How Hillary used Obama’s FBI to illegally spy and start a coup.

Ripple2352

New member
Awards
0
And that dismal 52.9% rate is with people directly paying for tuition, books and boarding; suggesting (to me, at least) that there is a great(er) incentive to graduate since the student (or the student's relative) is paying for it. Imagine what the graduation rate might be if going to a University was "free" (no one pays directly, because we all pay for it through taxes). Again, to me, "at no direct cost" to the student creates less incentive to finish since there is little skin in the game. I may be wrong, but I believe people take things more seriously when they are paying the price.
You're exactly right about this. I don't have links at the moment but I've read several articles about how many "free education" programs have been, and are currently, being done at local levels and almost without fail, the graduation rate drops for those receiving the "free" education. Unfortunately we have a lot of politicians today that have become masters at peddling swill to the masses. It's all wonderful to hear "Medicare for all", "free college", and "guaranteed jobs" (the latter two almost inarguably being silly as all hell) because it makes people feel warm and fuzzy. The unfortunate reality is though that it basically fiscally irresponsible at best, and impossible at worst And, if anyone truly cares about our national debt (they should), then the conversation is basically a non-starter. Our government has proven to be amazing at one thing, and one thing only: taking our tax dollars and wasting large amounts of said taxes on absolute garbage and ineffective programs, which really range from up and down the entire spectrum. That alone should be painfully obvious to anyone with a functioning brain cell left. Voting for people who want to increase government, which in turn almost always means higher taxes, the same government that's painfully irresponsible and ineffective, and in 2019 some people think downright evil, makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. Before anyone brings up their favorite go-to examples of the Nordic countries, take this into account: 1. They dont pay for their military. WE DO. 2. They have unbelievably high taxes. Like, insane high. I can only speak for myself, but I feel I'm a better judge of where my money should go to benefit me and mine than Uncle Sam is. 3. Those countries, on top of not having a military expense, have less regulated free economic markets than we do, and they also have a very large revenue stream coming in from energy and off-shore drilling operations.

Having said all of that, that doesnt mean I think its OK for these billion dollar companies to pay no taxes. That's not the case, they need to be taxed. However, its proven to be a slippery slope. Too much taxation and that slows hiring rates (and even decreases them in some cases), leads to less and slower upward mobility in some companies, can result in expense cuts (most often of which start with cutting jobs), and less generous benefits. ALL of this needs to be taken into consideration.

What medication and medical procedures cost here is ludicrous. In fact, its criminal. Nobody should be dying because they cant afford insulin (something BBers get on the black mart for crips sake). Cancer treatments should not cost in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Theres a plethora of others as well. But wouldnt one think there can be viable alternatives that do NOT involve a complete government (remember, this is a govt that's PROVEN to be extraordinarily inefficent) takeover? There has to be some common sense solutions and legislation out there that will help this situation. There is already a shortage of doctors here in the US. In fact, theres a global shortage of doctors. When you have the government coming in telling these doctors, facilities and hospitals what they're going to be for each procedure, etc, that doesnt create an environment that attracts more people to become doctors. In fact, it's quite possible that such practices very well may cause smaller GP and specialist facilities to close, causing job loss. Once again, unfortunately, it's all an incredibly nuanced and complicated situation where positive changes in one area can have absolutely catastrophic effects in another.

Free college, aka more of our tax dollars going to ****, is an even bigger problem. How about the government get out of the loan business? These loans are guaranteed to be backed, and creates the exact incentives for universities to increase their tuitions. Because they're going to be paid no matter what. I'm sure it should be easy enough to find a cap on interest rates that are applied to student loans and make it law (in a perfect world I guess. Just look at the clown car show that is our Congress today and we can see how this common sense legislation is wishful thinking). Take that into account with the aforementioned decrease in graduation percentage when tuitions are free. If tuition were to be paid for by our tax dollars, every single penny spent on someone who went to college just to "go to college" and never took it seriously and applied themselves would be the very definition of a "waste". It would be money that could be immediately flushed down the toilet to save everyone time. Yes, it would help a lot of people get an education. That's a positive. But this also does nothing to bring down or control tuition costs, unless uncle Sam plans on going the same route as Medicare and telling the universities exactly what tuition will be. What about private universities? Are those abolished? Allowed to stay? On top of ALL of this, many, many job markets are already saturated. If this were to lead to an increase in available workers then that directly leads to lower wages, especially for jobs straight out of college. For every 10% increase in available workers, that leads to a 3% decrease in compensation. This is in all industry. The CEOs, board members, and corporate big cats are only saving money in that situation. They're not paying more in wages, they're able to pay less, because SOMEONE will work for what they offer. It results in nothing but a transfer of wealth to the already wealthy. What we should be doing is stop telling these kids that college is the best answer right now. It's not, at least IMO it isnt. If I had a 16, 17, 18yr old kid right now I'd be doing everything in my power to try and get them to look into a trade school. It's cheaper. Faster. Much more highly specialized in most cases. And most have very good career placement plans upon graduation. Also, depending on the trade, as this wouldn't apply across the board, but some of these are kinda easy to start your own business in after you've put in some time. A path to being your own boss is ALWAYS a good thing IMO.

And I'm not even gonna get started on this "guaranteed federal job" horsesh*t. More, and more, and more taxes on top of taxes to pay for people to work. Never has it worked to create a job for the sake of creating a job. Its never leads to a positive outcome. And do we even need to comment on how this would absolutely sap people of any motivation to go out and earn a degree/certification anymore if they were guaranteed to work for Uncle Sam?

