• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

AOC, I wouldn't underestimate her, if I were youi

OldFatGuy said:
Yet even he accepts, as much as he rejects all form of authoritarian government with exception for necessary policing and the military, a national single system is desirable and inevitable, inclusive of mandatory participation by providers as a condition of their licensing.

I firmly believe basic healthcare under the auspices of government regulation must replace procedural insurers, and it is not a right but an obligation for government, even if actual management is contracted to outside experts.
Click to expand...

You do remember that Nixon finally offered to help Ted Kennedy set up something that sounds a lot like that and he mentioned the notion of patterning it after the old Kaiser system of the time period. It was eleventh hour bipartisan compromise stuff direct from the White House itself.
"Say the word" and he was ready to lean on every Republican until they howled and yelled "Uncle".

That bastard Ted responded with some nonsense that sounded like "not invented here/not interested" and Nixon said, "Fine, offer withdrawn".
And Ted went to his grave saying it was the biggest blunder of his entire career and that he would never forgive himself for it.

And no, it would not have required an amendment to the Constitution, as someone else just implied...there's that attention deficit thing again.
The phrase "under the auspices of government regulation" implies that Congress simply writes up the bill and does a vote, and Nixon would have signed it, and BLAMMO, it would be done.

And as you said, it would exist today alongside the still operative pure private sector business for those who can afford everything out of pocket.
A UCLA cardiologist with bonafides similar to your friend's has kept our son alive for much of his twenty-three years.

On a personal level, as flawed as the ACA is, and I agree it is terribly so, it is the only way our son will ever have insurance of any kind and I am too old to be able to rob banks if he loses that, and all this bouncing back and forth with him about to lose his coverage any moment is going to kill my wife one of these days, and maybe me too.
She served honorably and doesn't deserve such heartbreak and stress.
So yes, the idea you put forward, and which your doctor friend approves of, is the moral and patriotic thing to do and in the end, the real dividend IS a healthy America, which pays an ENORMOUS amount on many levels, certainly on the fiscal realm to be sure.
It sure would beat the ACA hands down.

Generation after generation of unhealthy people is going to wind up being the biggest debt sink of them all if institutionalized generational ignorance doesn't do us in first.
 
rocket88 said:
Yes, right now the technology doesn't exist. I think having a goal to find that technology is a good idea though, don't you?
Click to expand...

I think goals are nice and there are numerous companies working toward alternative sources of energy. What people like me oppose is the idea that the government should step in and mandate change through despotic central planning. You guys seem to fear the 'dictatorship of Trump' but embrace the 'dictatorship of AOC.'
 
PirateMk1 said:
This is the type of thing that will require an amendment to the constitution. Anything less the full consensus will not be viable. People have to be on board. Trying to shove it down peoples throats like Obama care will just brew bad blood.
Click to expand...

No amendment to the Constitution is needed. Nor does it have to be thrust down people's throats. It has to be introduced through education, and it won't happen overnight. It must be a gradual revolutionary change in thought which can take a generation or two, or longer. We all love our children and we need to do this for them. Instant gratification has proved disastrous as a way to live, reasonable adjustment to change is the path to take. And the insurers will fight this every step of the way. They know their days are numbered, but they want to drain every last nickel they can. They and the politicians are the enemy. Get on board.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
You do remember that Nixon finally offered to help Ted Kennedy set up something that sounds a lot like that and he mentioned the notion of patterning it after the old Kaiser system of the time period. It was eleventh hour bipartisan compromise stuff direct from the White House itself.
"Say the word" and he was ready to lean on every Republican until they howled and yelled "Uncle".up being the biggest debt sink of them all if institutionalized generational
Click to expand...

I also remember when Newt Gingrich, armed with a study from the Heritage Foundation was readying a bill for a well publicized National Single Payer system, only to be confronted by a First Lady, overstepping her bounds, confronting Congress to create a healthcare system she devised. The reaction from both parties was "Get off my turf!" How dare Hillary Clinton instruct Congress what to do? Hillary set back healthcare in this nation through today, and worse. It was she, and she alone who fostered the partisan hatred that commenced with the impeachment of Nixon, rubbing salt into the wounds with her arrogance and personal ambitions when confronting a Republican Congress as a goddess from the temple.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Oh, there's the low information "government is creating a healthcare system" argument, which is rooted in ignorance.
We already HAVE the healthcare infrastructure, we're only talking about making government the single payer.

