Healthcare

[MDlaxfan76]

Inaccurate. Again. I have.
There were inadequate oversight provisions and, not surprisingly, there was lots of favoritism, which Mnuchin tried to cover up.

What I don't understand is why you personally attack, making assumptions, often inaccurate, about others.

I also don't understand why you so frequently defended Trump and attacked the candidate running to replace him...so, I ask.

OK, great. Can you provide any links to your comments?

Have you even read the TAAATS thread? exactly

yeah, I support Trump. Just like I support Johns Hopkins lacrosse

You can do your own research, too many posts for me to bother. You saying I'm lying?
And I just said exactly what I think on that topic...again.

Yes, I've read some of the TAATS thread, though I found it too often full of self serving baloney. I just don't buy that we can't distinguish between behaviors, between individuals.

Doesn't mean that we can't find some commonalities, nor that critique should be avoided, but the notion that everything is equivalent doesn't fly with me.

[wgdsr]

The problem?

Lack of meaningful reform. If it works in Canada, Europe, Israel (a system you help underwrite every year), and Japan, it can work here just as readily. It's that simple.

what do you find the most compelling about what's working at these spots?
wait times?
physician, clinic/hospital choice?

you'd be up for many accessing private healthcare like many of them do as well, right?

[MDlaxfan76]

Inaccurate. Again. I have.
There were inadequate oversight provisions and, not surprisingly, there was lots of favoritism, which Mnuchin tried to cover up.

What I don't understand is why you personally attack, making assumptions, often inaccurate, about others.

I also don't understand why you so frequently defended Trump and attacked the candidate running to replace him...so, I ask.

Which candidate did I attack that ran against him? Tulsi Gabbard? Andrew Yang? Bernie ?


10, 616 people voted for Tulsi Gabbard in the Massachusettes Democratic primary. I was one of them.

As far as I can tell, the only "defending of trump" done by me is the disgusting 24/7 hate is hate that you love......most of it lies.

If you ask "what makes him a...." as defending someone, well, than you are just not a nice person and have an agenda.

You've consistently attacked Biden (have you ever posted anything positive about him?? perhaps, but I don't recall it).

Yeah, you loved you some Tulsi...who attacked Biden, and was well liked by Trumpists...

And you consistently attack anyone who criticizes Trump. You claim that your defense of Trump is just because you think any critique of him is 'hate' or 'fear porn' or...I'm not buying it.

I DO think you are very far left in some of your views, at least as expressed sometimes, but you also seem to be attracted to anyone who attacks the 'system', wants to tear it all down...eg Trump.

[ABV 8.3%]

Inaccurate. Again. I have.
There were inadequate oversight provisions and, not surprisingly, there was lots of favoritism, which Mnuchin tried to cover up.

What I don't understand is why you personally attack, making assumptions, often inaccurate, about others.

I also don't understand why you so frequently defended Trump and attacked the candidate running to replace him...so, I ask.

Which candidate did I attack that ran against him? Tulsi Gabbard? Andrew Yang? Bernie ?


10, 616 people voted for Tulsi Gabbard in the Massachusettes Democratic primary. I was one of them.

As far as I can tell, the only "defending of trump" done by me is the disgusting 24/7 hate is hate that you love......most of it lies.

If you ask "what makes him a...." as defending someone, well, than you are just not a nice person and have an agenda.

You've consistently attacked Biden (have you ever posted anything positive about him?? perhaps, but I don't recall it).

Yeah, you loved you some Tulsi...who attacked Biden, and was well liked by Trumpists...

And you consistently attack anyone who criticizes Trump. You claim that your defense of Trump is just because you think any critique of him is 'hate' or 'fear porn' or...I'm not buying it.

I DO think you are very far left in some of your views, at least as expressed sometimes, but you also seem to be attracted to anyone who attacks the 'system', wants to tear it all down...eg Trump.

why do you use the word attack?

Biden is very proud of his crime bill. Which is a racist bill.

Biden voted to kill people and spending trillions on that killling.

Biden voted for TARP

Biden voted for S & L bailout

I also would have voted for Yang. Is he yet another favorite of the trumpers?

Defend tRump? TOday, seacoaster posted a LIE. (that trump is going veto the NDAA because of some tweets )

Are you telling me that is accurate information? That trump is threatning a veto b/c of twitter? Hate is hate. Clearly, you think it's ok.