Woooooh...that was a rant! Kinda feels like I had that all bottled up for a while ;)
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
You're exactly right about this. I don't have links at the moment but I've read several articles about how many "free education" programs have been, and are currently, being done at local levels and almost without fail, the graduation rate drops for those receiving the "free" education. Unfortunately we have a lot of politicians today that have become masters at peddling swill to the masses. It's all wonderful to hear "Medicare for all", "free college", and "guaranteed jobs" (the latter two almost inarguably being silly as all hell) because it makes people feel warm and fuzzy. The unfortunate reality is though that it basically fiscally irresponsible at best, and impossible at worst And, if anyone truly cares about our national debt (they should), then the conversation is basically a non-starter. Our government has proven to be amazing at one thing, and one thing only: taking our tax dollars and wasting large amounts of said taxes on absolute garbage and ineffective programs, which really range from up and down the entire spectrum. That alone should be painfully obvious to anyone with a functioning brain cell left. Voting for people who want to increase government, which in turn almost always means higher taxes, the same government that's painfully irresponsible and ineffective, and in 2019 some people think downright evil, makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. Before anyone brings up their favorite go-to examples of the Nordic countries, take this into account: 1. They dont pay for their military. WE DO. 2. They have unbelievably high taxes. Like, insane high. I can only speak for myself, but I feel I'm a better judge of where my money should go to benefit me and mine than Uncle Sam is. 3. Those countries, on top of not having a military expense, have less regulated free economic markets than we do, and they also have a very large revenue stream coming in from energy and off-shore drilling operations.

Having said all of that, that doesnt mean I think its OK for these billion dollar companies to pay no taxes. That's not the case, they need to be taxed. However, its proven to be a slippery slope. Too much taxation and that slows hiring rates (and even decreases them in some cases), leads to less and slower upward mobility in some companies, can result in expense cuts (most often of which start with cutting jobs), and less generous benefits. ALL of this needs to be taken into consideration.

What medication and medical procedures cost here is ludicrous. In fact, its criminal. Nobody should be dying because they cant afford insulin (something BBers get on the black mart for crips sake). Cancer treatments should not cost in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Theres a plethora of others as well. But wouldnt one think there can be viable alternatives that do NOT involve a complete government (remember, this is a govt that's PROVEN to be extraordinarily inefficent) takeover? There has to be some common sense solutions and legislation out there that will help this situation. There is already a shortage of doctors here in the US. In fact, theres a global shortage of doctors. When you have the government coming in telling these doctors, facilities and hospitals what they're going to be for each procedure, etc, that doesnt create an environment that attracts more people to become doctors. In fact, it's quite possible that such practices very well may cause smaller GP and specialist facilities to close, causing job loss. Once again, unfortunately, it's all an incredibly nuanced and complicated situation where positive changes in one area can have absolutely catastrophic effects in another.

Free college, aka more of our tax dollars going to ****, is an even bigger problem. How about the government get out of the loan business? These loans are guaranteed to be backed, and creates the exact incentives for universities to increase their tuitions. Because they're going to be paid no matter what. I'm sure it should be easy enough to find a cap on interest rates that are applied to student loans and make it law (in a perfect world I guess. Just look at the clown car show that is our Congress today and we can see how this common sense legislation is wishful thinking). Take that into account with the aforementioned decrease in graduation percentage when tuitions are free. If tuition were to be paid for by our tax dollars, every single penny spent on someone who went to college just to "go to college" and never took it seriously and applied themselves would be the very definition of a "waste". It would be money that could be immediately flushed down the toilet to save everyone time. Yes, it would help a lot of people get an education. That's a positive. But this also does nothing to bring down or control tuition costs, unless uncle Sam plans on going the same route as Medicare and telling the universities exactly what tuition will be. What about private universities? Are those abolished? Allowed to stay? On top of ALL of this, many, many job markets are already saturated. If this were to lead to an increase in available workers then that directly leads to lower wages, especially for jobs straight out of college. For every 10% increase in available workers, that leads to a 3% decrease in compensation. This is in all industry. The CEOs, board members, and corporate big cats are only saving money in that situation. They're not paying more in wages, they're able to pay less, because SOMEONE will work for what they offer. It results in nothing but a transfer of wealth to the already wealthy. What we should be doing is stop telling these kids that college is the best answer right now. It's not, at least IMO it isnt. If I had a 16, 17, 18yr old kid right now I'd be doing everything in my power to try and get them to look into a trade school. It's cheaper. Faster. Much more highly specialized in most cases. And most have very good career placement plans upon graduation. Also, depending on the trade, as this wouldn't apply across the board, but some of these are kinda easy to start your own business in after you've put in some time. A path to being your own boss is ALWAYS a good thing IMO.

And I'm not even gonna get started on this "guaranteed federal job" horsesh*t. More, and more, and more taxes on top of taxes to pay for people to work. Never has it worked to create a job for the sake of creating a job. Its never leads to a positive outcome. And do we even need to comment on how this would absolutely sap people of any motivation to go out and earn a degree/certification anymore if they were guaranteed to work for Uncle Sam?

Woooooh...that was a rant! Kinda feels like I had that all bottled up for a while ;)
great post!!!
 
nostrum420

nostrum420

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
Being one of those folks who does depend on insulin has basically turned me into a single issue voter.

If people think Medicare For All is a bad plan, I understand the hesitations BUT the Republicans seem to have NO plan, other than letting drug manufacturers and insurers run wild, which leaves me somewhere between destitute and dead.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
Being one of those folks who does depend on insulin has basically turned me into a single issue voter.

If people think Medicare For All is a bad plan, I understand the hesitations BUT the Republicans seem to have NO plan, other than letting drug manufacturers and insurers run wild, which leaves me somewhere between destitute and dead.
ask a older person who is on medicare how they like it....socialists want to do away with private insurance and force all of us to get the same inadequate care that seniors receive.

almost every area has a clinic that provides care and medications based on earnings, catholic charities runs one here in my town...even dental is provided at a much reduced cost. I donated to catholic charities last year even though I am not catholic because of all the great work they do.
 
nostrum420

nostrum420

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
ask a older person who is on medicare how they like it....socialists want to do away with private insurance and force all of us to get the same inadequate care that seniors receive.

almost every area has a clinic that provides care and medications based on earnings, catholic charities runs one here in my town...even dental is provided at a much reduced cost. I donated to catholic charities last year even though I am not catholic because of all the great work they do.
As I understand it, M4A is supposed to be more robust in terms of coverage.