When you learn the difference between nationalized socialized medicine and single payer come back and we'll talk more.
My original question wasn't answered either. You asked how we're going to pay for single payer and I asked what we were using to pay for our current health care.
The answer is: MONEY.

What would we be using to pay for single payer: The same money, only less of it.

We're not "building a system" because no war bombed all our hospitals or clinics and the doctors didn't all go die in battle and there isn't any need to make them become government employees. No one is talking about nationalizing healthcare.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure your strawman is unintentional. I didn't state anything about creating the healthcare system. However, we would be reinventing the insurance system and payment system.

I've actually had the displeasure of working in private practice and hospital billing departments for a few years. Having seen how medicare and medicaid look and what they do to practices even now is frightening. The only reason the damage is limited at all is because the docs can actually make money from the private insurers.

That's a whole different beast that could take all night to get into. My point was never anything to do with the government building some imaginary healthcare system. It had to do with government seizing the means of paying for it.
 
Sampson Simpson said:
Oh look, no actual arguments, no reasoning provided. Just make a dumb statement with nothing to back it up. Raise your hand if you are surprised by this bull****?
Click to expand...

You seem upset that she did this, but that was the whole point of the thread.


Oh wait ... you are upset that I was amused by her doing it and didn't bother to break down her stump speech. Yeah. Good luck with that and all.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Ah, no.

You've been listening to Trump promise a rose garden and Neverland too long, she not only answered but took down the lies you have been spreading.

If, maybe you had found someone believable and quoted them I would debate it line by line, but it's you. And Trumpheads don't do any research, they just regurgitate what someone on their side said earlier. No one believes you. You all have been constantly lying for two years! First it was there was NO tampering and the Russians didn't hack the DNC. Then it was "maybe it did happen but we weren't involved". It was "this inquiry is fake!!!" Now we see 34 people headed to jail, SOME of them Trump's closest advisors..."but no one in the campaign was involved and if they were it had no impact"

You see? Bull**** is bull**** and that's all you've got. It is highly unlikely I will ever believe a right wing Amerikan any time soon. So post away, waste your time...and we'll see the lies


Thanks
Click to expand...

Uhh .. you obviously have me mixed up with someone else there, bud. Please feel free to any time I have posted support for trump or even touched the subject of his investigations or failed to back up something I presented when asked.

You also might want to tone down the attacks. If I were the person you are describing, I would probably report this for personal attacks above responding to a post.
 
Keridan said:
Uhh .. you obviously have me mixed up with someone else there, bud. Please feel free to any time I have posted support for trump or even touched the subject of his investigations or failed to back up something I presented when asked.

You also might want to tone down the attacks. If I were the person you are describing, I would probably report this for personal attacks above responding to a post.
Click to expand...



My apologies.

I suspect I hit the wrong button.

Sorry
 
OldFatGuy said:
No amendment to the Constitution is needed. Nor does it have to be thrust down people's throats. It has to be introduced through education, and it won't happen overnight. It must be a gradual revolutionary change in thought which can take a generation or two, or longer. We all love our children and we need to do this for them. Instant gratification has proved disastrous as a way to live, reasonable adjustment to change is the path to take. And the insurers will fight this every step of the way. They know their days are numbered, but they want to drain every last nickel they can. They and the politicians are the enemy. Get on board.
Click to expand...

If you do this without an amendment, you WILL be fought, and you WILL lose. No if's no ands or butts. I would be one of those that would fight every step of the way. ANYBODY who thinks to do something like this which affects the lives of everyone has to have as many people as they can muster on board and that cannot be a bare majority it MUST be enough that 3/4 of the states will ratify the amendment. There MUST be consensus and the process must be proper or you invite the acid of disfranchisement. See what happened with Obama care.

I personally hate and despise the idea of government involvement in health care. That said if a majority of my countrymen decide to move with an amendment then I would be inclined to state my preference. Which is the government has their own hospitals and doctors and if people want medical care they can go there and it will be gratis. To get doctors and nurses in these places they pay the tuitions of them and they do their internship there. Here would be the stickler. All politicians and government employees would have no choice but to use those facilities only. Just use and expand on the existing VA network to start.
 
sangha said:
Her response gave a complete answer to the question asked - how are we going to pay for it?