Again, dude, WITH GLEE, you announce that you have me on IGNORE.

stay classy.

It's amazing, if Trump was such a wretch, why did the Clintons go to his wedding? Just politics?

[ABV 8.3%]

Inaccurate. Again. I have.
There were inadequate oversight provisions and, not surprisingly, there was lots of favoritism, which Mnuchin tried to cover up.

What I don't understand is why you personally attack, making assumptions, often inaccurate, about others.

I also don't understand why you so frequently defended Trump and attacked the candidate running to replace him...so, I ask.

Which candidate did I attack that ran against him? Tulsi Gabbard? Andrew Yang? Bernie ?


10, 616 people voted for Tulsi Gabbard in the Massachusettes Democratic primary. I was one of them.

As far as I can tell, the only "defending of trump" done by me is the disgusting 24/7 hate is hate that you love......most of it lies.

If you ask "what makes him a...." as defending someone, well, than you are just not a nice person and have an agenda.

You've consistently attacked Biden (have you ever posted anything positive about him?? perhaps, but I don't recall it).

Yeah, you loved you some Tulsi...who attacked Biden, and was well liked by Trumpists...

And you consistently attack anyone who criticizes Trump. You claim that your defense of Trump is just because you think any critique of him is 'hate' or 'fear porn' or...I'm not buying it.

I DO think you are very far left in some of your views, at least as expressed sometimes, but you also seem to be attracted to anyone who attacks the 'system', wants to tear it all down...eg Trump.

why do you use the word attack?

Biden is very proud of his crime bill. Which is a racist bill.

Biden voted to kill people and spending trillions on that killling.

Biden voted for TARP

Biden voted for S & L bailout

I also would have voted for Yang. Is he yet another favorite of the trumpers?

Defend tRump? TOday, seacoaster posted a LIE. (that trump is going veto the NDAA because of some tweets )

Are you telling me that is accurate information? That trump is threatning a veto b/c of twitter? Hate is hate. Clearly, you think it's ok.

Again, dude, WITH GLEE, you announce that you have me on IGNORE.

stay classy.

It's amazing, if Trump was such a wretch, why did the Clintons go to his wedding? Just politics?

[MDlaxfan76]

Inaccurate. Again. I have.
There were inadequate oversight provisions and, not surprisingly, there was lots of favoritism, which Mnuchin tried to cover up.

What I don't understand is why you personally attack, making assumptions, often inaccurate, about others.

I also don't understand why you so frequently defended Trump and attacked the candidate running to replace him...so, I ask.

Which candidate did I attack that ran against him? Tulsi Gabbard? Andrew Yang? Bernie ?


10, 616 people voted for Tulsi Gabbard in the Massachusettes Democratic primary. I was one of them.

As far as I can tell, the only "defending of trump" done by me is the disgusting 24/7 hate is hate that you love......most of it lies.

If you ask "what makes him a...." as defending someone, well, than you are just not a nice person and have an agenda.

You've consistently attacked Biden (have you ever posted anything positive about him?? perhaps, but I don't recall it).

Yeah, you loved you some Tulsi...who attacked Biden, and was well liked by Trumpists...

And you consistently attack anyone who criticizes Trump. You claim that your defense of Trump is just because you think any critique of him is 'hate' or 'fear porn' or...I'm not buying it.

I DO think you are very far left in some of your views, at least as expressed sometimes, but you also seem to be attracted to anyone who attacks the 'system', wants to tear it all down...eg Trump.

why do you use the word attack?

Biden is very proud of his crime bill. Which is a racist bill.

Biden voted to kill people and spending trillions on that killling.

Biden voted for TARP

Biden voted for S & L bailout

I also would have voted for Yang. Is he yet another favorite of the trumpers?

Defend tRump? TOday, seacoaster posted a LIE. (that trump is going veto the NDAA because of some tweets )

Are you telling me that is accurate information? That trump is threatning a veto b/c of twitter? Hate is hate. Clearly, you think it's ok.

Again, dude, WITH GLEE, you announce that you have me on IGNORE.

stay classy.

It's amazing, if Trump was such a wretch, why did the Clintons go to his wedding? Just politics?

