• 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!

Republicans can't deal with medical care.

I'm Supposn

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,819
Reaction score
281
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Republicans can't deal with medical care:

Republicans had, and many still believe the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is and will continue to be an issue to their political net advantage.
[The United States has begun to join all other of the world's industrial nation that had previously recognized their population's need for medical treatment as a human right and concern of their government]. Republican's dilemma is no nation's population obtaining such a government commitment, has ever wanted it rescinded.

Republicans have been unable to convince the majority of USA voters that access to medical treatment should not be considered as a necessary human right and concern of their government.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Republicans' Dilemma:

Republicans have been unable to convince the majority of USA voters that access to medical treatment should not be considered as a necessary human right and concern of their government.
Failing that, they have been unable to convince voters that it should be repealed before they can devise and pass a superior government medical policy, due to their inability to devise and agree among themselves and pass what they believe should be our government's superior medical policy.

Republicans remain currently opposed to any bi-partisan efforts for improving or replacing the Affordable Care Act with a superior government policy that recognizes human entitlement of access to medical treatment, (I suppose that will be the eventuality).

When Republicans are finally forced to recognize individual's entitlements to medical treatment as a human right, they will need to convince voters that they had never opposed the concept. Otherwise, Republicans opposition to legal entitlement of medical treatment will be as federal minimum wage rate and social security retirement are, programs that will continue to be politically net detrimental to the Republican Party.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
The Democratic Party demands free medical care for everyone in the world to be paid for by working Americans. All they have to do is travel here - no restrictions of any kind - and their open heart surgery, sex reassignment surgery, artificial limbs, kidney transplants and all other medical care will be free.
 
Republicans' Dilemma:

Republicans have been unable to convince the majority of USA voters that access to medical treatment should not be considered as a necessary human right and concern of their government.
Failing that, they have been unable to convince voters that it should be repealed before they can devise and pass a superior government medical policy, due to their inability to devise and agree among themselves and pass what they believe should be our government's superior medical policy.

Republicans remain currently opposed to any bi-partisan efforts for improving or replacing the Affordable Care Act with a superior government policy that recognizes human entitlement of access to medical treatment, (I suppose that will be the eventuality).

When Republicans are finally forced to recognize individual's entitlements to medical treatment as a human right, they will need to convince voters that they had never opposed the concept. Otherwise, Republicans opposition to legal entitlement of medical treatment will be as federal minimum wage rate and social security retirement are, programs that will continue to be politically net detrimental to the Republican Party.

Respectfully, Supposn

I suspect you would also like your "free bubble up and rainbow stew".

You do realize the US Government spends more than it takes in. How long can we continue to borrow? Health Care for all is a nice dream. It may collapse due to all of our other spending and health care.
 
The Democratic Party demands free medical care for everyone in the world to be paid for by working Americans. All they have to do is travel here - no restrictions of any kind - and their open heart surgery, sex reassignment surgery, artificial limbs, kidney transplants and all other medical care will be free.
Joko104, I suppose your post has a typographical error? You're going to provide us with the link quoting a Democratic member of the U.S. House of Representatives, or the U.S. Senate proposing “free medical care for everyone in the world to be paid for by working Americans”?

If you're unable to provide such a link, possibly you can provide a link quoting someone who foolishly quoted some other fool that heard some unofficial government or non-government source that has no authority to effect the federal statutes or regulations that would be involved with regard to this topic?

Respectfully, Supposn
 
If I were a republican strategist I would continue to rail against 'Obamacare' while keeping all ACA, medicare and medicaid advantages gained so far because most of my voters are older, sicker, whiter and poorer. Keep the illusion that the party is fighting the battle against what its base sees as 'free healthcare for minorities' while not actually stripping away the benefits that the rubes don't realize they're getting as well, and will surely cotton of if they don't.

The problem with that is the donors - big insurance and pharmaceutical companies who seek direct profit and big business in general who seek tax cuts and know that the money must come from somewhere - won;t be fooled because they're watching the numbers.

So instead the balancing act is trickier: give the donors what they want, take the money out of healthcare, try to convince the poor white base it's only the 'lazy blacks and illegals' missing out and hope they don't notice they're not getting a new kidney either. Fox news becomes vital in order to distract them from their own vanishing healthcare entitlements.

Thankfully much of Trump's base is more than willing to cut off its nose to spite its face.
 
I suspect you would also like your "free bubble up and rainbow stew".

You do realize the US Government spends more than it takes in. How long can we continue to borrow? Health Care for all is a nice dream. It may collapse due to all of our other spending and health care.
Mike2810, USA has the world's most expensive per national resident and per patient medical expenditures but consequentially have far from the best national health. I'm among those that argue government provided basic medical insurance may be described as socialized insurance, but it's not socialized medicine. I'm in agreement with the former Republican Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan. Regardless of whatever will be our government's future medical care policy, federal insurance covering catastrophic medical expenditures makes sense.

Respectfully, Supposn

Individuals’ Catastrophic Medical costs: I originally posted this topic last year within a different group. The link from which I quote is from a NY Times article dated July 3, 2018 and was linked the next day within an MSN web site. The article's title is entitled “Obamacare Is Proving Hard to Kill”, by Reed Abelson.

Respectfully, Supposn
Originally posted by Supposn
Individuals’ Catastrophic Medical costs:

Federal insurance for catastrophic medical costs on behalf of individuals:

Excerpted from Congressman Paul Ryan’s website. He forwarded a transcript concerning his positions of regarding USA’s healthcare policies; Racine [WI] Journal News, Mark Schaaf, July 7, 20217.
“Republicans have proposed the federal and state governments subsidize the cost of care for people in the individual market with catastrophic illnesses, Ryan said. He believes that will make it easier to insure people in those high-risk pools at a more affordable price”.

Paul Ryan’s advocating federal insuring catastrophic medical costs of individuals. That’s a concept that both sides of the political aisle could agree upon.
I’m a proponent for federal acceptance of fiscal responsibility for catastrophic medical condition regardless if patients were or were not previously insured. Hospitals must be reimbursed for those extraordinary expenditures.
Excerpted from: Obamacare Is Proving Hard to Kill - The New York Times
US - ob...cid%3Dspartanntp - News - msn
“...In Minnesota, which created a reinsurance program to help pay for customers’ expensive medical conditions, carriers are actually seeking lower premiums. A midlevel policy in Minneapolis is priced at $302 a month. ...”.
 
Joko104, I suppose your post has a typographical error? You're going to provide us with the link quoting a Democratic member of the U.S. House of Representatives, or the U.S. Senate proposing “free medical care for everyone in the world to be paid for by working Americans”?

If you're unable to provide such a link, possibly you can provide a link quoting someone who foolishly quoted some other fool that heard some unofficial government or non-government source that has no authority to effect the federal statutes or regulations that would be involved with regard to this topic?

Respectfully, Supposn

I left off they might have to say the magic word: "refugee." With that, all medical care is free. All they have to do is get to the USA any way possible.
 
I left off they might have to say the magic word: "refugee." With that, all medical care is free. All they have to do is get to the USA any way possible.
Joko104, thanks for the heads-up.
A non-citizen legal USA resident need not necessarily be a refugee. The policy seems beneficial to our nation, our armed forces, and the qualified legal USA resident.
Respectfully, Supposn

Excerpted from The U.S. Military Helps Naturalize Non-Citizens | Military.com :

"Non-citizen service members offer several benefits to the military. They are more diverse linguistically and culturally than citizen recruits, which is particularly valuable as the U.S faces the challenges of the Global War on Terrorism.*
Also, according to a military research, once non-citizens have joined the military, they are far more likely to complete their enlistment obligations successfully than their U.S.-born counterparts. Thirty-six month attrition rates for non-citizens are between nine and 20 percentage points lower than those for white citizens, the largest demographic group in the military".
 
If I were a republican strategist I would continue to rail against 'Obamacare' while keeping all ACA, medicare and medicaid advantages gained so far because most of my voters are older, sicker, whiter and poorer. Keep the illusion that the party is fighting the battle against what its base sees as 'free healthcare for minorities' while not actually stripping away the benefits that the rubes don't realize they're getting as well, and will surely cotton of if they don't.

The problem with that is the donors - big insurance and pharmaceutical companies who seek direct profit and big business in general who seek tax cuts and know that the money must come from somewhere - won;t be fooled because they're watching the numbers.

So instead the balancing act is trickier: give the donors what they want, take the money out of healthcare, try to convince the poor white base it's only the 'lazy blacks and illegals' missing out and hope they don't notice they're not getting a new kidney either. Fox news becomes vital in order to distract them from their own vanishing healthcare entitlements.

Thankfully much of Trump's base is more than willing to cut off its nose to spite its face.

There is definitely something to this.

ITs going to be interesting for the democrats though... because they are playing the same game to an extent. They are promising medicare for all.. without really understanding what that entails (or the do know but just are flat out lying).. promising this huge cut in health expenditures...and telling everyone that its going to be great.. that there IS a free lunch.

So.. lets say they enact Medicare for all... and when folks find out that its NOT like medicare.. and that they have worse insurance than they had before? Gonna be tough for the democrats. OR they are going to have to forego their promises of reducing costs....
 
There is definitely something to this.

ITs going to be interesting for the democrats though... because they are playing the same game to an extent. They are promising medicare for all.. without really understanding what that entails (or the do know but just are flat out lying).. promising this huge cut in health expenditures...and telling everyone that its going to be great.. that there IS a free lunch.

So.. lets say they enact Medicare for all... and when folks find out that its NOT like medicare.. and that they have worse insurance than they had before? Gonna be tough for the democrats. OR they are going to have to forego their promises of reducing costs....
The proposed M4A plans provide coverage that is better than Medicare and Medicaid. Studies show savings between $4 & $8 billion over a decade
 
The proposed M4A plans provide coverage that is better than Medicare and Medicaid. Studies show savings between $4 & $8 billion over a decade

Which makes no sense whatsoever. So..you plan to INCREASE coverage better than Medicare and Medicaid. (so they cover more than they do now.. which is part of the cost of our healthcare system.. since they already pay more than most other countries)…

And yet you plan to get a huge amount of savings?

So where does that savings come from huh? As greenbeard points out.. it doesn't come from administration. That type of cut can only come from what providers are paid. Which means that something has to give. which means fewer hospitals, fewer doctors, fewer nurses.. less MRI... etc.

There is no free lunch here.

And as Greenbeard points out. It aint; going to fly well when local hospitals in democrat districts start closing and a major employer goes away.
 
Which makes no sense whatsoever. So..you plan to INCREASE coverage better than Medicare and Medicaid. (so they cover more than they do now.. which is part of the cost of our healthcare system.. since they already pay more than most other countries)…

And yet you plan to get a huge amount of savings?

So where does that savings come from huh? As greenbeard points out.. it doesn't come from administration. That type of cut can only come from what providers are paid. Which means that something has to give. which means fewer hospitals, fewer doctors, fewer nurses.. less MRI... etc.

There is no free lunch here.

And as Greenbeard points out. It aint; going to fly well when local hospitals in democrat districts start closing and a major employer goes away.
Jaeger : M4A is bad because the coverage will be worse than what Medicare covers

Me: M4A coverage is better than Medicare

Jaeger: M4A is bad because the coverage is better than what Medicare covers
 
Jaeger : M4A is bad because the coverage will be worse than what Medicare covers

Me: M4A coverage is better than Medicare

Jaeger: M4A is bad because the coverage is better than what Medicare covers

Well.. yes.. because basically M4A proponents are lying.

IF you want to give the savings that M4A claim they are getting.. they will have to reduce benefits that Medicare covers, or reduce payments to providers.. or both. There is no free lunch.

YOU then state that M4A will cover MORE than what medicare covers. SO.. that means that either.. the savings that Medicare for all proponents claim will happen.. is actually out the window...

OR it means that their will be dramatic cuts to providers which will have severe negative effects on the economy.


Face it Sangha.. you are supporting a lie.
 
Darwinism relative to healthcare:

Modern medical technology is very expensive for all segments of our population. Proponents of the Darwinist theory applied to medicine suggest that rather than government schemes such as Medicaid and Medicare, those that cannot afford modern medical treatment and devices should survive as best as they can.

Darwinism limits persons with insufficient financial resources and/or an over-abundance of financial responsibilities to the remainder of their lives with lesser comforts and/or lesser durations. Our societies, families must also to some extent share and endure those individuals' crippled or lesser limbs, poorer sight or blindness, poorer hearing or deafness, or lesser physical coordination, or lesser cognizant, or shorter life spans.

It's not unusual to encounter Darwinism within discussions of medical insurance. ...

Darwinists point out for many cases, the patients or their families contributed to their own need for more expensive medical services. They chose more risky lifestyles or due to their own priorities, they failed to purchase whatever medical insurance they could have afforded.

They also may have been the victims of random circumstances. Individuals do not choose their genes, all accidents aren't avoidable and avoiding one risk may place the individual or other at more risks; lives are full of random occurrences.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Which makes no sense whatsoever. So..you plan to INCREASE coverage better than Medicare and Medicaid. (so they cover more than they do now.. which is part of the cost of our healthcare system.. since they already pay more than most other countries)…

And yet you plan to get a huge amount of savings?

So where does that savings come from huh? As greenbeard points out.. it doesn't come from administration. That type of cut can only come from what providers are paid. Which means that something has to give. which means fewer hospitals, fewer doctors, fewer nurses.. less MRI... etc.

There is no free lunch here.

And as Greenbeard points out. It aint; going to fly well when local hospitals in democrat districts start closing and a major employer goes away.
Jaeger19, it does make some sense.

Medicare currently covers the segment of our population with highest per patient costs. Medicare was enacted because non-profits and commercial insurers couldn't or wouldn't do the job at nearly an affordable price. (I doubt if care for for the aged, particularly medical care could be entirely self-funded). Taxpayers are already carrying Medicares costs.

Medicaid, federal and state funding for those that cannot afford medical insurance (has disgracefully low annual income caps); but taxpayers are already paying for those extremely inadequate fundings.

Taxpayers are already carrying the medical expenditures for the U.S. Veterans Administration, and all other federal through local governments' medical expenditures. The prices of every USA produced goods or service products sold within and beyond our borders carry the medical expenditures of the the producing enterprises.

Due to Medicaid's disgracefully low annual income caps, hospital emergency rooms, (the absolutely highest priced medical providers), are the eventual medical providers for those uninsured or those that cannot afford their insurances' annual deductibles or co-payments. Their unpaid hospital bills embedded within hospitals' prices charged to all others, or are paid by those government agencies, and other non-profit organizations supporting the hospitals, (i.e. taxpayers and charity contributors).

Many, if not most of non-government medical insurance organization's contract out their collections of revenues and payment disbursement to enterprises specialized to perform those tasks. Those contractors perform much of the same services on behalf of governments' medical insurance organizations. Single payer basic medical insurance would provide some substantial reductions of USA's aggregate medical administrative expenditures.

Similar to Icebergs, substantial portions of USA's medical expenditures directly or indirectly paid for by our taxpayers, are much less visible. USA's medical expenditures are directly and indirectly greater than any other nation for in aggregate, and per person, and per patient but among the leading industrial nations, are nation's health and median healthcare services are for from the best.

Respectfully, Supposn


Refer to:
Darwinism relative to healthcare: ...
Darwinists point to individual cases of patients or their families did get medical check-ups. They chose more risky lifestyles or due to their own priorities, they failed to purchase whatever medical insurance they could have afforded.

