In 2020. America will not get BERNED again

ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
MidwestGorilla219 said:
I will make my case with what facts I have available when I believe something, I will also hear other people out.

Let me ask you this, let's just say hypothetically Bernie does not win the Democratic nomination. Will the Bernie crowd vote for the choosen Democratic nominee?
Click to expand...
You'll have to ask them.

I'm not voting for any politician who does not represent my interests, who they caucus with makes no difference.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Again, if you think it's stupid, why do most Democratic voters support it? Why have most Dem candidates adopted it for 2020?

You're sitting here saying it's a stupid idea.. So are you just smarter than everyone else who supports it?
Click to expand...
They don't support Sanders bill when told they have to quit the plan they like. They don't support Sanders bill when taxes to pay for it come up. Do you look for ways to delude yourself?

I telling you that it's political suicide to piss of 80 million people who say they like the health care plan they are in. Sanders is leading you down the garden path if you think he's written a plan that most Democratic voters support. The poll you refer to only asked if people wanted it without having to pay for it.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
travisw said:
But if they were told that a government-run system could lead to delays in getting care or higher taxes, support plunged to 26 percent and 37 percent, respectively.
Click to expand...
Do you think that's an honest way to ask a question in a poll asking Americans if they support M4A?

I mean, answer that honestly. You might be the most dishonest of the bunch, but do yourself a favor on this one.. You ask people "Do you support M4A?" Most of them do, then you ask "Well would you still support it if it resulted in delays in getting care or higher taxes?".. Obviously most say no..

I'd say no, because that's not at all what M4A is, does, or provides..

"Do you like the FDA?" Yeah..

"Well would you still like it if all the meat you ate was contaminated?" ...no, then what'd be the point?..


This is an example of a bad faith argument, not meant to answer questions, only meant to smear


The fact is M4A actually results in all people getting coverage, nobody paying premiums, copays, or deductibles, and everyone keeping the same doctor and policy they have now. Nobody is thrown off of coverage, nobody's plan who likes the healthcare they receive now will change. The only thing that changes is who pays for it. Everything else remains the same. This is why almost all Democratic voters support it. It takes out the middleman (the insurance companies), reduces the cost of healthcare by an estimated 20%, is cheaper to buy and has better results.

Everybody else isn't stupid.. Some people have an agenda to sell.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Do you think that's an honest way to ask a question in a poll asking Americans if they support M4A?


The fact is M4A actually results in all people getting coverage, nobody paying premiums, copays, or deductibles, and everyone keeping the same doctor and policy they have now. Nobody is thrown off of coverage, nobody's plan who likes the healthcare they receive now will change. The only thing that changes is who pays for it. Everything else remains the same. This is why almost all Democratic voters support it. It takes out the middleman (the insurance companies), reduces the cost of healthcare by an estimated 20%, is cheaper to buy and has better results.
Click to expand...
How can you say its a fact that everybody will have the same coverage they had without paying more? Bernie's plan does not say anything about the quality of service, cost or how it will be paid for. What you are promoting is belief not fact.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
How can you say its a fact that everybody will have the same coverage they had without paying more?
Click to expand...
Sanders' plan removes the middleman (insurance company), and provides a single payer system (government). It doesn't remove the doctor or the previous plan people had before. People keep the same plan they had before, the only difference is who is paying for it. Instead of the insurance company paying for it, the government pays for it, via tax dollars extracted from US citizens. In other words, US citizens are paying for it.
Fogdog said:
Bernie's plan does not say anything about the quality of service, cost or how it will be paid for.
Click to expand...
Sanders' plan assuredly does outline the cost, the quality of service, and exactly how it'll be paid for..

The cost is $32-35 trillion over the next ten years. That's according to the Murcada study, a conservative think tank. That's actually $2 trillion cheaper than the healthcare system we currently employ

How can we afford it? How can we not?

Care to address that point?
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
How can you say its a fact that everybody will have the same coverage they had without paying more? Bernie's plan does not say anything about the quality of service, cost or how it will be paid for. What you are promoting is belief not fact.
Click to expand...
Because every objective study shows unequivocally that health Care costs would fall by AT LEAST 20% and likely closer to 50% once we get rid of health insurers and other middlemen.

Again, you know this, it's been discussed, yet you're still stuck on Republican talking points.

The truth is, you're the right winger. You just hide behind a D.

