RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care

RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Termyn8or -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/29/2017 1:53:09 PM)
quote: Four. Thank you. So after four bankruptcies people call him some sort of bankruptcy king or some shit. What's more, two of them were before the reforms when it was found that people were abusing it. People would literally fuck everyone they could in Ohio, buy a house in Florida and establish residence there which only took 30 days, and then file there because Florida applied the law most favorably to the filer. Likewise, I heard that Michigan has different divorce laws and my ex-boss filed there. (his olady wanted on top of all the settlements, a pound of weed but that was not mentioned in court of course) Theonly hitch was they wanted a DNA sample even though he had had a vasectomy ten years earlier and they had no kids under ten. But bottom line is that bankruptcy was a tool in business back then. I believe it was the Bush 2 administration that closed a bunch of loopholes. I picked up fifty grand when it was much harder to do, in 2010. Kept the house, car, machine shop. Now, seven years later I am liquidating that. After that I don't know what I am going to do. But I am typing right now on a PC that was essentially free, though I did pay some interest. Four bankruptcies, what a joke. They make it sound like there were a hundred. And I see the problem, he was not well informed enough. For example, building a casino in Vegas right now would be stupid, the ones they have are hurting for money already. Well the ones in Atlantic city, I know a guy who worked at them. Plus the fact that opening up a casino in either one of those places is like opening a McDonald's across the street from a McDonald's. On the other hand, from what I've gleaned, Romney took viable companies and ran up the debt and then scrapped them. We should have probably elected Ross Perot, but they "made him an offer he couldn't refuse". Actually he started acting like Trump and dropped out. Thing is, it didn't work with Hillary Clinton because she is so hated. Liberals had to have her and now it has backfired right in their faces. You think Clinton would have made moves toward single payer ? Somehow I doubt it, she is in the same pockets as Obama was when he signed something he did not read. And now, if California passes this shit, what kind of other shit comes with it ? Will they be able to institutionalize you if you weigh more than 275 pounds or some shit ? California has so many unconstitutional laws it is ridiculous. they also had one place where if your lawn turned brown you get a fine and if you water it you get a fine. So a company saw an opportunity and made money literally painting grass. Those people are fucking nuts. Ad they elect nuts, but after the last several Presidents I really can't talk. T^T

WickedsDesire -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/29/2017 1:53:34 PM)
you are truly thick

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/29/2017 2:00:33 PM)
That's the point - that's how insurance-based systems work. If that's how California implement some sort of mashed-up single-payer system, it will fail. Many single-payer systems have reciprocal agreements all around the world. In those countries where it doesn't, it's a case of pay-up or suffer. For instance, the UK and US have such agreements as they do with the EU and many other countries. If I carry a medical card (used to be an E11 but not sure what it is these days), it is accepted for any medical treatment I might need anywhere in the USA - the medical facility bill our NHS directly. The whole point of any single-payer system is that it is free at the point of delivery, free for any further follow-ups needed, and free from any form of billing for the patient. And most (if not all) single-payer systems have no co-pay arrangements either. And to answer Kirata: there are reciprocal agreements in place. One system bills the other for any payments. The patient pays nothing at all - not even when they get back home because their country has a single-payer system even if it's not exactly the same as the one used in the other country.

WickedsDesire -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/29/2017 2:07:30 PM)
Penny Dreadful- Caliban Speech FULL. John Clare reciting Wordsworth in Penny dreadful Finale

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/29/2017 2:11:04 PM)
You off your meds again WD??

Musicmystery -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/29/2017 2:22:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 That's the point - that's how insurance-based systems work. If that's how California implement some sort of mashed-up single-payer system, it will fail. Many single-payer systems have reciprocal agreements all around the world. In those countries where it doesn't, it's a case of pay-up or suffer. For instance, the UK and US have such agreements as they do with the EU and many other countries. If I carry a medical card (used to be an E11 but not sure what it is these days), it is accepted for any medical treatment I might need anywhere in the USA - the medical facility bill our NHS directly. The whole point of any single-payer system is that it is free at the point of delivery, free for any further follow-ups needed, and free from any form of billing for the patient. And most (if not all) single-payer systems have no co-pay arrangements either. And to answer Kirata: there are reciprocal agreements in place. One system bills the other for any payments. The patient pays nothing at all - not even when they get back home because their country has a single-payer system even if it's not exactly the same as the one used in the other country. Just semantics. Facility: "Do you have insurance?" Patient: "Yes, California-Care." Facility: "OK, we don't honor that, so we'll send you the bill. Patient: "No worries. I'll forward it to California-Care." Problem solved. Just as it's solved many times a day all over the world. Would it go smoother with reciprocal agreements? Sure. But the lack thereof is not prohibitive.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/29/2017 2:42:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 That's the point - that's how insurance-based systems work. If that's how California implement some sort of mashed-up single-payer system, it will fail. Many single-payer systems have reciprocal agreements all around the world. In those countries where it doesn't, it's a case of pay-up or suffer. For instance, the UK and US have such agreements as they do with the EU and many other countries. If I carry a medical card (used to be an E11 but not sure what it is these days), it is accepted for any medical treatment I might need anywhere in the USA - the medical facility bill our NHS directly. The whole point of any single-payer system is that it is free at the point of delivery, free for any further follow-ups needed, and free from any form of billing for the patient. And most (if not all) single-payer systems have no co-pay arrangements either. And to answer Kirata: there are reciprocal agreements in place. One system bills the other for any payments. The patient pays nothing at all - not even when they get back home because their country has a single-payer system even if it's not exactly the same as the one used in the other country. Just semantics. Facility: "Do you have insurance?" Patient: "Yes, California-Care." Facility: "OK, we don't honor that, so we'll send you the bill. Patient: "No worries. I'll forward it to California-Care." Problem solved. Just as it's solved many times a day all over the world. Would it go smoother with reciprocal agreements? Sure. But the lack thereof is not prohibitive. Single-payer systems aren't "insurance". You have to get the notion of 'insurance' and the concepts behind it out of your thoughts. Single-payer systems don't work the same way as insurance-based systems work. Insurance systems don't always cover everything. In fact, many insurance policies cover very little and have many exclusions. And many policies are time-limited. What happens if they discover you haven't kept up with the premiums??? Treatment stops?? You get taken to court for non-payment and maybe lose your house?? That doesn't happen in single-payer systems. If I had a medical problem in the US, here's how it would be - Me: Here's my E11 (or whatever it is these days). Nothing else is needed to be said, no forms to fill in or sign. Everything is covered no matter what it is or how long it takes.

Musicmystery -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/29/2017 2:47:12 PM)
OK. Thanks for setting me straight. I feel a lot smarter now. This was a valuable conversation. I'm glad we had it. I'll let California know. Good think you caught that!

WickedsDesire -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/29/2017 2:51:59 PM)
I am the smarter of all know your fuking place all

Kirata -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/29/2017 2:57:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire you are truly thick I know, I know. I so very much wish I could be like you. Do you think maybe getting a cat would help? What about a dozen? K.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/29/2017 3:10:18 PM)
Unless I'm wrong, my guess is that California will implement some form of mish-mash of an insurance-based system. Why?? Because most Americans can't grasp how any single-payer system works and can't wrap their heads round the concepts. Most seem to think it's a type of 'insurance' - but it isn't; the concepts behind it are very different. Here's some more differences - Procurement of staff and equipment are done completely differently and usually result in much lower costs for the same things. Pay scales are often capped and much lower than in the private sector. And by the same token, mal-practice claims are not as frequent and much lower because the state/country fight the battle and pay any claims - not greedy insurance companies and extortionate lawyers. You don't get stupid bills like $60 for a single tylenol - it'll get billed internally at 10 cents or whatever the cost price is and it'll probably be a generic substitute. Visits to/from doctors and consultants/specialists are also free because it's part of the system - not $50+ a pop like private medicine charges. The same goes for paramedics and ambulances too - it's all part of the single-payer system. For many people (under 18's, pensioners, those on low income or on benefits etc) don't pay a dime for the service - it's free. There are many fundamental differences between single-payer systems and private insurance-based systems.

jlf1961 -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/29/2017 3:12:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 That would be cheating! If they want to show Universal Healthcare can work, they need to figure out a self-sufficient way to finance this whole operation. I mean, California is way bigger than Singapore. 37 Million versus 5 million. If we can have a Universal Healthcare - ish model with zero natural resources. They should be able to figure out how to balance their budgets to support this too. Because when I really think about it. California is as good as a sole country on it's own! But end of the day, health care is important, if somebody can lead by example on how it can work and how it is affordable. Eventually maybe Obamacare can be replaced with something that actually works! Hmm, so you havent paid attention to the austerity measures that many countries have had to undergo that have this kind of health care system and the impact on health care related to those measures? The problem with these systems is that they work as long as their is revenues coming into the government to pay for them. Those countries that had to cut health care just to keep basic government functions going also happen to have higher income taxes than the US. And finally, in order to pay for those types of systems they will have to raise personal income taxes, and there is not a single American that is going to agree with that. You see, Americans as a nation want a free lunch (both conservatives and liberals) and are all for government benefit programs as long as the individual does not have to pay for it. The difference is that that liberals will raise taxes to pay for it, and the conservatives will cut some other programs and lower taxes to cover the give away. The end result is the same, a government budget in the red and people screaming about the deficit.

itsSIRtou -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/29/2017 3:31:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or quote: How many companies has president bankrupt wrecked? None. If you would get informed you would know those companies were underwater. The real corporate scrapman was Romney. T^T Four. "Trump has filed four business bankruptcies, which Bankruptcy.com says makes Trump the top filer in recent decades. All of them were centered around casinos he used to own in Atlantic City." http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/31/news/companies/donald-trump-bankruptcy/ 1. Trump Taj Mahal, 1991 Trump's first bankruptcy filing was probably the most personally painful for him. To come up with the funds he needed, he sold a 282-foot yacht, as well as the Trump Shuttle, the airline he operated at the time that flew between Washington, D.C., New York and Boston, according to media reports at the time. He had to give up half of his ownership stake in the Trump Taj Mahal, but he did retain control of the property. 2. Trump Castle Associates, 1992 In less than a year he was back in bankruptcy court for his other Atlantic City casinos. This bankruptcy included the Trump Plaza Hotel in New York, the Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City as well as the Trump Castle Casino Resort. He gave up half his interest in the New York Plaza to Citibank, but retained his stake in the casinos. 3. Trump Hotel & Casino Resorts, 2004 Trump didn't go back to bankruptcy court again until November 2004, when he filed to shed debt at his various Atlantic City casinos and a riverboat in Indiana. It was another quick trip through bankruptcy court; the company shed $500 million in debt and emerged from bankruptcy the following May. Trump turned over majority control of the company to his bondholders but remained the largest single shareholder, and he once again kept control of the casinos. 4. Trump Entertainment Resorts, 2009 His most recent bankruptcy came in 2009, after the company missed a $53.1 million bond payment. That was pretty much the end of the road for Trump in Atlantic City. While his name remained on three casinos, he resigned from the board and gave up his remaining stake in the company. add in the number of companies who rump stiffed with those four ch.11's and that number goes up a bunch. Those people had creditors who wanted to get paid too, and didn't because of rump. rumps 3,500 lawsuits is not a small number. And since he got in...... www.cnn.com/2016/12/29/politics/trump-lawsuit-watchlist more to come!

MrRodgers -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/29/2017 5:03:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or quote: How many companies has president bankrupt wrecked? None. If you would get informed you would know those companies were underwater. The real corporate scrapman was Romney. T^T His casinos went bankrupt (he drowned) mainly because he was so ego driven to make the deal, he had to turn to junk bonds some of which were as much as 16%. Then he 'created' a competing casino right up the street from The Trump Taj Mahal and not surprisingly at all, they...both soon went bankrupt. Romney was a corporate vulture who feasted on companies that hadn't been stripped to the bones...then stripped them. Some were tax subsidized, of course, you know the capitalist culture of dependency. on govt. Some were ripe for sending the jobs to China. Some were just able to go on his (Bain capital's) kind of diet that often became financially anorexic.

thompsonx -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/29/2017 6:14:37 PM)
ORIGINAL: Greta75 ORIGINAL: thompsonx You are a lying sack of shit. I have posted the true tax that those in that third world shithole called Singapore pay. Anyone who knows how to use google can see clearly what a lying sack of shit you are.[/quote] Thompson, I think you don't understand the difference between tax and a forced retirement savings account means. You keep bringing up the amount we contribute to our retirement savings acccounts as tax. Do you know it's like a bank account, where we can log in and look at how much money is in our retirement account and monitor it's progress anytime, we can also use the money inside to invest in stocks market to grow it better, and also it earns 4% interest every year if we simply choose to leave it to earn the interest inside, to grow our money for retirement. You are always complaining that the CPF is tax. But you don't seem to understand what tax means. So let me explain to you as idiot proof as possible. The difference between Tax and a Retirement Savings account is, one it is 100% your money for your usage. Tax is money for government usage. Get it? Our government cannot touch the money inside our Retirement savings account that you keep claiming it's tax. Our Income Tax Rate is all Transparent HERE, so it's clearly much cheaper than what US citizens are paying. But on top of that, there is a compulsory contribution of 20% to our Retirement Savings Account that earns you 4% interest, and will be used to fund your retirement from 65 yrs old onwards. The money inside the Retirement Savings Accounts can be used for, mortgage for your roof, your children's education and your medical insurance and life insurance and mortgage loan insurance and medical care too. And you can use the money for investments in unit trusts or buying stocks and shares. If you die before you finish the money inside. Your children or wife will inherit 100% of what's left inside. So the 20% is definitely not tax. On top of that, the employer has to contribute on their end an additional 16% of your salary, on top of what they paid you, to your Retirement account too. So you'll have more than just 20% of your salary inside. And the account takes care of retirement/medical/children's education/your own further education/mortgage/insurances. That's pretty good use of your money. All the essential basic things. We are treated like children, so the government hold hostage of 20% of our salary every month to make sure that, that money is only spent on meaningful things, and not like splurge it on holidays and other stupid things. But in many ways, if they didn't do this, I think many people who have not bothered to save for retirement and end up having nothing in the end. I like our system alot. It makes sense. Kinda empowering each individual to use their own money to take care of themselves. And also making sure they spend it wisely. You can repeat that lie as often as you like but it is still a lie and I have posted the truth from the official website of that third world shithole called singapore.

Kirata -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/29/2017 8:07:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 And to answer Kirata: there are reciprocal agreements in place. One system bills the other for any payments. The patient pays nothing at all - not even when they get back home because their country has a single-payer system even if it's not exactly the same as the one used in the other country. Ahh ...okay, thanks. I was wondering about that. K.

Awareness -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/30/2017 4:39:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey Wonder how it is going to be paid for? Well, I'd suggest not giving the rich trillions of dollars in tax cuts would probably take care of that nicely. Are there any other aspects of economics you'd like clarified?

Awareness -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/30/2017 4:47:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey Wonder how it is going to be paid for? Well you know, when it comes to insurance, the more widely you spread the risk the fairer the premiums become for everyone, and if you take profit out of the equation then you get the lowest premium cost possible in the bargain, all of which would seem to make single payer pretty much a no-brainer. But for it to actually work you have to balance the amount of money available, the fees that can be charged for the services provided, and the availability of medical personnel, each of which will have interaction effects on the other two. That would require a bureaucracy to administer, with all the associated additional costs, which will predictably expand until they consume any gains. So while single payer does seem to be theoretically appealing, I just don't know how good an idea it would turn out to be in practice. But I'm happy to see a state try it. If they can find a way to make it work, great. Then maybe we can make it work for the nation. And if they can't, then maybe they'll be saving the rest of the country from making a mistake. K. The wider you spread the risk, the less fair it can get. The wider you spread the risk, the greater the risk involved is, the more risk the pool encompasses. Those who are more likely to use the insurance most are adding the most risk to the pool, but aren't paying according to their risk profile. Those who are less likely to use the insurance a lot present the lowest amount of risk, but will be paying well above their risk profile. It's truly only fair for those who are likely going to use and average amount of insurance, because they will likely be paying about their risk profile. Australia and Canada. Socialised medicine. Part of the problem here is that you lot conveniently forget about the collusion in the medical industry. The costs of every good and service are vastly inflated because medicine has no competition in this country. In Australia, the government doesn't fuck about and let the medical community profiteer at patient's expense. Medicine is an essential service, not a product whose need for profit is driven by boards and shareholders. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Australia Note, in particular, this little gem: "In an international comparative study of the health care systems in six countries (Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States), found that "Australia ranks highest on healthy lives, scoring first or second on all of the indicators", although its overall ranking in the study was below the UK and Germany systems, tied with New Zealand's and above those of Canada and far above the U.S. A global study of end of life care, conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit, part of the group which publishes The Economist magazine, published the compared end of life care, gave the highest ratings to Australia and the UK out of the 40 countries studied, the two country's systems receiving a rating of 7.9 out of 10 in an analysis of access to services, quality of care and public awareness." So yes. It works and produces far better results than your overpriced, poorly performing disaster in the USA.

thompsonx -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/30/2017 3:48:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Only in America can people watch dozens of countries successfully use single payer for decades and still insist it can't be done. That is because of price gouging and theft via the military budget. Those other countries spend how much on their military ? You know, when the US invades a country, they send thousands of troops and other countries what, a hundred ? How many troops from this "coalition of the willing" were in Iraq ? And whose weapons were they using ? T^T

DesideriScuri -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (5/1/2017 1:02:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Only in America can people watch dozens of countries successfully use single payer for decades and still insist it can't be done. Where did those other countries start, compared to where we'll start? Where are all those profits you'll squeeze out of the system?

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

7.910156E-02