Universal Health Care ! CA (school, costs, bill)

[cb73]

I haven't read the last numerous pages, so I apologize if this was already brought up.

I just read the bill. The only funding source is to gather in all Federal money currently be paid to California for MediCal and Medicare, so obviously those two groups would have to enroll in this.

But there's absolutely no funding source for the rest of the money needed. The bill even states this, in a "let's pass it then figure out how to pay for it later" kind of way.

There's also a lot of talk about California setting the reimbursement rates for everything from appointments to prescriptions to surgery. So if it's too low--as MediCal rates are now--there's nothing that requires the doctor to accept a patient with California Universal Care.

I could see how people would be enamored with the "it's all free" aspect--but someone, somewhere, is going to be shelling out big bucks to pay for this.

[StanleysOwl]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

1) No I asked him again for the sake of this thread and he specifically said they are pressured to prescribe to help their budget.

2) Obamacare has increased premiums triple digits and increased deductibles and lowered co-pays.

3) HRC wanted to double down on Obamacare and strongly believes the wealthy should not receive benefits whether it's healthcare or college tuition credits etc.

4) Because you keep bringing it up, drop it.

5) I follow the candidates and watch them in full. If you get your news/information from wikipedia, cnn, huffington post, fox news, facebook etc then you'd think I don't follow closely because they are so biased and only take snippets to meet their agenda.

1. Repeat: the VA is not profiting from its services. There are countless programs in the VA system that consider themselves underfunded. If the pharmaceutical service was to reduce its output the VA budget would not be reduced because other departments can rightfully justify their need to take any unused funds. The VA definitely does over prescribe and that is well documented. The reasons are varied and beyond the topic here. But the point is: they aren't running up costs to patients for profit. They don't profit. And the patients don't pay for services in majority. (There are co-pays for both rx and services for non-service-connected medical conditions provided to honorably discharged vets who served less than full careers and who are also covered in degrees by private insurance ... however, the VA is not profiting from any of their services.)

2. Talk about not researching your statements! Specious examples are not full program summaries.

3. HRC wanted to present a position she and her team thought the electorate would buy. Their strategy was to deprecate Sanders' platform. So what? That said, the only part of this relevant to this discussion is that her approach to improving on Obamacare's foundation turns out to be what is supportable now even with a republican house and senate - because the public wants the program to be modified rather than dismantled and thus it has become a political third-rail (surprise surprise GOP!) to try to repeal and replace. So, while Sanders might have been able to put UHC together somehow had he won, HRC wasn't wrong in her assessment of the electorate's favor in this regard after all.

4. The only one inappropriately bringing up the failure of HRC /DNC off topic is you ... again and again and again you bring this up when no one else is discussing it at all.

5. If you are "following the candidates in full" you still aren't grasping what you are following. That's obvious. Besides the fact that "following the candidates" ignores that the candidates don't begin to reveal what's at work behind the scenes ... as we are all witnessing with the investigations underway in Washington today. You would be far more informed if you followed more of Wiki, CNN, WaPo, NPR, BBC, and others and cross-checked their reporting with in depth discovery of their sourcing. Frankly, you can't, nobody can, believe what the candidates and their teams put out. That's exactly why we need various competing media available. That is how a free press society works and benefits. Otherwise we are left with government and special interest run propaganda arms - like Russia's RT.

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Link to any actual data? Your statements appear to be your personal opinions.

http://www.health-access.org/newsroo...rage/file.html

Exactly so.

[bmw335xi]

I think you live in an alternative realilty lol or maybe it's all the wikipedia you read.

[StanleysOwl]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

I think you live in an alternative realilty lol or maybe it's all the wikipedia you read.

Yet you can't identify a single error in the linked material that would negate its value. That tells the story, bmw. You say it has no value? Demonstrate.

[bmw335xi]

Originally Posted by StanleysOwl

Yet you can't identify a single error in the linked material that would negate its value. That tells the story, bmw. You say it has no value? Demonstrate.

When someone thinks wikipedia and cnn are great sources what else can I say? It's like trying to explain gravity to someone who thinks the earth is flat, okay may not that extreme, but I can see I'd be wasting my time.

[StanleysOwl]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

When someone thinks wikipedia and cnn are great sources what else can I say? It's like trying to explain gravity to someone who thinks the earth is flat, okay may not that extreme, but I can see I'd be wasting my time.