That isn't a Democratic party I want anything to do with because it lies exactly like you've just been caught doing.

Clown.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Sanders' plan removes the middleman (insurance company), and provides a single payer system (government). It doesn't remove the doctor or the previous plan people had before. People keep the same plan they had before, the only difference is who is paying for it. Instead of the insurance company paying for it, the government pays for it, via tax dollars extracted from US citizens. In other words, US citizens are paying for it.

Sanders' plan assuredly does outline the cost, the quality of service, and exactly how it'll be paid for..

The cost is $32-35 trillion over the next ten years. That's according to the Murcada study, a conservative think tank. That's actually $2 trillion cheaper than the healthcare system we currently employ

How can we afford it? How can we not?

Care to address that point?
Click to expand...
No because his arguments are as dishonest as his politics.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
The quality of service is far the best in the USA, no denying that. But that's only if you're rich

Poor people in the US who can't afford the prime USA treatment are left to die in a ditch

If you're rich, the USA is the best in regards to healthcare. If you're poor, you might as well live in a 3rd world country

What M4A tries to accomplish is if you're poor and need medical treatment, walk into any hospital in America, get the care you need, walk out without a bill for it. That is what the fuck America means to me. We help people in need, no questions asked!

You wanna get some liposuction done, a facelift, some new tits? That's fine, but you might have to wait a bit.. These other guys with the heart transplant, the colon biopsy, the breast cancer examination take priority, AS THEY SHOULD.

Get the fuck in line, rich guy. Wait just like everybody else.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
I'd be happy to let them pay the full cost of their own surgery for special treatment. It would help subsidise the system for those who can't afford to do it themselves.
Click to expand...
I agree

Nobody on the left is or ever has argued against any kind of extra treatment someone might want if they're rich and can afford it. You want to get your face lifted, good for you, go for it! If you bitch about having to wait to get your goddamn face lifted because somebody else needs to get their heart transplanted, fuck you, fuck your facelift, I legitimately hope you die because you're an insufferable human being the world would do better without.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
I agree

Nobody on the left is or ever has argued against any kind of extra treatment someone might want if they're rich and can afford it. You want to get your face lifted, good for you, go for it! If you bitch about having to wait to get your goddamn face lifted because somebody else needs to get their heart transplanted, fuck you, fuck your facelift, I legitimately hope you die because you're an insufferable human being the world would do better without.
Click to expand...
To clarify, I would expect someone who wants special treatment to pay the full cost, not merely the incremental difference above the subsidised cost.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Sanders' plan removes the middleman (insurance company), and provides a single payer system (government). It doesn't remove the doctor or the previous plan people had before. People keep the same plan they had before, the only difference is who is paying for it. Instead of the insurance company paying for it, the government pays for it, via tax dollars extracted from US citizens. In other words, US citizens are paying for it.

Sanders' plan assuredly does outline the cost, the quality of service, and exactly how it'll be paid for..

The cost is $32-35 trillion over the next ten years. That's according to the Murcada study, a conservative think tank. That's actually $2 trillion cheaper than the healthcare system we currently employ

How can we afford it? How can we not?

Care to address that point?
Click to expand...
You don't understand how most people are covered for health care if you think that Medicare is a direct replacement of private insurance. Company provided plans can vary widely. Also, not all doctors accept Medicare. Bernie's plan is a ham-handed disruption to the medical services industry in this country. People do want the benefits other people get from single payer systems but they want competent government too.

Bernie's plan is an embarrassment. Your reply is an embarrassment too. Read the Politifacts article naive little man-boy:

Fact checking:
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/04/the-facts-on-medicare-for-all/
The Facts on Medicare for All
By Lori Robertson
Posted on April 24, 2019
Excerpts:

Would private insurance still be available?
Potentially, but it would be limited. Once the bill is fully implemented, it would be “unlawful” for “a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits” provided under Medicare for All, and employers couldn’t provide such benefits either. However, private insurance could be sold to cover additional benefits that the new universal system didn’t cover — perhaps cosmetic surgery or other non-medically necessary care.

Private insurance would be available during a transition period (see the next question). The bill calls for funds to be set aside for workers in the insurance industry who lose their jobs because of the legislation.

my note-----For all intents and purposes, people would not keep their existing coverage unless they are already on Medicare----

Could people decide to opt out?
No, though they could enter into private contracts with health care providers and pay for those services themselves (see the private insurance question above). However, the bill says every resident of the United States would have the universal health care benefits, and people can’t opt out of paying whatever taxes will be assessed to finance the plan.