Again, I would be happy to consider a Republican plan but there doesn't seem to be one.
 
Beau

Beau

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
Here is about as jaundice of view as you will get: If you want it to be costly and ineffective - let the Government run it (or be responsible for it). Seriously, in California the schools are a joke, the DMV is a joke, the public employees retirement system will almost certainly bankrupt the state (the unfunded liability is beyond comprehension and I consider it a crime to allow it to be that way), and those are the highlights.

There must be at least some financial responsibility and some degree to P&L responsibility - and hopefully a profit motive. But elected officials, in most cases, have never had to build a real budget, or manage to a P&L, or have a real job that meant making decisions with consequences and accountability. Instead, just like University Professors, they are chalked full of theory, that fails when applied in the real world.

And now the biggest babies are frothing at the mouth, demanding some form of or degree of socialism, without having any idea what it is (really) and how it is actually funded. They are selling what freedom they have for being fed at the ever growing Government breast. By the way, when will someone in the media ask idiots like AOC when and where socialism has worked, and at what expense - and who "really" benefitted?

I do not want my healthcare to be administered by a DMV, public "servant" mentality. One needs only to look at the VA debacle.

So we have extremes, and need to find and implement something that negates the worse of those two options. If the Republicans fail at that (too), we are screwed.
 
Last edited:
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Instead, just like University Professors, they are chalked full of theory, that fails when applied in the real world.
Care to clarify? The professor's job isn't to hold your hand once you graduate. If you can't figure out what to do with the knowledge, then that's on you.
 
Beau

Beau

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
Yes, the Professors espouse things they have never done, and might (or might not) work in theory, but the Professors have never reduced them to practice or could they, because they lack practical business and corporate experience and many are devoid of sound business judgement. I found this true at both undergrad and MBA (USC) level, and my sons both found it to be true at the undergrad level (UCLA) and law school level.

As to your comment that the professor's job isn't to hold your hand once you graduate, I agree. Also, I agree with your comment that "If you can't figure out what to do with the knowledge, then that's on you.", The problem is that most of what they present as knowledge, isn't knowledge - instead they are intellectual theories these posers have read - but never implemented. Knowledge is much different than repeating ideas. To be meaningful, knowledge must not only be "facts" (more commonly opinions) but it must also reflect the implementation skills acquired by a person through experience. It simply cannot only be education based on the theoretical understanding of a subject. It has to be much more.

And the misinformation is appalling. At UCLA my sons were "instructed" that "the role of corporations in the United States is simply to redistribute wealth".

Hysterically flawed.
 
Last edited:
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Yes, the Professors espouse things they have never done, and might (or might not) work in theory, but the Professors have never reduced them to practice or could they, because they lack practical business and corporate experience and many are devoid of sound business judgement. I found this true at both undergrad and MBA (USC) level, and my sons both found it to be true at the undergrad level (UCLA) and law school level.

As to your comment that the professor's job isn't to hold your hand once you graduate, I agree. Also, I agree with your comment that "If you can't figure out what to do with the knowledge, then that's on you.", The problem is that most of what they present as knowledge, isn't knowledge - instead they are intellectual theories these posers have read - but never implemented. Knowledge is much different than repeating ideas. To be meaningful, knowledge must not only be "facts" (more commonly opinions) but it must also reflect the implementation skills acquired by a person through experience. It simply cannot only be education based on the theoretical understanding of a subject. It has to be much more.

And the misinformation is appalling. At UCLA my sons were "instructed" that "the role of corporations in the United States is simply to redistribute wealth".

Hysterically flawed.
So you have limited experience with business/law field at two California schools and you're using that to make blanket statements about college professors? There are plenty of good schools out there with professors who do have real world experience. I use facts that I learned in undergrad and grad school on a daily basis.

A lot of fields of study are constantly changing though, so the best practice is to teach problem solving since the problems are constantly new. Like your example of law school, most don't teach you the facts that you even need to take the bar exam. You have to do that on your own. My field is science so I did learn a lot of facts, but I also learned how to solve scientific problems. I never expected to have all the answers just because I graduated, but I feel able to figure problems out and find answers on my own.
 

Ripple2352

New member
Awards
0
Being one of those folks who does depend on insulin has basically turned me into a single issue voter.

If people think Medicare For All is a bad plan, I understand the hesitations BUT the Republicans seem to have NO plan, other than letting drug manufacturers and insurers run wild, which leaves me somewhere between destitute and dead.
I hear you man. I do. Again, the cost of these drugs here in the US is criminal. IMO theres no better word for it. However, as I said, there has got to be ways to mitigate this stuff that does not involve a complete government takeover of healthcare. I understand that the proposed single payer systems, at least Bernie's, is more robust than that current version of Medicare for seniors. However, that also means it's going to be much, much more expensive. In the same way that you're waiting for a Republican proposal, I'm waiting for someone to actually sell me on a single payer system that doesnt fall on the middle class to pay. I've said it before and I'll say it again, Bill Gates and Mark Cuban aren't paying for our healthcare. All rich people aren't rich because they make $2 billion a year in cash earnings. These peoples wealth are spread out in different ways. Taxing the rich even more, and corporations as well, still doesnt even come close to footing the bill for a single payer system. It will fall on the middle class just like everything else, and the tax hike will NOT be a small one.

I feel for people who have real illnesses like yourself. Truly, I do. I cant stress enough how horrible it is what were charged for drugs and procedures. Again, criminal. But for every person such as yourself there are others who, especially if they bear no fiscal responsibility, already go to the doctors for every ache, pain, itch, scratch, and discomfort. It's people like that who would be essentially stealing from all of our pockets, increasing the overall cost of the program, and increasing the wait times that we hear about in some countries that are VERY REAL. They are not a fake boogeyman that some want to make them sound like. With a population of 328 million, and a current shortage of doctors (an issue that would only be exacerbated under single payer) I cant see how the benefits outweigh the costs. I'm waiting for someone to sell me on it, I really am. It just seems that nobody can adequately address my main concerns, which are a healthy tax increase, wait times and people taking advantage of the system (worsening the wait times issue among many other things), and freedom of choice when it comes to seeing certain specialists and the like (that may not be a huge issue, I admit I haven't come across a lot of information on that exact issue).
 
Beau

Beau

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
So you have limited experience with business/law field at two California schools and you're using that to make blanket statements about college professors? There are plenty of good schools out there with professors who do have real world experience. I use facts that I learned in undergrad and grad school on a daily basis.

A lot of fields of study are constantly changing though, so the best practice is to teach problem solving since the problems are constantly new. Like your example of law school, most don't teach you the facts that you even need to take the bar exam. You have to do that on your own. My field is science so I did learn a lot of facts, but I also learned how to solve scientific problems. I never expected to have all the answers just because I graduated, but I feel able to figure problems out and find answers on my own.
OK

I have 35 years of business experience, 15+ of those at a C level, in addition to having a great deal of exposure to this specific issue through other venues. I have also debated extensively in this arena. I stand by my conclusions, just as you stand by your conclusions. OK by me.

And I would also say that I assume the impact of teaching in emerging science, engineering or medical areas of study would appear to be far greater impact than, say, business issues. Framing many business issues tend to be less driven by emerging analytics and technology, although the product or service in question may be heavily dependent on technology. Business issues tend to be solved through detailed financial assessment, strong business acumen, strong "soft"/people skills, negotiating and strategic skills and a command of the spoken and written word.

And you are correct - we all have to rely on how bad we want to learn, and how bad we want to pass exams.

I have no intention of attempting to substantiate my position, although I will say that I have personally been involved in many discussions with graduate level professors who were completely unable to address or to attempt to explain, using any real world terms or real world examples, of how they, or someone else, would apply their theories to deal with very specific business issues. They simply had no idea.

However, there is a reason for the sentiment that "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach." In some cases, I believe that is very true; perhaps less so in other cases.
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
OK

I have 35 years of business experience, 15+ of those at a C level, in addition to having a great deal of exposure to this specific issue through other venues. I have also debated extensively in this arena. I stand by my conclusions, just as you stand by your conclusions. OK by me.

And I would also say that I assume the impact of teaching in emerging science, engineering or medical areas of study would appear to be far greater impact than, say, business issues. Framing many business issues tend to be less driven by emerging analytics and technology, although the product or service in question may be heavily dependent on technology. Business issues tend to be solved through detailed financial assessment, strong business acumen, strong "soft"/people skills, negotiating and strategic skills and a command of the spoken and written word.

And you are correct - we all have to rely on how bad we want to learn, and how bad we want to pass exams.

I have no intention of attempting to substantiate my position, although I will say that I have personally been involved in many discussions with graduate level professors who were completely unable to address or to attempt to explain, using any real world terms or real world examples, of how they, or someone else, would apply their theories to deal with very specific business issues. They simply had no idea.

However, there is a reason for the sentiment that "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach." In some cases, I believe that is very true; perhaps less so in other cases.
That's a whole lot of words for somebody who has no intention of attempting to substantiate their position. I asked if you wanted to clarify your statement as I didn't want to assume you were talking about all college professors, but you're standing firm on that and life goes on. The people that I know who have gone through HBS and Booth seem quite happy with their business education and instructors, but even they can't rest only on their degree.
 
nostrum420

nostrum420

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
I hear you man. I do. Again, the cost of these drugs here in the US is criminal. IMO theres no better word for it. However, as I said, there has got to be ways to mitigate this stuff that does not involve a complete government takeover of healthcare. I understand that the proposed single payer systems, at least Bernie's, is more robust than that current version of Medicare for seniors. However, that also means it's going to be much, much more expensive. In the same way that you're waiting for a Republican proposal, I'm waiting for someone to actually sell me on a single payer system that doesnt fall on the middle class to pay. I've said it before and I'll say it again, Bill Gates and Mark Cuban aren't paying for our healthcare. All rich people aren't rich because they make $2 billion a year in cash earnings. These peoples wealth are spread out in different ways. Taxing the rich even more, and corporations as well, still doesnt even come close to footing the bill for a single payer system. It will fall on the middle class just like everything else, and the tax hike will NOT be a small one.

I feel for people who have real illnesses like yourself. Truly, I do. I cant stress enough how horrible it is what were charged for drugs and procedures. Again, criminal. But for every person such as yourself there are others who, especially if they bear no fiscal responsibility, already go to the doctors for every ache, pain, itch, scratch, and discomfort. It's people like that who would be essentially stealing from all of our pockets, increasing the overall cost of the program, and increasing the wait times that we hear about in some countries that are VERY REAL. They are not a fake boogeyman that some want to make them sound like. With a population of 328 million, and a current shortage of doctors (an issue that would only be exacerbated under single payer) I cant see how the benefits outweigh the costs. I'm waiting for someone to sell me on it, I really am. It just seems that nobody can adequately address my main concerns, which are a healthy tax increase, wait times and people taking advantage of the system (worsening the wait times issue among many other things), and freedom of choice when it comes to seeing certain specialists and the like (that may not be a huge issue, I admit I haven't come across a lot of information on that exact issue).
I don't think single payer will suddenly turn people into hypochondriacs. If it does, though, those individuals will be referred to psychiatric care? 😇

You can actually go online and check the wait times for various procedures at hospitals around Canada. Every time I've looked, I've never seen anything egregious. I've seen interviews with both Canadian Drs and citizens refuting the wait line issue.

Again I totally understand there are valid criticisms it's just far more compelling to support M4A than literally no plan at all.
 
rob112

rob112

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
I don't think single payer will suddenly turn people into hypochondriacs. If it does, though, those individuals will be referred to psychiatric care?