They also may have been the victims of random circumstances. Individuals do not choose their genes, all accidents aren't avoidable and avoiding one risk may place the individual or others at more risks; lives are full of random occurrences. ...

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Well.. yes.. because basically M4A proponents are lying.
M4A is bad if it covers more than Medicare and bad if it covers less than Medicare because some unidentified persons lied about M4A!! :lamo:

That's about the level of honest and intelligent argumentation I have come to expect from you
 
Well.. yes.. because basically M4A proponents are lying.
M4A is bad if it covers more than Medicare and bad if it covers less than Medicare because some unidentified persons lied about M4A!! :lamo:

That's about the level of honest and intelligent argumentation I have come to expect from you

You need to stop lying. Everyone here knows that's NOT what I said. Face it man..you are telling lies.
 
Jaeger19, it does make some sense.

Medicare currently covers the segment of our population with highest per patient costs. Medicare was enacted because non-profits and commercial insurers couldn't or wouldn't do the job at nearly an affordable price. (I doubt if care for for the aged, particularly medical care could be entirely self-funded). Taxpayers are already carrying Medicares costs.

Medicaid, federal and state funding for those that cannot afford medical insurance (has disgracefully low annual income caps); but taxpayers are already paying for those extremely inadequate fundings.

Taxpayers are already carrying the medical expenditures for the U.S. Veterans Administration, and all other federal through local governments' medical expenditures. The prices of every USA produced goods or service products sold within and beyond our borders carry the medical expenditures of the the producing enterprises.

Due to Medicaid's disgracefully low annual income caps, hospital emergency rooms, (the absolutely highest priced medical providers), are the eventual medical providers for those uninsured or those that cannot afford their insurances' annual deductibles or co-payments. Their unpaid hospital bills embedded within hospitals' prices charged to all others, or are paid by those government agencies, and other non-profit organizations supporting the hospitals, (i.e. taxpayers and charity contributors).

Many, if not most of non-government medical insurance organization's contract out their collections of revenues and payment disbursement to enterprises specialized to perform those tasks. Those contractors perform much of the same services on behalf of governments' medical insurance organizations. Single payer basic medical insurance would provide some substantial reductions of USA's aggregate medical administrative expenditures.

Similar to Icebergs, substantial portions of USA's medical expenditures directly or indirectly paid for by our taxpayers, are much less visible. USA's medical expenditures are directly and indirectly greater than any other nation for in aggregate, and per person, and per patient but among the leading industrial nations, are nation's health and median healthcare services are for from the best.

Respectfully, Supposn


Refer to:



Respectfully, Supposn

Wrong on the last part. Single payer will not reduce the amount of medical administration needed.. in fact may make it worse.

1. The most medical administration is needed generally for handling government claims.. Medicaid, VA and somewhere in there Medicare
2. The volume of claims will increase..
3. The handling of claims by medicare is already outsourced to private insurance companies.
 
It is EXACTLY what you said. At first, you said M4A was bad because it wouldn't cover as much as Medicare does (which is a lie you keep posting even though you know it's not true)

Then, when I pointed out (for at least the 2nd time) that M4A covers MORE than Medicare does you argued that it was bad because it covers more.

And then when I pointed out that you did this, your response was

Well.. yes.. because basically M4A proponents are lying.
 
It is EXACTLY what you said. At first, you said M4A was bad because it wouldn't cover as much as Medicare does (which is a lie you keep posting even though you know it's not true)

Then, when I pointed out (for at least the 2nd time) that M4A covers MORE than Medicare does you argued that it was bad because it covers more.

And then when I pointed out that you did this, your response was

Nope.. I said that if you wanted to get the savings the proponents of M4A claimed.. then Medicare would have to be LESS than it covers now..OR pay providers less or both.. just like countries like Canada do.

AS I said there is no free lunch despite what Medicare 4all proponents say.

Bernies proposal.. which is not all medicare4all proposals... covers what medicare does to some extent.. its really not clear exactly what it covers or what would be covered under his proposal...

YOU made the claim that it pays for more than what medicare pays for now... of course I asked you to link to it.. and you could not.

However.. I stated... IF what you claim.. is that Bernies medicare4all is going to increase coverage and cover more... then either 1. Its not going to get the savings that he claims..
or 2. There is going to have to be massive decreases in reimbursements to providers which means massive problems with the economy.

That's what I said.... and the facts support my statement and not yours.
 
Nope.. I said that if you wanted to get the savings the proponents of M4A claimed.. then Medicare would have to be LESS than it covers now..OR pay providers less or both.. just like countries like Canada do.

What you said is EXACTLY what I quoted you saying

AS I said there is no free lunch despite what Medicare 4all proponents say.

No proponent has said that there is a free lunch. It's just one of the many lies you keep telling

Bernies proposal.. which is not all medicare4all proposals... covers what medicare does to some extent.. its really not clear exactly what it covers or what would be covered under his proposal...

Sanders bill covers more than Medicare does and is clear. This is just two more of the many lies you keep telling

YOU made the claim that it pays for more than what medicare pays for now... of course I asked you to link to it.. and you could not.

Does Google not work for you?

Why do you need a link? You just spoke about Sanders bill. So either you already read it (and lied about it) and so you don't need a link or you haven't read it but dishonestly make claims about it

However.. I stated... IF what you claim.. is that Bernies medicare4all is going to increase coverage and cover more... then either 1. Its not going to get the savings that he claims..
or 2. There is going to have to be massive decreases in reimbursements to providers which means massive problems with the economy.

Is this a repeat of your hilarious "if we don't spend the money on health care, the money we save will just magically disappear ?

But let's go back to the Sanders bill. Have you read it?

If you have, why do you keep asking for a link?

If not, then why do you keep telling lies about a bill you haven't read?
 
...Many, if not most of non-government medical insurance organization's contract out their collections of revenues and payment disbursement to enterprises specialized to perform those tasks. Those contractors perform much of the same services on behalf of governments' medical insurance organizations. Single payer basic medical insurance would provide some substantial reductions of USA's aggregate medical administrative expenditures. ...
Wrong on the last part. Single payer will not reduce the amount of medical administration needed.. in fact may make it worse.

1. The most medical administration is needed generally for handling government claims.. Medicaid, VA and somewhere in there Medicare
2. The volume of claims will increase..
3. The handling of claims by Medicare is already outsourced to private insurance companies.
jaeger19, we agree currently, many, if not most of non-government medical insurance organization's contract out their collections of revenues and payment disbursement to enterprises specialized to perform those tasks. Those contractors perform much of the same services on behalf of governments' medical insurance organizations.

In the future, if collections and disbursements of all basic medical procedures would be covered by the federal single payer, only collections and disbursements for additional costs per individual patients would be applicable to only for patients having additional medical insurance not covered by the federal single payer for basic medical insurance. Non-government insurers and their contractors only service those additional non-basic costs.
Why would you not believe that all basic medical costs covered by the federal single would not provide some reductions of aggregate government plus non-government administrative expenditures?

Respectfully, Supposn
 
What you said is EXACTLY what I quoted you saying

When quoted? Yes. Then you went on to claim I made statements that did not include the full text of what I said.

No proponent has said that there is a free lunch. It's just one of the many lies you keep telling

Sure they do.. heck its the lies you keep telling. Its going to reduce cost.. but be like Medicare.. wait.. not really like medicare.. but that's okay.. its going to reduce cost like Canada.. but its going to have more coverage than Canadian single payer. Wait.. its going to get rid of insurance companies.. and no more bills...

Sorry sir..proponents aren't just pushing a free lunch... M4All is a proverbial unicorn

Sanders bill covers more than Medicare does and is clear.

Great.. please link to it.. specifically how his plan is paying for skilled nursing facilities and their pay schedule, how DME is paid for and that pay schedule, and how outpatient surgery centers are paid for, what codes a are billable etc.
Does Google not work for you?
Yep it does. I couldn't find the specifics that you claim are there. So I have asked you to link to those specifics.

