. A dear friend of mine was denied coverage for a leukemia treatment that was working. The insurance company paid at first, then declined. She died. Others go bankrupt when the insurance stops paying for various reasons. Insurance is great until you get sick. Then look out. > > > > Same with healthcare. Subsides are not the fix, lower costs and the rate > > > > of increases is. > > > I'm not talking about subsidies. I'm talking about drop kicking the existing system, getting rid of insurance (which IS subsidized) replacing it with a single payer system. Most politicians say "Medicare for all", but I think Medicare is a mess. WAY TOO COMPLICATED. In most countries you might want to live in health care is just paid for. No fuss, no muss. Can't get much more simple. > So what's wrong with universal health care? Do you have any real arguments against it that aren't about the death panels?ACA is a half measure, originally a compromise with the insurance industry to get it passed. The legislation was written by a Wellpoint insurance executive, and full of a bunch of other political CRAP- like that phony Medicaid gap or whatever the idiots called it.. Universal insurance is Medicare, everyone qualifies, no exceptions, also known as Medicare For All, M4A.. The catch is it will cost 2x the estimates. Sanders' estimate, which the Stalinist bastard just scarfed up from other advocacy groups working on the issue for a long time, was $35T per 10 years, better plan on $70T minimum. You can double the Medicare tax, actually quadruple it, and no will notice because of the money they have left over from not having to pay for a private insurance plan. Right now Medicare is paying 50 cents on the dollar private insurance pays for the same service. This a joke and a ripoff. Every single hospital that tries to survive on majority patients on public insurance goes bankrupt, always, unless they're part of a bigger hospital system with lots of patients on private insurance that can absorb the loss. So if you don't want to lose health care availability, Medicare must double its payouts minimum. Absolutely no way, shape or form, do you want health care provided for by public employees or their supervised contractors. Look at the VA to see how well that works- a scandalous cesspool from hell, always has been going back 100 years. It's absolutely essential that health care remain in the private sector with all the resulting competition, initiative, innovation and constant improvement. Handing that over to government control will destroy it.> > -- > > Rick C. > > --- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging > --- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