Defense of Trump alert.

[wgdsr]

threads are crazy town today.

LET'S GOOOOOO!

[ABV 8.3%]

Scandalous HIGH pay for healthcare execs......not a problem
Fauci all over the place.....not a problem
v19 testing, procedures, a mess....not a problem
trillion$ out the door, with not a care who got the money..not a problem
bankruptcy for getting your appendex removed........should have learned to code
Bayh/Dole act.......not a problem
NIH.....not a concern
v19 vaxx distribution guidelines non-existent......who cares.


What IS it about Joe Biden that has everyone all happy ? Didn't Joe create the student loan problem, with his fingerprints all over the impossibility to write off student loan debt, even in bankruptcy.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Scandalous HIGH pay for healthcare execs......not a problem
Fauci all over the place.....not a problem
v19 testing, procedures, a mess....not a problem
trillion$ out the door, with not a care who got the money..not a problem
bankruptcy for getting your appendex removed........should have learned to code
Bayh/Dole act.......not a problem
NIH.....not a concern
v19 vaxx distribution guidelines non-existent......who cares.


What IS it about Joe Biden that has everyone all happy ? Didn't Joe create the student loan problem, with his fingerprints all over the impossibility to write off student loan debt, even in bankruptcy.

He ain’t Trump?

[Brooklyn]

what do you find the most compelling about what's working at these spots?

The fact that they work, saves lives, and keep people from going bankrupt.

[wgdsr]

what do you find the most compelling about what's working at these spots?

The fact that they work, saves lives, and keep people from going bankrupt.

so no meaningful data on that, and a partial quote of mine that cuts off my question on stuff you don't like to address. got it! sounds like you think it works great!

[Brooklyn]

so no meaningful data on that, and a partial quote of mine that cuts off my question on stuff you don't like to address. got it! sounds like you think it works great!

I'm sure you have lots of ingenious reforms which would solve all the problems of the world that you wish to share with all of us. Kindly share them as we are only too anxious to know what they are.

[holmes435]

what do you find the most compelling about what's working at these spots?
wait times?
physician, clinic/hospital choice?

you'd be up for many accessing private healthcare like many of them do as well, right?

The most compelling thing is that every single person in those countries have comprehensive health care, and almost all places cost less than half per person of what it does here. No one loses coverage if they lose a job. That means healthier Americans who are able to contribute more to society. They aren't worried about whether to call an ambulance, or put off something until it requires an ER visit. Another compelling thing is that small and medium companies like mine (and even the big ones) don't have to worry about providing health insurance for our employees, and I can focus that money on innovating and building a better company.

Some places with universal health care have faster wait times than us, some have slower. Depends what you need or want done.

I'm not sure if places have more or less choice in hospitals or doctors, do you have any data on that? I know my choices are first of all dependent on my health insurance if I want to save a lot of money. And people here don't have much of a choice in doctor or hospital (or ambulance) for most emergencies. And good luck if they're out of network.

I personally am for anyone still being able to purchase supplemental insurance if we go to a Universal Insurance system. In most of those places, if you have the money you can certainly use it how you see fit to get private insurance or care.

I find the compelling things in universal systems far outweigh the occasional inconvenience, especially for the underserved or non-served here in the US. Are they perfect? Nope. Do they make more sense than our system? Yep.

[wgdsr]

so no meaningful data on that, and a partial quote of mine that cuts off my question on stuff you don't like to address. got it! sounds like you think it works great!

I'm sure you have lots of ingenious reforms which would solve all the problems of the world that you wish to share with all of us. Kindly share them as we are only too anxious to know what they are.

actually, i thought you had proferred. i didn't. 5 months wait seems good by you for necessary healthcare. you said that was working great. not me. your "reforms" that we pay thru gov't solves anything and everything bc you're altruistic and others aren't look to be tbd.

[a fan]

Another compelling thing is that small and medium companies like mine (and even the big ones) don't have to worry about providing health insurance for our employees, and I can focus that money on innovating and building a better company.

For a country that's supposed to be the best at capitalism, we sure do suck at it these days......

Nothing is more fun for me than competing with other 1st world countries, where their workers show up with both health care and training paid for by their governments. AT SOME POINT we're going to wake up to how stupid that is, right?

Right.