And here you still haven't identified a single error. Nor addressed the reality of what Wikipedia is and how its information is acquired and presented. As previously noted multiple times, Wikipedia is an open sourced, contemporaneously updated encyclopedia. Its content may originate with errors and bias but is open to contemporaneous correction by any number of knowledgeable contributors. If there is anything in the linked information you, or anyone else, find objectionable or erroneous, you or others can submit corrections.

So far you haven't identified any problem.

Similarly, if CNN publishes information of public record and sourced by multiple, listed, verifiable relevant contributors, then you are left to object to bias only by contributing equally offsetting information. Which, again, you haven't done.

So what's it going to be? Empty complaints and accusations? Or do you have some meat to serve up?

[bmw335xi]

Originally Posted by StanleysOwl

And here you still haven't identified a single error. Nor addressed the reality of what Wikipedia is and how its information is acquired and presented. As previously noted multiple times, Wikipedia is an open sourced, contemporaneously updated encyclopedia. Its content may originate with errors and bias but is open to contemporaneous correction by any number of knowledgeable contributors. If there is anything in the linked information you, or anyone else, find objectionable or erroneous, you or others can submit corrections.

So far you haven't identified any problem.

Similarly, if CNN publishes information of public record and sourced by multiple, listed, verifiable relevant contributors, then you are left to object to bias only by contributing equally offsetting information. Which, again, you haven't done.

So what's it going to be? Empty complaints and accusations? Or do you have some meat to serve up?

Wikipedia is the facebook encyclopedia, there is a reason you aren't allowed to source wikipedia in even high school academics LOL.

And if you truly think CNN for example presents un-bias facts, you really do live in a fantasy world. Like I said, if someone believes the Earth is flat, why even bother discussing anything further with that person. It's obvious if they haven't got it by now, they never will. I can only repeat the same thing over and over, I'm sorry you still aren't able to understand.

[StanleysOwl]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

When someone thinks wikipedia and cnn are great sources what else can I say? It's like trying to explain gravity to someone who thinks the earth is flat, okay may not that extreme, but I can see I'd be wasting my time.

And here you still haven't identified a single error. Nor addressed the reality of what Wikipedia is and how its information is acquired and presented. As previously noted multiple times, Wikipedia is an open sourced, contemporaneously updated encyclopedia. Its content may originate with errors and bias but is open to contemporaneous correction by any number of knowledgeable contributors. If there is anything in the linked information you, or anyone else, find objectionable or erroneous, you or others can submit corrections.

So far you haven't identified any problem.

Similarly, if CNN publishes information of public record and sourced by multiple, listed, verifiable relevant contributors, then you are left to object to bias only by contributing equally offsetting information. Which, again, you haven't done.

So what's it going to be? Empty complaints and accusations? Or do you have some meat to serve up?

In your case so far, you offer up anecdotal personal stories as proofs we should all take seriously. Such as you have a good "friend' "who is a doctor at the VA" ... "and he says" ... Maybe you do have a VA doctor friend, maybe you don't. Even if you do, and "he" is real, you are paraphrasing hisopinion second hand, without multiple verification or validations - and expecting readers to take you more seriously than properly sourced material provided with multiple, reviewable verifications.

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by StanleysOwl

Challenged you before on this. Easy to post a wisecrack. Back up your criticism with specific points you find untrue in the specific piece linked. Wikipedia can be lousy with error and bias. It can also be spot on accurate. It is up to the reader to verify whatever citations are included ... or confirm with verification research. Which have you done to debunk the link?

Thought so ...

The article is largely irrelevant to the discussion. Every undergraduate student is instructed that Wikipedia is not a legitimate source for citation in academic assignments.

In fact, try reading a dozen peer-reviewed scholarly articles in peer-reviewed academic journals. Just choose them at random.

You will find that none of them cite Wikipedia as a source.

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by StanleysOwl

And here you still haven't identified a single error. Nor addressed the reality of what Wikipedia is and how its information is acquired and presented. As previously noted multiple times, Wikipedia is an open sourced, contemporaneously updated encyclopedia. Its content may originate with errors and bias but is open to contemporaneous correction by any number of knowledgeable contributors. If there is anything in the linked information you, or anyone else, find objectionable or erroneous, you or others can submit corrections.

So far you haven't identified any problem.

Similarly, if CNN publishes information of public record and sourced by multiple, listed, verifiable relevant contributors, then you are left to object to bias only by contributing equally offsetting information. Which, again, you haven't done.

So what's it going to be? Empty complaints and accusations? Or do you have some meat to serve up?

Do you have a point to add to the discussion?