The answer was in two parts

1) some of it is even cheaper than what we're paying now

2) the rest can be financed the same way we finance things like tax cuts and the military- with a combination of tax revenues and deficit spending

Were you expecting a line by line accounting?
Click to expand...

There is a lot of evidence to the contrary on it being cheaper, but you are right that she did present that point and just moved on without backing it up. It went by quick, but there was at least an answer there. Gotta give you that one.

The rest was a rant about how she thinks we spend the money immorally, I missed where she actually suggested cutting those costs. I honestly did have to listen twice to get through it all as she kinda grates on me. As much as I like her, the speeches run together. I know she means well, but it's one after the other where she just acts like the money is sitting around or can be invented. Her GND goal sheet alone shows her absolute lack of concern for realism in costs.

I really hope she never goes anywhere, though. She is fun and helpful to libertarians and she really does mean well.
 
OscarLevant said:
I think her reply to Cuomo is compelling. I would pose the same to any repub on this forum.

I challenge anyone to offer an argument that is stronger than the argument she raises.

Click to expand...


Okay.. well I will give it a try.

First.. Medicare for all.

What does she mean "medicare for all"... does she mean Medicare Part A for all? Because if she does.. guess what... she doesn;t get the savings from "diabetes care".. that she thinks.. because Medicare part A.. only pays for hospital care, home health and rehab care. It does not pay for outpatient care (like going to your doctor for preventative medicine.).. Nor does it pay for pharmaceutical drugs outside the hospital.. so that person with diabetes.. doesn;t get the medicine they need.

Does she mean to include medicare part B? and Medicare part D?

And while she claims "its cheaper"... that's depends on what it includes... because guess what? Folks in other countries.. have systems... but those systems generally cover LESS.. than what patients get under medicare,, even get under MEDICAID... and less than people get under private insurance.

So if we switch to a medicare for all program.. that covers like other countries.. then you just made 88% of americans have LESS coverage than they do now... and they will have to either go without.. or pay privately for further insurance...

So.. she is being a bit pie in the sky here.. she obviously does not understand what medicare for all entails.. its costs,, or how the systems work. Not to mention the huge economic punch to the gut.. artificially decreasing the cost of healthcare would be to our country.

Try reducing our GDP by 10% and see what happens. We didn;t even come close to that decrease in the last great recession.



now.. that being said... I whole heartedly agree with her statements on how is it that we seem to have no problem writing a blank check for wars, or tax cuts or a myriad of other things.. except those things that most benefit the country.. like education or healthcare insurance.. or infrastructure.

As a conservative.. I certainly agree with her on that.
 
OscarLevant said:
I think her reply to Cuomo is compelling. I would pose the same to any repub on this forum.

I challenge anyone to offer an argument that is stronger than the argument she raises.

Click to expand...


She speaks well and has a good look other than that, she said nothing new.

Not sure what you see in what she said that is "special."

Did I miss something?
 
OldFatGuy said:
I also remember when Newt Gingrich, armed with a study from the Heritage Foundation was readying a bill for a well publicized National Single Payer system, only to be confronted by a First Lady, overstepping her bounds, confronting Congress to create a healthcare system she devised. The reaction from both parties was "Get off my turf!" How dare Hillary Clinton instruct Congress what to do? Hillary set back healthcare in this nation through today, and worse. It was she, and she alone who fostered the partisan hatred that commenced with the impeachment of Nixon, rubbing salt into the wounds with her arrogance and personal ambitions when confronting a Republican Congress as a goddess from the temple.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say "She alone".
By the way, S-CHIP, which was the lone remnant of HillaryCare that survived, is the reason my son survived at all past infancy.
It is the reason he received three open heart surgeries before his fifth birthday.

So as much as Hillz annoys me, I can't thoroughly hate her, she is at least partly responsible for saving my son's life.
Just like I cannot thoroughly hate Dubya either. His appointee as SecVA, Anthony Principi, might have dabbled in some not so savory stuff before and after his tenure with the VA but WHILE he WAS AT the VA, he did some incredibly wonderful things and he helped start the process of cutting the horrible conditions and corruption while he served in his post.

A Bush Republican or not, he was an honorable and decent man.

Newt Gingrich, if you remember is the author of the Gingrich Rule, which in turn gave birth to the Hastert Rule.

But I get your points...I'm just sorta giving them the hairy eyeball a little bit.
PS: Heritage Foundation blueprint basis for much of the ACA and of course you knew that.

Hillary's biggest gift is that she is an excellent policy wonk, or WOULD BE, but it gets largely canceled out by the fact that she is also an arrogant and entitled witch who thinks she was allowed to stop keeping up with current events in 1974.
 
Last edited:
Keridan said:
I'm pretty sure your strawman is unintentional. I didn't state anything about creating the healthcare system. However, we would be reinventing the insurance system and payment system.

I've actually had the displeasure of working in private practice and hospital billing departments for a few years. Having seen how medicare and medicaid look and what they do to practices even now is frightening. The only reason the damage is limited at all is because the docs can actually make money from the private insurers.

That's a whole different beast that could take all night to get into. My point was never anything to do with the government building some imaginary healthcare system. It had to do with government seizing the means of paying for it.
Click to expand...

What am I supposed to say, the current largesse of private sector profit based health insurance is the main reason people want to get behind M4A.
If you worked in private practice and hospital billing, then you might have heard of a man named Wendell Potter.
If you have, need I say more?
American health insurance is based on DENIAL OF CARE to the maximum extent allowable by law.

Americans have been getting beat up so much they're desperate.
You want to figure out ways to adjust some of the numbers, we can work on that.
It appears that the default position of the folks in charge right now however is,
"Give us back the system we had in 2008 or we'll shoot your whole family...and we're still going to jack up prices more to teach you a lesson, too."

Now, let's face some facts...NO ONE is going to just shuffle the CURRENT Medicare system AS IS and just do a straight overlay.
So any studies based on that notion smack of health insurance company funding and I won't accept them as legitimate.

The other thing you have to admit is, no one intends to stick a knife upside the ribcage of every doctor in the country and say "Hand over 60 percent of what you make" but the fact is...we're paying more and getting less in this country. I am sorry if there is going to be SOME amount of pain but if you're expecting perfection, you're on the wrong planet.
If we do this right, practicing medicine will remain fairly rewarding. It remains rather rewarding in other single payer countries.
Maybe not "$31 million dollar mansion" rewarding but I seriously doubt doctors will all be forced onto the ramen and water diet.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
What am I supposed to say, the current largesse of private sector profit based health insurance is the main reason people want to get behind M4A.
If you worked in private practice and hospital billing, then you might have heard of a man named Wendell Potter.
If you have, need I say more?
American health insurance is based on DENIAL OF CARE to the maximum extent allowable by law.

Americans have been getting beat up so much they're desperate.
You want to figure out ways to adjust some of the numbers, we can work on that.
It appears that the default position of the folks in charge right now however is,
"Give us back the system we had in 2008 or we'll shoot your whole family...and we're still going to jack up prices more to teach you a lesson, too."

Now, let's face some facts...NO ONE is going to just shuffle the CURRENT Medicare system AS IS and just do a straight overlay.
So any studies based on that notion smack of health insurance company funding and I won't accept them as legitimate.

The other thing you have to admit is, no one intends to stick a knife upside the ribcage of every doctor in the country and say "Hand over 60 percent of what you make" but the fact is...we're paying more and getting less in this country. I am sorry if there is going to be SOME amount of pain but if you're expecting perfection, you're on the wrong planet.
If we do this right, practicing medicine will remain fairly rewarding. It remains rather rewarding in other single payer countries.
Maybe not "$31 million dollar mansion" rewarding but I seriously doubt doctors will all be forced onto the ramen and water diet.
Click to expand...

See, here's the problem. In the abstract, I agree with you. You are talking about actually finding a workable system that promotes the same or better care and doesn't severely disrupt our advantages that lead to the best hospitals, medicines and practices and R&D (because we largely provide these for being a competitive market. We would all love this.

You will never convince me that this government who has failed every major program they took monopoly of is the best answer to this question. If AOC and Trump and McConnell are primary voices, I will never have a single drop of faith. I know AOC is freshman congress person, but she spends a lot of time trying to get involved in this.