[wgdsr]

what do you find the most compelling about what's working at these spots?
wait times?
physician, clinic/hospital choice?

you'd be up for many accessing private healthcare like many of them do as well, right?

The most compelling thing is that every single person in those countries have comprehensive health care, and almost all places cost less than half per person of what it does here. No one loses coverage if they lose a job. That means healthier Americans who are able to contribute more to society. They aren't worried about whether to call an ambulance, or put off something until it requires an ER visit. Another compelling thing is that small and medium companies like mine (and even the big ones) don't have to worry about providing health insurance for our employees, and I can focus that money on innovating and building a better company.

Some places with universal health care have faster wait times than us, some have slower. Depends what you need or want done.

I'm not sure if places have more or less choice in hospitals or doctors, do you have any data on that? I know my choices are first of all dependent on my health insurance if I want to save a lot of money. And people here don't have much of a choice in doctor or hospital (or ambulance) for most emergencies. And good luck if they're out of network.

I personally am for anyone still being able to purchase supplemental insurance if we go to a Universal Insurance system. In most of those places, if you have the money you can certainly use it how you see fit to get private insurance or care.

I find the compelling things in universal systems far outweigh the occasional inconvenience, especially for the underserved or non-served here in the US. Are they perfect? Nope. Do they make more sense than our system? Yep.

can you quote where you get your number on almost all places less than half? i saw u.s is $11k + per capita. and spending more for healthcare is bad?

canada that brook quoted, per fraser institute is at 21 weeks for necessary procedures and healthcare. not elective. average. do you find that to be the case in your experience?

i can read that you have to claim a gp (looked at 5 countries) and then you are at their discretion for referrals. and that in most of these countries, physicians put in their minimum time for state run stuff and prioritize private where they can get paid.

do i think most people that spout off about state run success are people that maybe haven't done homework? i do. is our own healthcare system a win across the board? no.

do we have something to lose if we nick (maybe a lot) innovation by cutting biotech's ability to get paid on drug and other co's medical advancement development? we do. imo.

do i wish for and hope for an equitable solution that serves us all? i do.

[a fan]

can you quote where you get your number on almost all places less than half? i saw u.s is $11k + per capita. and spending more for healthcare is bad?

Yes. It's bad when folks like you and I can afford the care, no problemo, yet half of Americans can't. So we're spending more, and getting less as a population.

If all you do is look at guys like me? Oh, well things are great. I have access to the best doctors and specialists in the world. We're doing an outstanding job of providing health care for SOME of our population.

But if you look at the bottom half of American earners? Ask them how often they go to the dentist. Or if they have a regular ol' doctor. Or how health care is coming along in rural America.

i can read that you have to claim a gp (looked at 5 countries) and then you are at their discretion for referrals. and that in most of these countries, physicians put in their minimum time for state run stuff and prioritize private where they can get paid.

Right. Now compare that to having no access to health care outside of an ER. Which is worse? And how many of those countries have citizens losing everything because of one single health emergency in a family?

do we have something to lose if we nick (maybe a lot) innovation by cutting biotech's ability to get paid on drug and other co's medical advancement development? we do. imo.

First of all, taxpayers already pay for lots of Pharma and Med R&D, and have for decades. But because we have corrupt negotiators in Congress, we don't take a piece of the breakthrough when it hits. We're suckers, basically.

Second of all, if that's your worry? Start a National Lab, and staff it with the best researchers money can buy. Problem solved.

[wgdsr]

can you quote where you get your number on almost all places less than half? i saw u.s is $11k + per capita. and spending more for healthcare is bad?

Yes. It's bad when folks like you and I can afford the care, no problemo, yet half of Americans can't. So we're spending more, and getting less as a population.

If all you do is look at guys like me? Oh, well things are great. I have access to the best doctors and specialists in the world. We're doing an outstanding job of providing health care for SOME of our population.

But if you look at the bottom half of American earners? Ask them how often they go to the dentist. Or if they have a regular ol' doctor. Or how health care is coming along in rural America.

i can read that you have to claim a gp (looked at 5 countries) and then you are at their discretion for referrals. and that in most of these countries, physicians put in their minimum time for state run stuff and prioritize private where they can get paid.

Right. Now compare that to having no access to health care outside of an ER. Which is worse? And how many of those countries have citizens losing everything because of one single health emergency in a family?

do we have something to lose if we nick (maybe a lot) innovation by cutting biotech's ability to get paid on drug and other co's medical advancement development? we do. imo.

First of all, taxpayers already pay for lots of Pharma and Med R&D, and have for decades. But because we have corrupt negotiators in Congress, we don't take a piece of the breakthrough when it hits. We're suckers, basically.

Second of all, if that's your worry? Start a National Lab, and staff it with the best researchers money can buy. Problem solved.

all sounds great in the land of unicorns. where do they have dental covered? not canada or uk or france if iirc from what i saw earlier.

so you have stats on what a 5 month delay on necessary healthcare does to 331 million people vs the group that you say won't go to get looked at? of course you don't.

we need to have a real conversation and solution. but we won't.

[holmes435]

can you quote where you get your number on almost all places less than half? i saw u.s is $11k + per capita. and spending more for healthcare is bad?

canada that brook quoted, per fraser institute is at 21 weeks for necessary procedures and healthcare. not elective. average. do you find that to be the case in your experience?

i can read that you have to claim a gp (looked at 5 countries) and then you are at their discretion for referrals. and that in most of these countries, physicians put in their minimum time for state run stuff and prioritize private where they can get paid.

do i think most people that spout off about state run success are people that maybe haven't done homework? i do. is our own healthcare system a win across the board? no.

do we have something to lose if we nick (maybe a lot) innovation by cutting biotech's ability to get paid on drug and other co's medical advancement development? we do. imo.

do i wish for and hope for an equitable solution that serves us all? i do.

Per Capita Spending: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... per_capita - every country except 3 are 58% of our costs or less per capita (I'll change my statement to "close to half" since I was just eyeballing it at first). And the other three are still a couple thousand less per capita.

And yes, I think spending that much more to end up with a pretty unhealthy population vs. those countries that spend much less is bad. Just getting people out of the ER and getting them preventative care will save us a lot of money.

As far as wait times in Canada, that wait for medically necessary procedures varies widely by area and what procedure you need, that's why they used "average". Obviously emergencies are seen immediately, and things like oncology treatments begin pretty quickly, whereas necessary but not threatening issues you hop into the queue (and jump ahead if it becomes more serious). Do you have a similar analysis of US wait times to that Fraser institute study? Would love to compare. From a quick search a few countries have faster wait times than the US for various things even with a universal system.

And of course in the US, if you can't afford that medically necessary procedure, then the wait time is until it becomes life threatening and you go to the ER. Not really comparable in that regards.


I will echo Brooklyn's question - what improvements would you make to get more people coverage, save money and prevent medical bankruptcies? I've got a few suggestions to work within the current system before switching over to a universal insurance system, but we don't seem to hear a lot of suggestions from people who like the current system over a universal system.



I will say we have a pretty great system for the wealthy, as a fan mentioned.

[a fan]

all sounds great in the land of unicorns.

It's not the land of unicorns. It's the international that I compete in, every single day. Right now.

where do they have dental covered?

Germany and Austria, for starters. But that's sort of missing the point, don't you think? Who needs dental care if they can't afford a plain ol' doctor when needed?

so you have stats on what a 5 month delay on necessary healthcare does to 331 million people vs the group that you say won't go to get looked at? of course you don't.

You want to go back and forth on this? Okay.

Are you looking at total cost? So for example-----Americans blow about $10 per capita for our health care per year. Canada? A little over half that amount. So if we switched to Canada's system, and blew a whopping $4k more per capita? Ya think we could get the wait times slashed?

You betcha.

we need to have a real conversation and solution. but we won't.

Happy to discuss all you like. But the REASON we can't have a discussion in Congress is that we still have Republican Congressmen (all with .gov paid health care, naturally) who are pretending that the free market still works for health care. Once they stop pretending? We can get to work crafting a system that works. Until then? Your's truly gets the best care money can buy. All while the bulk of TrumpLand (rural America) is closing hospitals faster than Trump can say "Mexico will pay for it".

We all know the free market doesn't work for health care. So instead of acknowledging that, we pretend like getting a workable health care system is just impossible, and so we've given up so much as trying. We landed on the moon, and we can't figure out health care? Really?