How much would the plan cost?
There’s no firm price tag, as many details need to be filled in, but several organizations have produced estimates using varying assumptions.

my note-----The article publishes estimates from six different sources that estimate the price tag between $14 T and $33 T there is also a magical 40% cost savings inserted into the lowest figure without any effort to substantiate the number----

How would it be financed?
The legislation doesn’t include any information on how it would be financed. Instead, Sanders has put forth several suggestions to be debated. They include: payroll taxes, an income-based “premium,” increased taxes on high-income individuals, and fees on major financial institutions.

So, basically Pad, you are either ignorant and unjustifiably confident or you are lying. I think you are ignorant. You are consistently wrong as well.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
The quality of service is far the best in the USA, no denying that. But that's only if you're rich

Poor people in the US who can't afford the prime USA treatment are left to die in a ditch

If you're rich, the USA is the best in regards to healthcare. If you're poor, you might as well live in a 3rd world country

What M4A tries to accomplish is if you're poor and need medical treatment, walk into any hospital in America, get the care you need, walk out without a bill for it. That is what the fuck America means to me. We help people in need, no questions asked!

You wanna get some liposuction done, a facelift, some new tits? That's fine, but you might have to wait a bit.. These other guys with the heart transplant, the colon biopsy, the breast cancer examination take priority, AS THEY SHOULD.

Get the fuck in line, rich guy. Wait just like everybody else.
Click to expand...
LOL, quite the fantasy you have going here. You are a authoritarian jerk, Pad.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
You don't understand how most people are covered for health care if you think that Medicare is a direct replacement of private insurance. Company provided plans can vary widely. Also, not all doctors accept Medicare. Bernie's plan is a ham-handed disruption to the medical services industry in this country. People do want the benefits other people get from single payer systems but they want competent government too.

Bernie's plan is an embarrassment. Your reply is an embarrassment too. Read the Politifacts article naive little man-boy:

Fact checking:
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/04/the-facts-on-medicare-for-all/
The Facts on Medicare for All
By Lori Robertson
Posted on April 24, 2019
Excerpts:

Would private insurance still be available?
Potentially, but it would be limited. Once the bill is fully implemented, it would be “unlawful” for “a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits” provided under Medicare for All, and employers couldn’t provide such benefits either. However, private insurance could be sold to cover additional benefits that the new universal system didn’t cover — perhaps cosmetic surgery or other non-medically necessary care.

Private insurance would be available during a transition period (see the next question). The bill calls for funds to be set aside for workers in the insurance industry who lose their jobs because of the legislation.

my note-----For all intents and purposes, people would not keep their existing coverage unless they are already on Medicare----

Could people decide to opt out?
No, though they could enter into private contracts with health care providers and pay for those services themselves (see the private insurance question above). However, the bill says every resident of the United States would have the universal health care benefits, and people can’t opt out of paying whatever taxes will be assessed to finance the plan.

How much would the plan cost?
There’s no firm price tag, as many details need to be filled in, but several organizations have produced estimates using varying assumptions.

my note-----The article publishes estimates from six different sources that estimate the price tag between $14 T and $33 T there is also a magical 40% cost savings inserted into the lowest figure without any effort to substantiate the number----

How would it be financed?
The legislation doesn’t include any information on how it would be financed. Instead, Sanders has put forth several suggestions to be debated. They include: payroll taxes, an income-based “premium,” increased taxes on high-income individuals, and fees on major financial institutions.

So, basically Pad, you are either ignorant and unjustifiably confident or you are lying. I think you are ignorant. You are consistently wrong as well.
Click to expand...
You're not seeking truth, you're seeding doubt, just like Tobacco insurance companies did in the 1970s

You know as well as I do M4A is the solution

That's sick, man. You put your own ego above getting millions of poor people healthcare. My ego tells me I'm a piece of shit if I don't, that is quite the difference..
 
TacoMac

TacoMac

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
You'll have to ask them.

I'm not voting for any politician who does not represent my interests, who they caucus with makes no difference.
Click to expand...
So you're voting for Trump.

Again.

This is why so-called progressives are an oxymoron. They think the world revolves around them and if they don't get exactly what they want they take their votes and go home.

That's the opposite of progressive. That's digression.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top