You can actually go online and check the wait times for various procedures at hospitals around Canada. Every time I've looked, I've never seen anything egregious. I've seen interviews with both Canadian Drs and citizens refuting the wait line issue.

Again I totally understand there are valid criticisms it's just far more compelling to support M4A than literally no plan at all.
I don’t think you can compare the US to countries like the Nordic countries and Canada that have much smaller and often more homogeneous populations. I mean you could I guess but I would question the accuracy.
 

Ripple2352

New member
Awards
0
I don’t think you can compare the US to countries like the Nordic countries and Canada that have much smaller and often more homogeneous populations. I mean you could I guess but I would question the accuracy.
I see Canadians all the time on Facebook talk about wait times in the comments section of articles. Plus, as you stated, our much larger population will certainly have an effect on those wait times as well. I find it troubling that we have a politician state that the VA is the "Cadillac of healthcare", while over the last few months we've had multiple veterans commit suicide on VA campuses as protest to the quality of care they receive (or lack thereof). Granted said politician is a blithering idiot, but still...not a good look IMO
 
rob112

rob112

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
I see Canadians all the time on Facebook talk about wait times in the comments section of articles. Plus, as you stated, our much larger population will certainly have an effect on those wait times as well. I find it troubling that we have a politician state that the VA is the "Cadillac of healthcare", while over the last few months we've had multiple veterans commit suicide on VA campuses as protest to the quality of care they receive (or lack thereof). Granted said politician is a blithering idiot, but still...not a good look IMO
Only Canadian citizen I know said the health care was ok for colds and stuff, but when her son got an autoimmune disease it was horrible. She moved to America. Granted that is just one person so I’m not gonna make a blanket statement.
 
nostrum420

nostrum420

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
I don’t think you can compare the US to countries like the Nordic countries and Canada that have much smaller and often more homogeneous populations. I mean you could I guess but I would question the accuracy.
The thing is the population point throws out comparing us to just about any other country.

You could also find smaller countries with private systems and say that's evidence a private system wouldn't work well here.
 
nostrum420

nostrum420

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
Only Canadian citizen I know said the health care was ok for colds and stuff, but when her son got an autoimmune disease it was horrible. She moved to America. Granted that is just one person so I’m not gonna make a blanket statement.
That's the thing, typically the evidence of the issues in Canada is anecdotal whereas I haven't seen any major study or polling to show Canadians are largely unhappy with the care they receive.
 
rob112

rob112

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
The thing is the population point throws out comparing us to just about any other country.

You could also find smaller countries with private systems and say that's evidence a private system wouldn't work well here.
I’m not in favor of that either. I’m saying people can cherry pick either way. My favorite is how people cherry pick one aspect of a society that suits them while ignoring every other difference of that society that doesn’t.

We are a very unique country.

That's the thing, typically the evidence of the issues in Canada is anecdotal whereas I haven't seen any major study or polling to show Canadians are largely unhappy with the care they receive.
What this friend said is it was largely ok. Not great, not bad. It was fine, until there was an issue that was big. Basically for the majority of people it is fine. It’s the minority that it’s worse from this anecdotal account.

Only other issue is how is it paid for? I also share a major concern with this.
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Only Canadian citizen I know said the health care was ok for colds and stuff, but when her son got an autoimmune disease it was horrible. She moved to America. Granted that is just one person so I’m not gonna make a blanket statement.
This may be due in part to the type of docs as well. General physicians tend to be more common in Canada, where the US has a lot more specialists. So the US will have more options for severe issues.
 
nostrum420

nostrum420

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
Only other issue is how is it paid for? I also share a major concern with this.
The thing is, your health insurance bill goes away. So, yes, there will be an increase in taxes but overall most people's household budgets should be in the same or better shape with M4A. Even a study by a Koch bros. funded think tank showed single payer could save the country money, overall.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/the-cost-of-medicare-for-all/
 
Beau

Beau

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
Well, the Obama Administration promised an average savings of $2500, so ...

Maybe we should all take a few moments to reflect back and refresh ourselves on the grossly candid (and inexcusably elitist and arrogant) admissions of Jonathan Gruber.

"save the country" and "government involvement" should never be used in association with one another. They are mutually exclusive.
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
The thing is, your health insurance bill goes away. So, yes, there will be an increase in taxes but overall most people's household budgets should be in the same or better shape with M4A. Even a study by a Koch bros. funded think tank showed single payer could save the country money, overall.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/the-cost-of-medicare-for-all/
They point out though that the costs will likely be much higher than the study estimates. Like that 40% less reimbursement for physicians is never going to happen and would be horrible for patients. Doctors are already screwed by insurance as to how much time they can spend with patients and what diagnostics and treatments will actually get covered. Obviously there is a lot to work out, but I'd rather see insurance companies held accountable for what we or our employers pay for. Because that's another issue...my employer covers my health insurance 100% and it's that way for a lot of people. The other day I saw the local burger chain here in Seattle, Dick's, is offering $17/hour and 100% covered medical and dental.

Maybe I'm overly cynical, but I'm imagining that the problem simply gets moved from private companies to the government. It may seem good at first, but it will quickly get exploited like everything else and we'll be back where we are or worse. I'm extremely against welfare of any kind, but I'm also open minded about helping others, so I'm willing to listen and compromise. In other words, the government takes my money anyway, so it might as well go to something good. I just haven't been convinced this is the answer.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
As I understand it, M4A is supposed to be more robust in terms of coverage.

Again, I would be happy to consider a Republican plan but there doesn't seem to be one.
it is regrettable that democrats are proposing a more 'robust' plan of medicare for all, when seniors who have paid into medicare their entire lives are losing their longtime homes everyday to pay medical bills that medicare doesn't cover. plus having to choose between eating cat/dog food or buying prescriptions that medicare doesn't cover...

aren't quacks like Bernie proposing giving medicare for all to illegal immigrants? a more 'robust' medicare?
now that would be a real kick in the ass to seniors struggling on medicare today, imo….if my wife and I and my sister hadn't helped my mom when she got breast cancer she would have lost her home...you can kiss my ass if you think I support 'free. more robust' medicare for illegals!!!
 

Ripple2352

New member
Awards
0
They point out though that the costs will likely be much higher than the study estimates. Like that 40% less reimbursement for physicians is never going to happen and would be horrible for patients. Doctors are already screwed by insurance as to how much time they can spend with patients and what diagnostics and treatments will actually get covered. Obviously there is a lot to work out, but I'd rather see insurance companies held accountable for what we or our employers pay for. Because that's another issue...my employer covers my health insurance 100% and it's that way for a lot of people. The other day I saw the local burger chain here in Seattle, Dick's, is offering $17/hour and 100% covered medical and dental.

Maybe I'm overly cynical, but I'm imagining that the problem simply gets moved from private companies to the government. It may seem good at first, but it will quickly get exploited like everything else and we'll be back where we are or worse. I'm extremely against welfare of any kind, but I'm also open minded about helping others, so I'm willing to listen and compromise. In other words, the government takes my money anyway, so it might as well go to something good. I just haven't been convinced this is the answer.
I agree with most of your post here. I too am generally against the idea of entitlements. At the very least I think the duration they are provided to individuals needs to be restricted, because some people are perfectly fine with not getting any more than that and just living off of other peoples tax dollars. Likewise, I'm also open for discussion about the M4A, but I cant get down with the "govt takes my money anyway" statement. IMO that's the problem. The federal govt isnt going to reallocate where and how they're spending, and/or stop funding garbage programs and cut massive spending in other areas to pay for this. All they're going to do is tax us all even further.

Colorado recently passed some type of legislation that limits the co-pay for insulin. More things like this can be done across the board. I'm not all about Uncle Sam having full control over our healthcare. Like you said, I think it just transfers the problems, not solves them. I see no reason why a hybrid system of some type couldn't work, where folks can opt-in to govt coverage or something along those lines. There HAS GOT TO BE A BETTER WAY than full govt control. I dont think that's going to be as peachy as some predict.

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/24/726817332/colorado-caps-insulin-co-pays-at-100-for-insured-residents
 
nostrum420

nostrum420

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
it is regrettable that democrats are proposing a more 'robust' plan of medicare for all, when seniors who have paid into medicare their entire lives are losing their longtime homes everyday to pay medical bills that medicare doesn't cover. plus having to choose between eating cat/dog food or buying prescriptions that medicare doesn't cover...

aren't quacks like Bernie proposing giving medicare for all to illegal immigrants? a more 'robust' medicare?
now that would be a real kick in the ass to seniors struggling on medicare today, imo….if my wife and I and my sister hadn't helped my mom when she got breast cancer she would have lost her home...you can kiss my ass if you think I support 'free. more robust' medicare for illegals!!!
Fair enough but still for me it's:

Dems have a plan (arguably a bad one) to keep me alive.

Cons seem to want to take away all existing protections for people like me.
 
nostrum420

nostrum420

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
I agree with most of your post here. I too am generally against the idea of entitlements. At the very least I think the duration they are provided to individuals needs to be restricted, because some people are perfectly fine with not getting any more than that and just living off of other peoples tax dollars. Likewise, I'm also open for discussion about the M4A, but I cant get down with the "govt takes my money anyway" statement. IMO that's the problem. The federal govt isnt going to reallocate where and how they're spending, and/or stop funding garbage programs and cut massive spending in other areas to pay for this. All they're going to do is tax us all even further.

Colorado recently passed some type of legislation that limits the co-pay for insulin. More things like this can be done across the board. I'm not all about Uncle Sam having full control over our healthcare. Like you said, I think it just transfers the problems, not solves them. I see no reason why a hybrid system of some type couldn't work, where folks can opt-in to govt coverage or something along those lines. There HAS GOT TO BE A BETTER WAY than full govt control. I dont think that's going to be as peachy as some predict.

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/24/726817332/colorado-caps-insulin-co-pays-at-100-for-insured-residents
Several of the Dem candidates are proposing hybrid systems.

I think even if an M4A plan gets drawn up and passed it's going to get Republican amendments that will effectively lead to some form of hybrid system.
 
Beau

Beau

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
Since we are speaking of healthcare ...

California (Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democrat lawmakers) just announced a program where anyone under the age of 26 who lacks documentation verifying their citizenship is now entitled to receive "full health care benefits". It is estimated that the number of individuals who will immediately take advantage of this coverage is between 100,000 and 250,000 - but there is no way to estimate the actual number.

Hey, we didn't vote on that, did we? That has to be expensive, right?

Oh, they estimate costs to taxpayers will be well in excess of $100 million per year. I wondered where my tax dollars were going ... And even "liberal" websites are referring to this as "unsustainable" and a "financial burden". You think?

Sort of funny in a way - in terms of healthcare California is now doing more for people who cannot verify that they have the legal right to be in the state than they do for people who are legal residents. And California has an enormous homeless problem ... but knowing that they can come to California and receive free healthcare probably won't be an enticement for other people to move here.

Not much.

Meanwhile, the state of California is already $468 BILLION in debt.
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Yeah, that's just idiotic. Apparently some wanted to include illegal seniors too, but that was going too far lol
 
rob112

rob112

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
This may be due in part to the type of docs as well. General physicians tend to be more common in Canada, where the US has a lot more specialists. So the US will have more options for severe issues.
That makes a lot of sense
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
Fair enough but still for me it's:

Dems have a plan (arguably a bad one) to keep me alive.

Cons seem to want to take away all existing protections for people like me.
can't help but think you are over dramatizing. many states have programs to help people with diabetes who do not qualify for Medicaid benefits, neighborhood clinics are also a good resource. there are 3 based on income clinics here in my small town of 60,000.

if your income is low you can apply for CHIP....there is an abundance of assistance already available to keep you from dying-all you had to do was spend a few minutes looking.
 
nostrum420

nostrum420

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
can't help but think you are over dramatizing. many states have programs to help people with diabetes who do not qualify for Medicaid benefits, neighborhood clinics are also a good resource. there are 3 based on income clinics here in my small town of 60,000.

if your income is low you can apply for CHIP....there is an abundance of assistance already available to keep you from dying-all you had to do was spend a few minutes looking.
There are stories all the time of Type1 diabetics, like myself, dying from lack of affordable access to insulin. It's not an over-dramatization. Setting aside anecdotal evidence, though, the mortality rate for Type1 diabetes has actually been increasing, having roughly quadrupled over my lifetime.

183757


 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
can't help but think you are over dramatizing. many states have programs to help people with diabetes who do not qualify for Medicaid benefits, neighborhood clinics are also a good resource. there are 3 based on income clinics here in my small town of 60,000.

if your income is low you can apply for CHIP....there is an abundance of assistance already available to keep you from dying-all you had to do was spend a few minutes looking.
Weren't you just ranting about Medicare not covering things and losing houses like a few posts ago in this thread lol. Insulin price increases are a very real thing and those assistance programs are often used as justification for increasing prices, even though not everybody is going to qualify and it's not sustainable. But it's not like the disease goes away. This study does a good job of showing who all has the hand in the jar and why prices have gotten so crazy...it's long, so if you're not bored just skip to figure 6 http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/41/6/1299 . And I'm somebody who is for pharma making large profits, but this one has gone too far for a drug that peoples' lives depend on.
 
rob112

rob112

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
The thing is, your health insurance bill goes away. So, yes, there will be an increase in taxes but overall most people's household budgets should be in the same or better shape with M4A. Even a study by a Koch bros. funded think tank showed single payer could save the country money, overall.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/the-cost-of-medicare-for-all/
Yea but if we all pay the same how would that create more money for healthcare? Would they enforce lower wages for the jobs of people that save our lives?
 
nostrum420

nostrum420

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
Yea but if we all pay the same how would that create more money for healthcare? Would they enforce lower wages for the jobs of people that save our lives?
No, we'd have collecting bargaining power with drug companies and medical device manufacturers to drive those costs down.

Additionally, we'd be paying a Gov employee a more modest salary than insurance execs/CEOs so that cost could come down as well.

Actual care providers, Drs, Nurses, LPNs, CNAs, etc, would still be well compensated.
 
rob112

rob112

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
No, we'd have collecting bargaining power with drug companies and medical device manufacturers to drive those costs down.

Additionally, we'd be paying a Gov employee a more modest salary than insurance execs/CEOs so that cost could come down as well.

Actual care providers, Drs, Nurses, LPNs, CNAs, etc, would still be well compensated.
I guess my issue is I don’t know if there is anything that could be said that would have me say “we need to give the government more power over our lives.” I don’t trust them :(

I can see where you are coming from. Just like most of us you think the current system sucks and want something new. I would imagine most of us agree up to that point.
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
No, we'd have collecting bargaining power with drug companies and medical device manufacturers to drive those costs down.

Additionally, we'd be paying a Gov employee a more modest salary than insurance execs/CEOs so that cost could come down as well.

Actual care providers, Drs, Nurses, LPNs, CNAs, etc, would still be well compensated.
Devil's advocate and way more cynical person here lol. In a perfect world, sure, but insurance companies hold a lot of power. What leverage would the government have that the insurance companies don't? The answer to me creates a very dangerous situation where the same body handing out the drug approval you want is the same one that you're negotiating price with. Right now the FDA doesn't have input on drug prices and I'm constantly striking down the conspiracy theorists on here that claim they do, but I fear this would move us closer to that being possible.

I also constantly see insurance companies not willing to cover diagnostics and treatments or they want cheaper alternatives attempted first. If it were seasonal allergies, that would be mildly annoying, but I see it a lot in oncology, especially with drug companies finding connections between genetics and cancer treatment outcomes. There are genetic assays that can tell you if you're likely to respond to a cancer treatment or if it's a waste of time. And if you have a terminal cancer, you only have so many shots at extending your time. Insurance won't always cover it though if it's deemed experimental and now that call would be made by people in the government, some of which believe in things that go against science. The constant attacks on science by people in the government with no scientific or medical training, who base their decision off of profit and what their gut tells them, is probably what worries me the most about this.

And you might not have a central CEO making a million a year, but now you get the government that replaces them with 20 people making $100k.
 
nostrum420

nostrum420

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
I guess my issue is I don’t know if there is anything that could be said that would have me say “we need to give the government more power over our lives.” I don’t trust them :(

I can see where you are coming from. Just like most of us you think the current system sucks and want something new. I would imagine most of us agree up to that point.
As someone who deals with customs on a regular basis, I too am hesitant to hand much over to the Gov but this is clearly a market failure.

To me it seems analogous to fire-fighters. At one time, they were private as well but if you only put out the fire at the rich guy's house too many poor guy's houses burn in the neighborhood and you get to point where you can't put out the fire at anyone's house.

Now we have socialized fire departments. They're not perfect and many people buy extra fire extinguishers, sprinklers, etc, but it didn't turn us into a total communist society, it didn't bankrupt the government
Devil's advocate and way more cynical person here lol. In a perfect world, sure, but insurance companies hold a lot of power. What leverage would the government have that the insurance companies don't? The answer to me creates a very dangerous situation where the same body handing out the drug approval you want is the same one that you're negotiating price with. Right now the FDA doesn't have input on drug prices and I'm constantly striking down the conspiracy theorists on here that claim they do, but I fear this would move us closer to that being possible.

I also constantly see insurance companies not willing to cover diagnostics and treatments or they want cheaper alternatives attempted first. If it were seasonal allergies, that would be mildly annoying, but I see it a lot in oncology, especially with drug companies finding connections between genetics and cancer treatment outcomes. There are genetic assays that can tell you if you're likely to respond to a cancer treatment or if it's a waste of time. And if you have a terminal cancer, you only have so many shots at extending your time. Insurance won't always cover it though if it's deemed experimental and now that call would be made by people in the government, some of which believe in things that go against science. The constant attacks on science by people in the government with no scientific or medical training, who base their decision off of profit and what their gut tells them, is probably what worries me the most about this.

And you might not have a central CEO making a million a year, but now you get the government that replaces them with 20 people making $100k.
Those are all fair points and healthy skepticism is well warranted. That being said, I'm pretty willing to give just about anything a try other than the current system and those seem to be the options at the moment.
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Those are all fair points and healthy skepticism is well warranted. That being said, I'm pretty willing to give just about anything a try other than the current system and those seem to be the options at the moment.
I hear ya. I also have the benefit of not currently needing a life-saving medication, so it's easier for me to want to wait for other options. You have a point though in that I'm hearing few to no ideas for other options being considered.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Now we have socialized fire departments. They're not perfect and many people buy extra fire extinguishers, sprinklers, etc, but it didn't turn us into a total communist society, it didn't bankrupt the government
Its too late, the government already is bankrupt, LOL! They just keep spiraling us deeper in debt to fund government programs (especially the war machine) and print money out of thin air stripping people of their life savings.
 
nostrum420

nostrum420

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
Its too late, the government already is bankrupt, LOL! They just keep spiraling us deeper in debt to fund government programs (especially the war machine) and print money out of thin air stripping people of their life savings.
lol. Fair point but I don't think it was public fire departments that broke the piggy bank.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ax1
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
Weren't you just ranting about Medicare not covering things and losing houses like a few posts ago in this thread lol. Insulin price increases are a very real thing and those assistance programs are often used as justification for increasing prices, even though not everybody is going to qualify and it's not sustainable. But it's not like the disease goes away. This study does a good job of showing who all has the hand in the jar and why prices have gotten so crazy...it's long, so if you're not bored just skip to figure 6 http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/41/6/1299 . And I'm somebody who is for pharma making large profits, but this one has gone too far for a drug that peoples' lives depend on.
I skipped to figure 6....the list price versus net to manufacturer is ridiculous. the article states how much the price has risen since 2009, where was the outcry for struggling seniors back then? seniors were told that medicare didn't have the money to give them appropriate increases to meet the growing cost of prescriptions/healthcare, and now dimwits want to give a more 'robust' version of medicare away 'free' to everyone including illegals?


my point is if the government has money to give a free more 'robust' medicare to illegals why didn't they have the money to help seniors who actually paid into medicare?
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
There are stories all the time of Type1 diabetics, like myself, dying from lack of affordable access to insulin. It's not an over-dramatization. Setting aside anecdotal evidence, though, the mortality rate for Type1 diabetes has actually been increasing, having roughly quadrupled over my lifetime.

View attachment 183757

over half die under 60...I wonder what percentage die who are already covered by medicare-over 65?

also a great many of those deaths from diabetes could be attributed to overweight and diabetes prevalence among US immigrants, and I read where 40% of los angeles population was born outside the US.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
There are stories all the time of Type1 diabetics, like myself, dying from lack of affordable access to insulin. It's not an over-dramatization. Setting aside anecdotal evidence, though, the mortality rate for Type1 diabetes has actually been increasing, having roughly quadrupled over my lifetime.

View attachment 183757

There are stories all the time of Type1 diabetics, like myself, dying from lack of affordable access to insulin. It's not an over-dramatization. Setting aside anecdotal evidence, though, the mortality rate for Type1 diabetes has actually been increasing, having roughly quadrupled over my lifetime.

View attachment 183757

do some research on prevalence of overweight/diabetes among immigrants to US, including illegals.
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
do some research on prevalence of overweight/diabetes among immigrants to US, including illegals.
Are you telling the guy with diabetes to do research on diabetes lol. Come on man, he's talking about type 1 anyway
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
Are you telling the guy with diabetes to do research on diabetes lol. Come on man, he's talking about type 1 anyway
he gave statistics about deaths from diabetes...immigrants are inflating those numbers.
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
I skipped to figure 6....the list price versus net to manufacturer is ridiculous. the article states how much the price has risen since 2009, where was the outcry for struggling seniors back then? seniors were told that medicare didn't have the money to give them appropriate increases to meet the growing cost of prescriptions/healthcare, and now dimwits want to give a more 'robust' version of medicare away 'free' to everyone including illegals?


my point is if the government has money to give a free more 'robust' medicare to illegals why didn't they have the money to help seniors who actually paid into medicare?
You're right to be angry, but you're getting angry at the wrong people. Democrats have been speaking out since then. This isn't a new issue and it was liberals who brought attention to price gouging in pharma. And I know you don't like me saying it, but Medicare is socialized medicine. It's socialized medicine that we're forced to pay into, but it's still socialized medicine.

But you're right, there isn't money to cover what we have, let alone more. Medicare is already on track to run out of money and moves like Trump's tax cuts speed that up. I keep saying we need to cut our losses, pay out to seniors whatever is left, and stop collecting social security and medicare because I'm likely to see nothing or an extremely small return as a best case scenario. And you're going to hate this lol, but repealing Obamacare has negative effects on Medicare as well http://money.com/money/4662792/obamacare-repeal-medicare-why-you-should-care/
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
he gave statistics about deaths from diabetes...immigrants are inflating those numbers.
You're telling me that somebody that can literally walk across countries to get here is less healthy than any random US citizen that I find in a Walmart?
 
rob112

rob112

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
It’s my understanding that the majority of our debt is from social programs.

Also if you take out things like suicide and car accidents our life expectancy in America is great in comparison to many countries.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
You're telling me that somebody that can literally walk across countries to get here is less healthy than any random US citizen that I find in a Walmart?
we re talking about diabetes....it is a complicated disease[as I am sure you know]that requires proper care...immigrants are less likely to get to proper care thus making their mortality rate higher even than US citizens in a walmart.

you are big on immunizations[as am I]I wonder how many of those people walking across the border have immunizations?
 

Similar threads


Top