We will hit this impasse even if we could find an agreement on the right way to actually implement a plan that did all things mentioned above.

Edit: error in first sentence fixed.
 
PirateMk1 said:
If you do this without an amendment, you WILL be fought, and you WILL lose. No if's no ands or butts. I would be one of those that would fight every step of the way. ANYBODY who thinks to do something like this which affects the lives of everyone has to have as many people as they can muster on board and that cannot be a bare majority it MUST be enough that 3/4 of the states will ratify the amendment. There MUST be consensus and the process must be proper or you invite the acid of disfranchisement. See what happened with Obama care.

I personally hate and despise the idea of government involvement in health care. That said if a majority of my countrymen decide to move with an amendment then I would be inclined to state my preference. Which is the government has their own hospitals and doctors and if people want medical care they can go there and it will be gratis. To get doctors and nurses in these places they pay the tuitions of them and they do their internship there. Here would be the stickler. All politicians and government employees would have no choice but to use those facilities only. Just use and expand on the existing VA network to start.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. In no way is a Constitutional amendment necessary. The VA network is a disaster with a few exceptions. I spent time in a VA hospital and would never subject myself to that torture and horror again. You are in a panic. Calm down, breath deeply, and think.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
I wouldn't say "She alone".
By the way, S-CHIP, which was the lone remnant of HillaryCare that survived, is the reason my son survived at all past infancy.
It is the reason he received three open heart surgeries before his fifth birthday.

So as much as Hillz annoys me, I can't thoroughly hate her, she is at least partly responsible for saving my son's life.
Just like I cannot thoroughly hate Dubya either. His appointee as SecVA, Anthony Principi, might have dabbled in some not so savory stuff before and after his tenure with the VA but WHILE he WAS AT the VA, he did some incredibly wonderful things and he helped start the process of cutting the horrible conditions and corruption while he served in his post.

A Bush Republican or not, he was an honorable and decent man.

Newt Gingrich, if you remember is the author of the Gingrich Rule, which in turn gave birth to the Hastert Rule.

But I get your points...I'm just sorta giving them the hairy eyeball a little bit.
PS: Heritage Foundation blueprint basis for much of the ACA and of course you knew that.

Hillary's biggest gift is that she is an excellent policy wonk, or WOULD BE, but it gets largely canceled out by the fact that she is also an arrogant and entitled witch who thinks she was allowed to stop keeping up with current events in 1974.
Click to expand...

I hold her solely responsible for getting the ball rolling. The VA is still a horror. Not as bad as it once was, but truly a horror. I've had 4 friends suffer at their hands within the last decade, two of who died from medical malpractice, one who died from neglect, dead from dehydration. The fourth rescued to a private hospital by his family after 3 misdiagnoses.

Gingrich was no angel, still is a hypocritical SOB, that doesn't excuse Hil.

Yes, on the ACA.
 
Fletch said:
I think goals are nice and there are numerous companies working toward alternative sources of energy. What people like me oppose is the idea that the government should step in and mandate change through despotic central planning. You guys seem to fear the 'dictatorship of Trump' but embrace the 'dictatorship of AOC.'
Click to expand...

I think she's young and naive. I don't particularly support or denigrate her. I don't think I would have voted for her if I had a choice.

I don't embrace her "dictatorship" but thanks for the BS. I think there is a role for government in that the free market will only choose that which is most profitable. Making money is what corporations exist for. So we get to the essential difference between right and left. The left looks to government to save us from corporations, the right looks to corporations to save us from government.
 
OscarLevant said:
I think her reply to Cuomo is compelling. I would pose the same to any repub on this forum.

I challenge anyone to offer an argument that is stronger than the argument she raises.

Click to expand...


I would never underestimate her stupidity, and those who support her.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
[...]

American health insurance is based on DENIAL OF CARE to the maximum extent allowable by law

[...]
Click to expand...


Imagine a system that did precisely the opposite, and more efficiently, as well, that, instead of denying claims, accepted anyone who opted for it.

Let the private sector compete against that, because only when they are able to do that, then will I begin to believe their services are worthy of their existence.
 
OldFatGuy said:
Nonsense. In no way is a Constitutional amendment necessary. The VA network is a disaster with a few exceptions. I spent time in a VA hospital and would never subject myself to that torture and horror again. You are in a panic. Calm down, breath deeply, and think.
Click to expand...

In a panic, no I am not.

And yes absolutely an amendment is required and demanded. If you try this with a bare majority it will fail. Period. If you want "free" health care a VA style system it should be. That style of health care will keep people off of it. Which is the point.

Free means that the rest of the health care world will have a genuine competitor of sorts.

By the way I am playing devils advocate. I hate the idea of nationalized health care. Were I live they are trying to make a health care oasis were you can get top of the line care for very good prices out of pocket. I have concierge care and catastrophic plan. There are very few things in the health care world you cant shop for. Emergency care is about it. Thats why I have kept an a catastrophic plan till I couldn't. I can get catastrophic plan again, now, but most are garbage I have found. Very few insurance plans I have seen cover 100% after the deductible. That used to be the standard. Now its a percentage. That makes it not insurance but a discount plan. WTF. Even cancer care you can shop now. Its amazing the differences in prices in just one town.
 
Keridan said:
There is a lot of evidence to the contrary on it being cheaper, but you are right that she did present that point and just moved on without backing it up. It went by quick, but there was at least an answer there. Gotta give you that one.

The rest was a rant about how she thinks we spend the money immorally, I missed where she actually suggested cutting those costs. I honestly did have to listen twice to get through it all as she kinda grates on me. As much as I like her, the speeches run together. I know she means well, but it's one after the other where she just acts like the money is sitting around or can be invented. Her GND goal sheet alone shows her absolute lack of concern for realism in costs.

I really hope she never goes anywhere, though. She is fun and helpful to libertarians and she really does mean well.
Click to expand...
Granted, she didn't clearly state that we can pay for the GND the same way we pay for tax cuts and increases in military spending. However, she did ask a question that was clearly rhetorical. IOW, the answer should be very simple for anyone willing to give it a bit of thought

"How come nobody asks how we're going to pay for tax cuts and military spending but when we want to spend money to help people they ask how are we going to pay for it?"

I'm going to assume I don't have to give you the answer to that rhetorical question.

And, as an aside, because AOC didn't mention this, there's another way to pay for the GND:

The same way NYC would pay for the Amazon deal -- through increased tax revenues the government spending generates.

Take the UHC part of it. Every dollar spent providing health care goes to someone. A doctor, a nurse, a contractor who builds a new hospital, etc. And every one of them pays taxes.

And think of all the new jobs that will be created!! Instead of thinking of her as some stupid little girl, maybe you should think of her as a job creator in the mold of Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos.
 
Alexandria is a silly little person.

She is obviously overwhelmed by the publicity that she has been given.

The Democratic Party bigwigs know that Americans are not ready for socialism -- yet.

So they will soon put her in her place.

Bless her little heart.
 
PirateMk1 said:
In a panic, no I am not.

And yes absolutely an amendment is required and demanded. If you try this with a bare majority it will fail. Period. If you want "free" health care a VA style system it should be. That style of health care will keep people off of it. Which is the point.

Free means that the rest of the health care world will have a genuine competitor of sorts.

By the way I am playing devils advocate. I hate the idea of nationalized health care. Were I live they are trying to make a health care oasis were you can get top of the line care for very good prices out of pocket. I have concierge care and catastrophic plan. There are very few things in the health care world you cant shop for. Emergency care is about it. Thats why I have kept an a catastrophic plan till I couldn't. I can get catastrophic plan again, now, but most are garbage I have found. Very few insurance plans I have seen cover 100% after the deductible. That used to be the standard. Now its a percentage. That makes it not insurance but a discount plan. WTF. Even cancer care you can shop now. Its amazing the differences in prices in just one town.
Click to expand...

A national non optional single payer system would cover basics, inclusive of education, providing a powerful negotiating arm for curbing big pharma and med tech pricing, covering catastrophes for everyone. There would be nothing to stop individuals from buying supplemental protections. There is no need for a Constitutional amendment, simply a silly thought. No healthcare system is free, the idea is to force both lower costs, and less needed cost through prevention.

I know what top end insurance policies cost and what catastrophic policy coverage costs. There is no reason for anyone to pay those excessive premiums. There is no acceptable reason for insurer ceo's to take home annual blood money earning of $30mil and up that's coming out of your ill health and pocket.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom