Why Seniors Should Be The Strongest Supporters Of Medicare For All

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
16,792
2,189
743
Where else but Stillwater
#21
OMG, I can't stand having to teach you in every single post and every single thread.

You can look some of this stuff up.

The United States and our Constitution is FAR FROM a "failed experiment", it is the best, and most advanced of any civilization at any time.

The "constitution" is not supposed to protect me from changes, it is DESIGNED for changes, education and knowledge is supposed to protect me... self governance is directly dependent on an educated people - which we do not have.

A Constitution cannot protect us from ourselves. I can strive to have our freedom and liberty restored, which I am doing.

There clearly IS SOMETHING WRONG in "learning" socialism from other countries. We (as a free people) are diametrically opposed to socialism. We are capitalists. We are.

I do not want to expand Medicare coverage, I simply said that those expansions could have been made without "comprehensive" skulduggery. Without "medicare for all".

GO READ MY POST - IT IS IN THIS THREAD. Quit asking and read the thread.

I said PRIVATIZE medicare, and get the government out of the business completely. Issue vouchers for the poor to buy coverage from private insurers (like from Kaiser, for example).
LOL, You're just an idealist. "Self governance is directly dependent on an educated people" is one of your idealisms. If you don't know of any civilized countries where your idealisms are successfully practiced, then that's proof how what you what is merely idealistic. So dream on. At least you don't have to dream of the constitution protecting you from invasions of hostile foreign powers. It is supposed to protect you from such undesirable changes.

You seem to be, but, no, this country is certainly not diametrically opposed to socialism or to using a large number of government services based on mandatory taxation, rather than capitalism from the private sector. For starters, there are the public schools, the military and veteran hospitals.

So once again, since you are so greatly vague about it, I can only assume you are like ksupoke, you want most of the regulations on medical care eliminated, such as those that cause extremely costly administrative costs, to make it more affordable.

When it comes to medical insurance, Medicare, you want the government out of the business completely. But you contradict yourself when you want vouchers issued for the poor. Just where are the vouchers coming from? The government, of course, unless you have reliable private charity sources in mind. Hospitals can pay for indigent care, but there is a limit to what they can do without going bankrupt. So they will want vouchers made available to the poor.

Once again, there is nothing wrong with doing what other advanced countries have been doing successfully. Instead, of having anything to do with Socialism, it may have to do with how they privatized their version of Social Security.
 
Last edited:

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,805
24,059
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#22
Once again, there is nothing wrong with doing what other advanced countries have been doing successfully.
You and I measure success differently.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...spitals-pain-surgeons-health-uk-a8444456.html

The number of patients in England who have been forced to wait six months or longer for NHS treatment has risen by nearly 70,000 in the space of a year, official figures showed, as experts warned not enough is being done to tackle the backlog that developed this winter.
More than 211,000 people have been waiting since before Christmas for operations or treatment - an increase of 48 per cent on the same NHS England figures from 2017.

The Royal College of Surgeons said many of these people will be in “severe pain and discomfort” which could well be affecting their ability to work or cope with day-to-day tasks.

Over 3,100 patients have waited over a year, the NHS England figures show.
Cancer targets to ensure patients see a consultant and start treatment within two months of an urgent referral from their GP have also been missed – for the 29th month in a row.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,805
24,059
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#23
And another.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallyp...-medicare-for-all-is-collapsing/#71ac97a536b8

Nearly a quarter of a million British patients have been waiting more than six months to receive planned medical treatment from the National Health Service, according to a recent report from the Royal College of Surgeons. More than 36,000 have been in treatment queues for nine months or more.
Long waits for care are endemic to government-run, single-payer systems like the NHS. Yet some U.S. lawmakers want to import that model from across the pond. That would be a massive blunder.

Consider how long it takes to get care at the emergency room in Britain. Government data show that hospitals in England only saw 84.2% of patients within four hours in February. That's well below the country's goal of treating 95% of patients within four hours -- a target the NHS hasn't hit since 2015.
Now, instead of cutting wait times, the NHS is looking to scrap the goal.
 

SLVRBK

Johnny 8ball's PR Manager
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Oct 16, 2003
14,239
5,204
1,743
Katy, TX
#24
And another.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallyp...-medicare-for-all-is-collapsing/#71ac97a536b8

Nearly a quarter of a million British patientshave been waiting more than six months to receive planned medical treatment from the National Health Service, according to a recent report from the Royal College of Surgeons. More than 36,000 have been in treatment queues for nine months or more.
Long waits for care are endemic to government-run, single-payer systems like the NHS. Yet some U.S. lawmakers want to import that model from across the pond. That would be a massive blunder.

Consider how long it takes to get care at the emergency room in Britain. Government data show that hospitals in England only saw 84.2% of patients within four hours in February. That's well below the country's goal of treating 95% of patients within four hours -- a target the NHS hasn't hit since 2015.
Now, instead of cutting wait times, the NHS is looking to scrap the goal.
Just to put number to it, that would equate with about 1.3 million people waiting more than 6 months here.
 

OSU79

Federal Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Oct 22, 2009
10,863
10,686
1,743
Back home in God's (Green) Country
#25
And another.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallyp...-medicare-for-all-is-collapsing/#71ac97a536b8

Nearly a quarter of a million British patientshave been waiting more than six months to receive planned medical treatment from the National Health Service, according to a recent report from the Royal College of Surgeons. More than 36,000 have been in treatment queues for nine months or more.
Long waits for care are endemic to government-run, single-payer systems like the NHS. Yet some U.S. lawmakers want to import that model from across the pond. That would be a massive blunder.

Consider how long it takes to get care at the emergency room in Britain. Government data show that hospitals in England only saw 84.2% of patients within four hours in February. That's well below the country's goal of treating 95% of patients within four hours -- a target the NHS hasn't hit since 2015.
Now, instead of cutting wait times, the NHS is looking to scrap the goal.
A quarter of a million patients waiting more than 6 months for treatment. The US has roughly 6X the population of England.

I don't have the data for Canada, but our closest cousin on my wife's side died on December 20 at the age of 60. He waited 6 months to see a doctor in Toronto for approval of an operation that would have likely saved his life and given him another 15+ years of life. His appointment to see the doctor was scheduled for the first week of January.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,805
24,059
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#26
All of this begs the question, if Democrats believe health care is a right, then why are they pushing an idea that seems likely to deprive so many people of access to it?

Could it be that what they're really after is control? Yes, yes it could.
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
16,792
2,189
743
Where else but Stillwater
#27
A quarter of a million patients waiting more than 6 months for treatment. The US has roughly 6X the population of England.

I don't have the data for Canada, but our closest cousin on my wife's side died on December 20 at the age of 60. He waited 6 months to see a doctor in Toronto for approval of an operation that would have likely saved his life and given him another 15+ years of life. His appointment to see the doctor was scheduled for the first week of January.
So are lots of people on Medicare having to wait many weeks and months for treatment? If not, it means that it works. But do you quite dearly fear Medicare For All would make health care a lot less easier for everybody to get due to lower charges so doctors and hospitals would be overwhelmed and long waiting lists will start?
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
16,792
2,189
743
Where else but Stillwater
#28
All of this begs the question, if Democrats believe health care is a right, then why are they pushing an idea that seems likely to deprive so many people of access to it?

Could it be that what they're really after is control? Yes, yes it could.
How does Medicare as a right deprive old people to medical care?
 
Last edited:

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
16,792
2,189
743
Where else but Stillwater
#29
You and I measure success differently.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...spitals-pain-surgeons-health-uk-a8444456.html

The number of patients in England who have been forced to wait six months or longer for NHS treatment has risen by nearly 70,000 in the space of a year, official figures showed, as experts warned not enough is being done to tackle the backlog that developed this winter.
More than 211,000 people have been waiting since before Christmas for operations or treatment - an increase of 48 per cent on the same NHS England figures from 2017.

The Royal College of Surgeons said many of these people will be in “severe pain and discomfort” which could well be affecting their ability to work or cope with day-to-day tasks.

Over 3,100 patients have waited over a year, the NHS England figures show.
Cancer targets to ensure patients see a consultant and start treatment within two months of an urgent referral from their GP have also been missed – for the 29th month in a row.
Obviously, the UK system is not successful. For all we know there is no such thing as a successful universal health care system here on earth. Do all the indigent in the U. S. get their cancer and other costly diseases treated free of charge? I doubt it.
 
Jul 25, 2018
1,802
497
213
48
Boulder, CO
#31
Obviously, the UK system is not successful. For all we know there is no such thing as a successful universal health care system here on earth. Do all the indigent in the U. S. get their cancer and other costly diseases treated free of charge? I doubt it.
As someone who works with this population daily, you have no clue about this, at all.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
16,364
2,585
1,743
So Cal
#32
LOL, You're just an idealist. "Self governance is directly dependent on an educated people" is one of your idealisms. If you don't know of any civilized countries where your idealisms are successfully practiced, then that's proof how what you what is merely idealistic. So dream on. At least you don't have to dream of the constitution protecting you from invasions of hostile foreign powers. It is supposed to protect you from such undesirable changes.

You seem to be, but, no, this country is certainly not diametrically opposed to socialism or to using a large number of government services based on mandatory taxation, rather than capitalism from the private sector. For starters, there are the public schools, the military and veteran hospitals.

So once again, since you are so greatly vague about it, I can only assume you are like ksupoke, you want most of the regulations on medical care eliminated, such as those that cause extremely costly administrative costs, to make it more affordable.

When it comes to medical insurance, Medicare, you want the government out of the business completely. But you contradict yourself when you want vouchers issued for the poor. Just where are the vouchers coming from? The government, of course, unless you have reliable private charity sources in mind. Hospitals can pay for indigent care, but there is a limit to what they can do without going bankrupt. So they will want vouchers made available to the poor.

Once again, there is nothing wrong with doing what other advanced countries have been doing successfully. Instead, of having anything to do with Socialism, it may have to do with how they privatized their version of Social Security.
So that's it, huh Townie. It's me...I'm the problem. I am idealistic for speaking about the ideals of the founders and the ingenuity of the Constitution and limited Federal Government.

That's the problem, I'm talking to you about the ideals of our founding, and so that becomes a problem for you. My goodness.

If there is a "problem" (with self governance) it is more likely that you have joined a "faction". (read on)

I was not vague on medicare, I was exact and precise. Eliminate it as it exists today, and give poor people money to purchase their own policies. (or some form of services provided by the private entities). No government insurance. Eliminate it. It's bad. It's horribly bad. It's corrupt, inept and mismanaged.

As usual, you do not understand the difference between Self Governance and Central Authority Governance (i.e. SOCIALISM, COMMUNISM, MARXISM)

Here is a very good discussion about the Founders meaning of Self Governance
https://thefederalist.com/2013/12/10/what-the-founders-meant-by-self-governance/

The danger of “factions”

James Madison laid out the classic (and almost the only) case for a scheme of representation in the famous tenth essay of The Federalist Papers. He was concerned with the problem of “faction.”

A faction is a number of citizens “who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” Subcommunities defined by some primal and exclusive identity marker, such as language, ethnicity, religion, or class (the latter two being the examples Madison actually gives) may grow so powerful as to seize the state. He was concerned with the possibility of the sort of sectarian conflict that political scientists today observe in countries with overlapping economic and religious or ethnic cleavages.

Madison’s concern was how to control factions that constituted the majority of citizens. Their takeover of the state could be, in theory, perfectly democratic, if democracy simply means rule by the 51 percent. Yet factions could be just as tyrannous as individuals, even if elected democratically, if they oppress the minority and use the state to perpetuate their rule. The essence of self government is in the participation of the whole self of the people, not the smallest portion large enough to seize power by force of numbers. That is why Madison rejects “democracy” in favor of a “republic,”

Here is a very nice treatise on Self Governance
https://www.hoover.org/research/self-government
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
16,364
2,585
1,743
So Cal
#33
How does Medicare as a right deprive old people to medical care?
Medicare cannot be "a right" by simple definition of what a "right" is.

besides, the "old people" have paid their entire lives for the medical "benefits" that they are now supposed to receive during retirement - only the coverage is so bad and so mismanaged that they are DEPRIVED of the medical care that they deserve and have paid for their entire lives.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
16,364
2,585
1,743
So Cal
#34
Obviously, the UK system is not successful. For all we know there is no such thing as a successful universal health care system here on earth. Do all the indigent in the U. S. get their cancer and other costly diseases treated free of charge? I doubt it.
NOBODY (not in any system) gets their diseases treated "FREE OF CHARGE".

Nobody. There is nothing free in this world.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,681
32,065
1,743
oklahoma city
#35
You and I measure success differently.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...spitals-pain-surgeons-health-uk-a8444456.html

The number of patients in England who have been forced to wait six months or longer for NHS treatment has risen by nearly 70,000 in the space of a year, official figures showed, as experts warned not enough is being done to tackle the backlog that developed this winter.
More than 211,000 people have been waiting since before Christmas for operations or treatment - an increase of 48 per cent on the same NHS England figures from 2017.

The Royal College of Surgeons said many of these people will be in “severe pain and discomfort” which could well be affecting their ability to work or cope with day-to-day tasks.

Over 3,100 patients have waited over a year, the NHS England figures show.
Cancer targets to ensure patients see a consultant and start treatment within two months of an urgent referral from their GP have also been missed – for the 29th month in a row.
And yet, even with all that nonsense they still have overall health outcomes for half the price. No matter how bad elsewhere is, we are getting screwed.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
16,364
2,585
1,743
So Cal
#36
And yet, even with all that nonsense they still have overall health outcomes for half the price. No matter how bad elsewhere is, we are getting screwed.
Living in pain and no treatment for months on end is a better deal because you pay half-price for receiving that nothing, including risking death due to delayed cancer treatments?
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
16,364
2,585
1,743
So Cal
#37
LOL, You're just an idealist. "Self governance is directly dependent on an educated people" is one of your idealisms. .
Educating Citizens: Have We Kept the Founders' Ideals for Higher Education?
Pepperdine School of Public Policy

Education was important to the founders because it was closely linked to republican self-government and duty. A recent historian, Eugene Miller, writes that "innovations in the forms and structure of government could not be made durable without attention also to the proper education of the citizenry" (71). In the founders’ estimation, learning and liberty were inseparable. Benjamin Rush posited that "a free government can only exist in an equal diffusion of literature," and Thomas Jefferson considered that the surest prevention of tyranny was "to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large" (qtd. in Miller, 73-74). Both the head and the heart were involved in the founding view of educational purpose. Noah Webster declared, "Education, in a great measure, forms the moral characters of men, and morals are the basis of government." Some founders went further than others in their expectations of civic education. "Let our pupil be taught that he does not belong to himself, but that he is public property," Rush wrote in "Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic" (14). Drawing on the examples of ancient Greece and Rome, Rush believed that rigidly disciplined and diligently instructed children could be fitted for dutiful citizenship.
https://publicpolicy.pepperdine.edu/academics/research/policy-review/2008v1/educating-citizens.htm
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,681
32,065
1,743
oklahoma city
#38
Living in pain and no treatment for months on end is a better deal because you pay half-price for receiving that nothing, including risking death due to delayed cancer treatments?
Again, they have better outcomes so your statement is not reality. If they are causing “risking death” they would have worse outcomes.

I’ve worked both systems, in my experience the suffering is worse here. Stories like this happen in both systems. And that isn’t a “ single payer” vs “ market based” argument. Our system left any rational market behind a long time ago. What we have now is not functioning well in many aspects.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
16,364
2,585
1,743
So Cal
#39
Again, they have better outcomes so your statement is not reality. If they are causing “risking death” they would have worse outcomes.

I’ve worked both systems, in my experience the suffering is worse here. Stories like this happen in both systems. And that isn’t a “ single payer” vs “ market based” argument. Our system left any rational market behind a long time ago. What we have now is not functioning well in many aspects.
I actually thought you were being facetious in your first post, but I didn't see any emoji.

the outcomes are NOT better.... come on.. be honest. Making people wait in pain for months and months because of poor quality of care is a better outcome?

Not getting people with urgent needs screened for cancer, and then having worse outcomes, is not better.

Why The US Has Better Cancer Survival Rates Than The Rest Of The World
David Chan, MD from UCLA, Stanford oncology fellowship:

The United States has better survival statistics compared to most other countries. Whether this is simply because of better cancer treatment is arguable.

A missed cancer diagnosis is a common lawsuit in America. The defendants typically settle for unlimited economic loss and also pain and suffering. That is a huge incentive for American doctors to overtest for cancer. Of course that leads to earlier diagnosis and a significant time bias in studies comparing healthcare systems.

America has among the best cancer survival statistics because of an incredible abundance of high technology equipment and drugs, more extensive screening, and more aggressive treatment.

America also in general has better survival statistics when cancers are compared stage for stage.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/...ates-than-the-rest-of-the-world/#2748dcf64b67
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,681
32,065
1,743
oklahoma city
#40
I actually thought you were being facetious in your first post, but I didn't see any emoji.

the outcomes are NOT better.... come on.. be honest. Making people wait in pain for months and months because of poor quality of care is a better outcome?

Not getting people with urgent needs screened for cancer, and then having worse outcomes, is not better.

Why The US Has Better Cancer Survival Rates Than The Rest Of The World
David Chan, MD from UCLA, Stanford oncology fellowship:

The United States has better survival statistics compared to most other countries. Whether this is simply because of better cancer treatment is arguable.

A missed cancer diagnosis is a common lawsuit in America. The defendants typically settle for unlimited economic loss and also pain and suffering. That is a huge incentive for American doctors to overtest for cancer. Of course that leads to earlier diagnosis and a significant time bias in studies comparing healthcare systems.

America has among the best cancer survival statistics because of an incredible abundance of high technology equipment and drugs, more extensive screening, and more aggressive treatment.

America also in general has better survival statistics when cancers are compared stage for stage.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/...ates-than-the-rest-of-the-world/#2748dcf64b67
You pick one old article about one disease and claim that means better outcomes? This is why discussing medicine with you is fruitless and a misadventure.
Outcomes are more than one disease. And, even for that disease if you look at data we are among the good but saying “the best” is a reach.
https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/research/articles/concord-2.htm

Per dollar spent, we aren’t even that good. As I said, we are getting screwed by a corrupted system. Your incessant googling will not change my mind about my greater than 20 years of experience any more than some antivaxxer who claims “research,” too