#FeelTheBern Releases Medicare for All Plan

[bladefd]

America isn’t going to have single payer healthcare. It’s not going to happen. The time has passed.

Other countries did it at a time when your doctor showed up at your house with a little black bag with a stethoscope, little glass bottles of medicine and other things in it.

It’s one thing to convince the population to do single payer government healthcare in that pre-modern medicine, pre technology era. It’s another thing to convince a population in the modern era where 180 million have private health coverage.

Don't be a negative Nancy, friend. Never say never.

Why don't you refute the points I made in that post and tell me where I am wrong in my argument? Can you refute those points? (btw I edited that post a bit since you quoted me)

[qrich]

If you feel the burn, I suggest getting tested for STDs.

[NumberSix]

Don't be a negative Nancy, friend. Never say never.

I

[tpols]

The difference being??
With an universal health care, you get rid of insurance companies, who are the middle men profiting HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS. If you drop the middle men, you can cut down significantly on paperwork, administrative fees [COLOR="Red"]and most importantly get rid of a plethora of needless regulations. Don't Republicans want fewer regulations? I thought that's what they want?[/COLOR]

the only thing they want is for the democrats to not have what ever there after. thats it.

of course it makes logical sense that eliminating insurers and their enormous bloat would free up tons of money, and make all the regulation on them (o-care) unnecessary and repealable since theyd be...gone.

But alas.. the democrats can NOT win... husseincare is the debil and so is burncare.

[bladefd]

[QUOTE=NumberSix]I

[NumberSix]

Why don't you tell me why you think that? Tell me what you think about my points in that big post. What do you disagree with? Why would it not work today?

It’s not about working or not working. Single payer healthcare works. It’s good, not great. It’s a simple matter of private being better. You’re not going to convince 180 million people to ditch private for something worse.

It’s like asking people to let you take away their 2019 Mercedes in return for a 2005 Toyota. The 2005 Toyota works. It’s a good car. But you’re not giving up your 2019 Mercedes for a 2005 toyota.

[bladefd]

the only thing they want is for the democrats to not have what ever there after. thats it.

of course it makes logical sense that eliminating insurers and their enormous bloat would free up tons of money, and make all the regulation on them (o-care) unnecessary and repealable since theyd be...gone.

But alas.. the democrats can NOT win... husseincare is the debil and so is burncare.

Regulations around medicare, medicaid, Obamacare would all go away to be replaced by one single text of regulation to cover everything and everyone. I would have no issue with limiting it to US citizens/greencard holders only with legal status. There could still be some private insurances for the rich if they want top of the line coverage. Not everyone needs that.

[bladefd]

It’s not about working or not working. Single payer healthcare works. It’s good, not great. It’s a simple matter of private being better. You’re not going to convince 180 million people to ditch private for something worse.

It’s like asking people to let you take away their 2019 Mercedes in return for a 2005 Toyota.

Why though? Employers and employees are already paying an arm and a leg for health care. Almost 4 trillion a year and they still don't get good coverage. Why wouldn't you want something that cuts down on regulations, paperwork for doctors/hospitals, cuts down on administrative fees and saves money ultimately?

[NumberSix]

Why though? Employers and employees are already paying an arm and a leg for health care. Almost 4 trillion a year and they still don't get good coverage. Why wouldn't you want something that cuts down on regulations, paperwork for doctors/hospitals, cuts down on administrative fees and saves money ultimately?

If you think a complete government takeover will REDUCE regulation, paperwork, rep-tape, administrative fees and costs then there’s almost no point even discussing this. That’s not living in reality.

Why the hell would you want healthcare to be subject to the mess that is the political process? Anytime you need to change anything it’s almost impossible to get congress to do it and then you have the mess of the courts putting injunctions on this provision or that thing until the Supreme Court makes a decision.

If these blue states want single payer, nothing is stopping them. So why aren’t they doing it?

[qrich]

Why though? Employers and employees are already paying an arm and a leg for health care. Almost 4 trillion a year and they still don't get good coverage. Why wouldn't you want something that cuts down on regulations, paperwork for doctors/hospitals, cuts down on administrative fees and saves money ultimately?

So if we cut back on regulations and allowed private insurance to compete with each other, more freely, without government sticking their nose into every single enrollment....you'd be for that as well?

Or do you only want it to be the case for government, who has shown to be trustworthy with SS, VA, Medicare, War on Drugs, housing, student loans, etc.?

[Akrazotile]

the only thing they want is for the democrats to not have what ever there after. thats it.

of course it makes logical sense that eliminating insurers and their enormous bloat would free up tons of money, and make all the regulation on them (o-care) unnecessary and repealable since theyd be...gone.

But alas.. the democrats can NOT win... husseincare is the debil and so is burncare.

This is dead wrong.

People dont want to overpay for poor quality healthcare. Has zero to do with democrats.

Peoples premiums already went up under Barrycare. Theyll be paying even more in taxes under Bernie care.

And for what?

So the thousands of alcoholic bums living under overpasses in each city can hit up the hospital free of charge on the dime of people who budget for their own health insurance?

America had a huge number of criminals and drug addicts and deadbeats. They dont deserve MORE shit just because you dont wanna work a little harder and budget a little better for your own health, and youre trying to couch your desire for a handout within the context of “caring about the indigent.” Youre part of the global 1%. Where is your 70% income donation to the people living on less than 2 bucks per day?

You personally want more free stuff for yourself, and youre frauding about some phony rhetoric about moral responsibility. Harry the hobo isnt your responsibility, and you arent Warren Buffet’s. Arent you a grown man??

Have some pride.

[diamenz]

what's wrong with someone wanting free stuff when they're barely scraping by working 60 hours with three kids to feed? and why side with the rich? tax the hell out of 'em - **** 'em. never understood this. u must be super well-off if you're worried about political beliefs more than your own pocketbook. i'm only worried about any relief i can get paying my bills and putting food in my family's belly. suppose that makes me low iq. i'd say **** it, give sanders' plan a shot. aren't u tired of the same old shit? i wanna see something new and different, whether it be trump, sanders, whatever.

[Hawker]

what's wrong with someone wanting free stuff when they're barely scraping by working 60 hours with three kids to feed? and why side with the rich? tax the hell out of 'em - **** 'em. never understood this. u must be super well-off if you're worried about political beliefs more than your own pocketbook. i'm only worried about any relief i can get paying my bills and putting food in my family's belly. suppose that makes me low iq. i'd say **** it, give sanders' plan a shot. aren't u tired of the same old shit? i wanna see something new and different, whether it be trump, sanders, whatever.

So then what's wrong with rich people worrying about their pocketbook?

Being rich isn't immoral - stealing from them is.

Why is someone barely scraping by having three kids?

[Akrazotile]

what's wrong with someone wanting free stuff when they're barely scraping by working 60 hours with three kids to feed? and why side with the rich? tax the hell out of 'em - **** 'em. never understood this. u must be super well-off if you're worried about political beliefs more than your own pocketbook. i'm only worried about any relief i can get paying my bills and putting food in my family's belly. suppose that makes me low iq. i'd say **** it, give sanders' plan a shot. aren't u tired of the same old shit? i wanna see something new and different, whether it be trump, sanders, whatever.

Explain to me what job someone would have where theyre scraping by, working 60 hours a week.

If you say burger flipper, explain WHY theyre flipping burgers with three kids. And what does their spouse do?

Justin Lee Dancy already collects monthly welfare, gets $2k cash per kid each year, food stamps, and probably section 8 housing vouchers. He sits at home and does nothing, his wife drives an uber. But they deserve MORE??

People shouldnt be rewarded for being losers. Do you realize what youre saying? “Dude, **** the rich, if I can get paid for being a loser why not??”

Youd rather be paid to be a loser than strive to be a winner.

It’s pathetic.

[tpols]

And for what?

So the thousands of alcoholic bums living under overpasses in each city can hit up the hospital free of charge on the dime of people who budget for their own health insurance?

Thats already how it is. Hospitals pass on write off costs to insurance companies who turn it over to the general, paying public who get stuck with the super bill in the form of premiums and deductibles... because bums already go to the ER and rack up costs at a super premium.

They already do it.

This is yo argument plato.

They dont deserve MORE shit just because you dont wanna work a little harder

we want more. and were gonna get it