• 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!

Key Design Components and Considerations for Establishing a Single-Payer Health Care System

sangha said:
Boy so many lies.

/QUOTE]
Click to expand...

Yep...you are neck deep telling them.

How did I defend the claim that medical bills are causing bankruptcies when the only thing I've said about medical bankruptcy is that I said nothing about medical bankruptcy?
Click to expand...

Well.. except for the multiple posts of you jumping into the conversation between ManofKnowledge and me... ON medical bankruptcy. But hey... you must have been discussing Canada oil right? Or maybe NAFTA...right?

Sanders has never said the US would save the same amount as Canada.
Click to expand...
Well.. except when he and every other MedicareforALL proponent says we will save money.. and then says look at... "Canada, et al.".


Oh wait..thats right.. you really don't understand what lying is.. do you.

You think that because people are calling it Medicare for All it has to cover the same exact amount that Medicare does?
Click to expand...

Wait... you think that's funny???? Holy cow!!! SO.. you really think its truthful.. to call it "MEDICARE".. for all.. when medicare is an existing program...

And yet.. purposely KNOW that what you are proposing is NOT LIKE MEDICARE?!?!?!? Wow.. that demonstrates a huge gap in integrity …

Some people said insurance companies would disappear so therefore I shouldn't support M4A?
Click to expand...

Well.. logically... you might want to question whether what you are being told about Medicare for ALL... is truthful... and thus whether you should support M4A. When...

The people proposing it.. tell you its going to get rid of insurance companies.. when it obviously won't.
When they call it MEDICARE...when they purposely know its NOT like Medicare.
When they state that it will get you savings and give you CANADA as an example.. when they KNOW that their coverage will be much more than Canada's.

Logically.. you should question Medicare 4 All.. when the proponents of it.. purposely are misrepresenting the facts.

But hey.. that just me and my objective logical way of looking at things.

When you think its funny to believe that a MEDICARE... for all program.. will actually cover LIKE MEDICARE...

You are the one demonstrating a break from reality.
Click to expand...
 
jaeger19 said:
Yep...you are neck deep telling them.



Well.. except for the multiple posts of you jumping into the conversation between ManofKnowledge and me... ON medical bankruptcy. But hey... you must have been discussing Canada oil right? Or maybe NAFTA...right?

Well.. except when he and every other MedicareforALL proponent says we will save money.. and then says look at... "Canada, et al.".


Oh wait..thats right.. you really don't understand what lying is.. do you.



Wait... you think that's funny???? Holy cow!!! SO.. you really think its truthful.. to call it "MEDICARE".. for all.. when medicare is an existing program...

And yet.. purposely KNOW that what you are proposing is NOT LIKE MEDICARE?!?!?!? Wow.. that demonstrates a huge gap in integrity …



Well.. logically... you might want to question whether what you are being told about Medicare for ALL... is truthful... and thus whether you should support M4A. When...

The people proposing it.. tell you its going to get rid of insurance companies.. when it obviously won't.
When they call it MEDICARE...when they purposely know its NOT like Medicare.
When they state that it will get you savings and give you CANADA as an example.. when they KNOW that their coverage will be much more than Canada's.

Logically.. you should question Medicare 4 All.. when the proponents of it.. purposely are misrepresenting the facts.

But hey.. that just me and my objective logical way of looking at things.

When you think its funny to believe that a MEDICARE... for all program.. will actually cover LIKE MEDICARE...

You are the one demonstrating a break from reality.
Click to expand...
Maybe it's the English language that's confusing you. Here's a clue:

The word "like" does not mean "exactly the same as "
Click to expand...
 
sangha said:
Some people said insurance companies would disappear so therefore I shouldn't support M4A?
Click to expand...

The arguably foremost proponent who has advanced the most recent actual M4A proposal has said insurance companies would disappear.

You probably shouldn’t automatically and unquestionably support any policy that is so undefined.
 
sangha said:
jaeger19 said:
Maybe it's the English language that's confusing you. Here's a clue:

The word "like" does not mean "exactly the same as "
Click to expand...

Oh....so its "Like Medicare" 4ALL?

Ooops no its not. You and other proponents are purposely lying to the American public if you are calling it Medicare...

When its not Medicare.
Click to expand...
 
Neomalthusian said:
The arguably foremost proponent who has advanced the most recent actual M4A proposal has said insurance companies would disappear.

You probably shouldn’t automatically and unquestionably support any policy that is so undefined.
Click to expand...
That never happened
 
jaeger19 said:
sangha said:
Oh....so its "Like Medicare" 4ALL?

Ooops no its not. You and other proponents are purposely lying to the American public if you are calling it Medicare...

When its not Medicare.
Click to expand...
It's called Medicare for All. What it actually is can be determined by reading the actual bills - something you obviously haven't done
Click to expand...
 
sangha said:
They sell coverage for health care procedures in that M4A doesn't cover.
Click to expand...

What insurable conditions (that people would want or need to buy insurance to cover) would M4A not cover?

They might also have a role in administering the M4A program
Click to expand...

Not according to Sanders or his plan, which was my question. Realistically that would seem necessary, considering Medicare doesn't even administer its own program as it is right now, so doing it for 320 million souls seems improbable.

These "who knows" responses to key design components (which this thread is about) means the program remains very undefined, and it doesn't make much sense to automatically support something so undefined in these key areas.
 
sangha said:
jaeger19 said:
It's called Medicare for All. What it actually is can be determined by reading the actual bills - something you obviously haven't done
Click to expand...

And according to you.. its fine if its called Medicare... even if its not really Medicare. Got it.

Sorry man..you just can't get around your deceptions and falsehoods.
Click to expand...
 
Neomalthusian said:
What insurable conditions (that people would want or need to buy insurance to cover) would M4A not cover?
Click to expand...

Cosmetic surgery, for example


Not according to Sanders or his plan, which was my question. Realistically that would seem necessary, considering Medicare doesn't even administer its own program as it is right now, so doing it for 320 million souls seems improbable.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Here's a link to an article where Sanders says there will still be insurance companies

Bernie Sanders 2020: Candidate talks the role of insurance companies under "Medicare for All" - CBS News

These "who knows" responses to key design components (which this thread is about) means the program remains very undefined, and it doesn't make much sense to automatically support something so undefined in these key areas.
Click to expand...

If you don't have answers for some questions, that's your failure. The plan is well defined
 
jaeger19 said:
sangha said:
And according to you.. its fine if its called Medicare... even if its not really Medicare. Got it.

Sorry man..you just can't get around your deceptions and falsehoods.
Click to expand...
It's not called Medicare but I do think it's cute that you have been reduced to whining about what it's called.
Click to expand...
 
sangha said:
Cosmetic surgery, for example
Click to expand...

That’s not an insurable condition that people want and need to buy insurance to cover.

Wrong. Here's a link to an article where Sanders says there will still be insurance companies
Click to expand...

He doesn’t say that even in your link. Health insurance exists to provide coverage for care people need. In your own link Sanders says there would be no insurance company providing anything people need.

If you don't have answers for some questions, that's your failure. The plan is well defined
Click to expand...

We already had the answer to this question from the beginning, the only reason I’m continuing to ask the question rhetorically is because you’re making false statements.
 
Last edited:
sangha said:
jaeger19 said:
It's not called Medicare but I do think it's cute that you have been reduced to whining about what it's called.
Click to expand...

Got it..Medicare4all.. is not called Medicare.

Whats cute is that you are reduced to trying to defend the multiple deceptions done by "medicare4all"...proponents.


With "well.. just because its called Medicare.. doesn't mean its Medicare"...:lamo
Click to expand...
 
sangha said:
Got it..Medicare4all.. is not called Medicare.
Click to expand...

Took you a while but you finally figured it out. You should be proud

Whats cute is that you are reduced to trying to defend the multiple deceptions done by "medicare4all"...proponents.


With "well.. just because its called Medicare.. doesn't mean its Medicare"...:lamo
Click to expand...

I guess you still haven't figured it out, after all

Keep at it. Maybe someday
 
sangha said:
Took you a while but you finally figured it out. You should be proud



I guess you still haven't figured it out, after all

Keep at it. Maybe someday
Click to expand...
\



Oh no..I have it all figured out. Proponents of Medicare4all.. are intentionally deceiving the American public into thinking that they are proposing actual MEDICARE for all people...when really they are proposing something very very different.


In laymans terms its called a bait and switch.


Or.. well its called lying.
 
jaeger19 said:
\



Oh no..I have it all figured out. Proponents of Medicare4all.. are intentionally deceiving the American public into thinking that they are proposing actual MEDICARE for all people...when really they are proposing something very very different.


In laymans terms its called a bait and switch.


Or.. well its called lying.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's a huge conspiracy. Call the FBI
 
jaeger19 said:
that pretty obvious. About 18% of our GDP is healthcare spending. If you decrease that as Bernie claims he is going to do..

Its going to reduce our GDP. Healthcare is not being outsourced in America. Its not really be sent overseas. Its pretty hard to do automate it. Currently the healthcare industry is a primary source of jobs in America.

Health Care Just Became the U.S.'s Largest Employer - The Atlantic


Healthcare is uniquely American.. and its growing because of demand. The aging of the baby boomers is creating huge demand. Now.. If medicare for all.. is going to get the savings.. that its being touted (compared to all those other countries)...that means that healthcare expenditure has to be reduced. And where does that come from?

Well..its going to come from American healthcare workers... (since most countries pay less for their doctors, nurses.. and so on).
Its going to come from fewer healthcare workers.
Fewer hospitals
Fewer medical services (most countries gain efficiency by consolidating and reducing access to hospital beds, MRI etc.. its in part why the greater wait times).

It means fewer hospital and provider constructions..



There is no free lunch here. If you reduce the spending on healthcare..you are going to be reducing wages, reducing employment. reducing construction etc.. in an industry that can't outsource to india.. that is made up of tons of non profits no less.

Sangha here is going to say... "well we can spend on..."..but it doesn't work that way.. because you reduction is in wages, in hiring, in construction that's done in the US.

IF we were to follow Sangha's logic.. that reducing costs.. just means we can spend it somewhere else... well then.. according to him.. since the US has a minimum wage and spends more on wages than other countries.. we should get rid of minimum wage and there will be no effect on the economy.

Well.. that's just not true. And the same with healthcare.
Click to expand...

Interesting that you'd say that. I just received notice from my former doctor announcing his retirement. The last of four I knew personally. In their place we now have a female doctor who only accepts females and 3 PA's. If you're a male you will be unable to see a doctor. I see this as the sign of the times.
 
jimbo said:
Interesting that you'd say that. I just received notice from my former doctor announcing his retirement. The last of four I knew personally. In their place we now have a female doctor who only accepts females and 3 PA's. If you're a male you will be unable to see a doctor. I see this as the sign of the times.
Click to expand...

It is likely a violation of the states practice act if she only accepts female patients. I highly doubt she only accepts female patients. Unless its a specialty like gynecology and she can state she does not have the expertise to deal with transgender patients.
 
jaeger19 said:
It is likely a violation of the states practice act if she only accepts female patients. I highly doubt she only accepts female patients. Unless its a specialty like gynecology and she can state she does not have the expertise to deal with transgender patients.
Click to expand...

I have no idea. It may be the specialty thing. What I know is that there is one patient the practice will no longer be seeing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom