Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Boy, you people are losing any semblance of rational or logical thinking. Those stats came from Canadian government tracking of pay-outs; you know the thing that's really easier to do when only one single party is the payor?
You've all gotten so you simply dismiss facts published by multiple sources if just one of those sources is linked to a political party? Really?
I don't dismiss facts. I dismiss a politically motivated organization that tilts its support to statistics that support its political agenda. There are just as many factual statistics that are counter to those presented by AARP.
Yes, I am guilty of viewing any data supported by an organization with a politically motivated agenda as suspect. I am sure you never question information from sources that lean the opposite direction of your political leanings.
I don't dismiss facts. I dismiss a politically motivated organization that tilts its support to statistics that support its political agenda. There are just as many factual statistics that are counter to those presented by AARP.
Yes, I am guilty of viewing any data supported by an organization with a politically motivated agenda as suspect. I am sure you never question information from sources that lean the opposite direction of your political leanings.
No; you're guilty of dismissing facts garnered by government agencies to monitor and determine efficiency of a system that happened to be published by any number of org's including AARP.
"This has been debunked so often, it’s tiring. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, for example, concluded: “At least 63 percent of hip replacements performed in Canada last year [2008] ... were on patients age 65 or older.” And more than 1,500 of those, it turned out, were on patients over 85.
The bottom line: Canada doesn’t deny hip replacements to older people.
But there’s more.
Know who gets most of the hip replacements in the United States? Older people.
Know who pays for care for older people in the United States? Medicare.
Know what Medicare is? A single-payer system."
My political leanings? Not being American, political silliness is the furthest thing from my mind when considering facts.
Silly stuff that. You narrow everything down to the political like two sides of the schoolyard at recess bickering over who gets to use the baseball diamond; in the meantime, no one's playing ball.
Now suppose you bring on those factual statistics so we can see them for ourselves and commence intelligent debate. Your first hurdle of course, will be getting over the fact EVERY other first world nation has some form of Universal/Single Payer system showing better delivery, lower costs and better outcomes than you know who.
Ask the loving Republicans. They want government out of our lives.
oh how little you know about the party!!!!
all are aware we need government, we just don't want them to put too many restrictions on what can and can not be done and power returned to the states when possible.
As for socialized medicine, live in a country that has it: except cost, see how many, when honest like it. See how long it takes you to see a doctor and remember nothing is free; the tax burden in countries with government supported health care is unbelievable and the quality of medacine isn't always top quality.
I don't dismiss facts. I dismiss a politically motivated organization that tilts its support to statistics that support its political agenda. There are just as many factual statistics that are counter to those presented by AARP.
Yes, I am guilty of viewing any data supported by an organization with a politically motivated agenda as suspect. I am sure you never question information from sources that lean the opposite direction of your political leanings.
AARP is a perfect example of an organization that is slanged: it amazes me so many do not even know this.
Could they not dump Obamacare/ the current system and replace it with one of their own? Only for Californios? I don't know really just asking.
No. We spend about 20% of our tax revenue on Health Care, and that was true even before ACA, so it dubming ACA would not make a difference. If CA got a 20% reduction in taxes, they could raise that money on their State tax to fund their HC system. Of course the Feds would never agree to that, considering the amount of taxes CA pours into their coffers.
We kinda already do though. Medicare is a single payer plan. As is Medicaid. I don't know anyone who isn't overall satisfied with Medicare. (Medicare is single payer, where you can essentially see any doctor, because 99% of doctors accept it. Compare to the VA, which is government run healthcare where you go to a government owned hospital, like they have in England).
So basically the poor and the old have "free" universal healthcare already.
Medicaid IS free. But what on earth makes you think Medicare is free? After paying into Medicare for decades, a total of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars and sometimes even millions of dollars, seniors on fixed incomes STILL are charged a monthly premium of about $150/person and a 20% co-pay. And prescriptions aren't covered unless they pay even more money for a supplemental policy.
PLEASE tell me people aren't so stupid as to believe that Medicare is free. Good grief!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