Is this a repeat of your hilarious "if we don't spend the money on health care, the money we save will just magically disappear ?

Nope..nothing magical about it. Its exactly how the economy works. When thousands of healthcare workers are out of a job, and thousands are getting paid less. and GDP is reduced by 4-6%. . that's pretty much what happens. Nothing magical about it.

But let's go back to the Sanders bill. Have you read it?


Yep... which is why I know the specifics aren't there.

Here is an excerpt :
IN GENERAL.—Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a proposed plan for systematically and internally tracking its review of the relative values of physicians' services, such as by establishing an internal database, under section 1848(c)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–4(c)(2)), as amended by this section.

Oh wait.. so according to the Bill I have..in a year after the bill is passed... THEN there will be a proposed plan for internally tracking the relative values of physicians services.
The whole bill is filled with such language..

(a) Application of Payment Processes under Title XVIII.—Except as otherwise provided in this section, the Secretary shall establish, by regulation, fee schedules that establish payment amounts for benefits under this Act in a manner that is consistent with processes for determining payments for items and services under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.), including the application of the provisions of, and amendments made by, section 612.

huh.." shall establish" ??? Wait.. I thought you said all the specifics were there??? Don't see them... so please link to those specifics there Sangha... cuz obviously.. Bill S1804 Medicare for All Act 2017. doesn't have them.

If not, then why do you keep telling lies about a bill you haven't read?

I am not the one telling lies here Sangha... so please provide the specifics.. because they aren't in the bill.
 
When quoted? Yes. Then you went on to claim I made statements that did not include the full text of what I said.

Yeah, you didn't say what I quoted you saying because I didn't quote everything you said!! :lamo

Sure they do.. heck its the lies you keep telling. Its going to reduce cost.. but be like Medicare.. wait.. not really like medicare.. but that's okay.. its going to reduce cost like Canada.. but its going to have more coverage than Canadian single payer. Wait.. its going to get rid of insurance companies.. and no more bills...

Sorry sir..proponents aren't just pushing a free lunch... M4All is a proverbial unicorn

IOW, no one said that there's a free lunch. You lied again


Great.. please link to it.. specifically how his plan is paying for skilled nursing facilities and their pay schedule, how DME is paid for and that pay schedule, and how outpatient surgery centers are paid for, what codes a are billable etc.
Yep it does. I couldn't find the specifics that you claim are there. So I have asked you to link to those specifics.

As I told you before, I am not here to cure your ignorance. I am here to mock it


Nope..nothing magical about it. Its exactly how the economy works. When thousands of healthcare workers are out of a job, and thousands are getting paid less. and GDP is reduced by 4-6%. . that's pretty much what happens. Nothing magical about it.

Yes, all the money people save is going to magically disappear. People will not spend the money they're going to not spend on health care.


Yep... which is why I know the specifics aren't there.

Here is an excerpt :

Oh wait.. so according to the Bill I have..in a year after the bill is passed... THEN there will be a proposed plan for internally tracking the relative values of physicians services.
The whole bill is filled with such language..

Umm, you read it wrong. The plan is for internal tracking of THE REVIEWS of the relative values of physicians services.

It's clear that the reason why you are unclear about the clarity of this Bill's provisions is your inability to understand what you have read


huh.." shall establish" ??? Wait.. I thought you said all the specifics were there??? Don't see them... so please link to those specifics there Sangha... cuz obviously.. Bill S1804 Medicare for All Act 2017. doesn't have them.

I never said all the specifics were there.

Why do you constantly lie?

I am not the one telling lies here Sangha... so please provide the specifics.. because they aren't in the bill.

I have proven that you have repeatedly lied and if you want specifics, I refer to your lie that M4A coverage is less than Medicare's coverage

And since you do have the link to Sanders M4A bill, why did you ask me for the link?
 
Back
Top Bottom