Trump has been impeached - Page 23 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15059893
BigSteve wrote:So, would Americans get a tax cut?


Again, the answer is “yes”.

Yes, US taxpayers would probably pay less in taxes than they currently do.

They would also have something like 70% of the private costs reduced.

But this would mean that you folks would need to elect people who are supporting such policies, which you will not do because of the aforementioned fear of anything described as “socialism”.

And it would mean getting rid of the insurance companies and their influence over politicians. This will also not be done by US voters or taxpayers.
#15059894
BigSteve wrote:How do we pay for it?

A hypothecated 'National Insurance stamp', a specific tax dedicated to paying the healthcare costs of every American, perhaps.

The OECD has compiled data on dozens of outcomes and process measures. Across a number of these measures, the U.S. lags behind similarly wealthy OECD countries (those that are similarly large and wealthy based on GDP and GDP per capita). In some cases, such as the rates of all-cause mortality, premature death, death amenable to healthcare, and disease burden, the U.S. is also not improving as quickly as other countries, which means the gap is growing.


:)
#15059907
Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, the answer is “yes”.


So, the government is going to provide health coverage for 327,000,000 people and will offer up a tax cut as a way to pay for it? That's nuts.

I don't believe it...

Yes, US taxpayers would probably pay less in taxes than they currently do.


"Probably"?

Sorry, but "probably" is a non-starter. It offers an enormous out for when Sanders finally comes clean and admits that there will have to be a tax hike to pay for it...

They would also have something like 70% of the private costs reduced.


And what of the quality of care?

My doctor is one of the finest doctors in the country, and what he earns reflects that. Since it's unlikely that he would fall into some government plan that's paid for by taxpayers, the only way I get to continue to see him is if I pay out of pocket for it. I would rather do that then start seeing someone who may not be tops in his field.

So, wheres the benefit to me? I would actually be paying more to get the same level of care...

But this would mean that you folks would need to elect people who are supporting such policies, which you will not do because of the aforementioned fear of anything described as “socialism”.


No, we won't do it because the financials don't work. It's an insane approach...

And it would mean getting rid of the insurance companies and their influence over politicians. This will also not be done by US voters or taxpayers.


Again, without private insurance I won't be able to continue seeing my doctor without paying more. There's not a reason in the world I would want to do that...
#15059909
BigSteve wrote:So, the government is going to provide health coverage for 327,000,000 people and will offer up a tax cut as a way to pay for it? That's nuts.

I don't believe it...


Whether or not you believe it is irrelevant.

"Probably"?

Sorry, but "probably" is a non-starter. It offers an enormous out for when Sanders finally comes clean and admits that there will have to be a tax hike to pay for it...


I am not discussing Sanders any more.

The reason I said “probably” is because the US health care system is so corrupt that it is probable that someone somewhere ends up embezzling or squandering funds for personal gain.

And what of the quality of care?

My doctor is one of the finest doctors in the country, and what he earns reflects that. Since it's unlikely that he would fall into some government plan that's paid for by taxpayers, the only way I get to continue to see him is if I pay out of pocket for it. I would rather do that then start seeing someone who may not be tops in his field.

So, wheres the benefit to me? I would actually be paying more to get the same level of care...


Your doctor would simply offer the same care, but instead of you paying out of pocket, he would be paid by the government.

There is no reason why he would not be available or the quality would suffer.

No, we won't do it because the financials don't work. It's an insane approach...


Then why do they work in literally every other country that does it, including developing countries?

Does the rest of the world have magic finances that the USA does not?

I think this near-deliberate ignorance of health care systems around the world is based partly on this irrational fear of “socialism”.

Again, without private insurance I won't be able to continue seeing my doctor without paying more. There's not a reason in the world I would want to do that...


This is incorrect, as far as I can tell.

Why would you be unable to see your doctor?
#15059918
annatar1914 wrote:I know this is just part of your being funny (or trying to) schtick, but nothing is ''free'' in Socialism. You have to work, because it's the whole population working that provides the means to share the fruits of that labor equitably for each individual person in a Socialist society. Sanders is just a Shill not a Socialist, with fancy cars and multiple homes, well paid for his welfarism policies.


Don't look at me. I'm Biden all the way. His desire to reach across the aisle and form consensus with the GOP is exactly the bipartisan compromise that I crave.
#15059923
@Patrickov

True. What I don't agree is to arbitrarily place criticism that "someone is blatantly ignoring this".


:?:



May I assert that I am not the one who stated "turning people into parasite" in the first place.


I know that English may not be your first language perhaps, but I'm very precisely stating that Welfare dehumanizes people because it renders them into parasites.
#15059927
SpecialOlympian wrote:Don't look at me. I'm Biden all the way. His desire to reach across the aisle and form consensus with the GOP is exactly the bipartisan compromise that I crave.



You and Creepy Joe :lol:

See? I am laughing after all from something you said :excited:

Yes, I can see you're all about ''bipartisan compromise'' ;)
#15059932
Pants-of-dog wrote:Whether or not you believe it is irrelevant.


Such a foolish thing to say. It absolutely IS relevant. If people don't believe it, they won't vote for the person endorsing it. The plan has to be presented in such a manner as for it to maker sense. As of right now, no one on the left has gotten too specific as to how they're planning on paying for their pipe-dream programs, and they really need to do that if they want people to vote for them...

I am not discussing Sanders any more.


Has he become too uncomfortable a subject for you? Sanders' plan is ridiculous and unworkable.

Which is exactly why idiot libs will vote for him...

The reason I said “probably” is because the US health care system is so corrupt that it is probable that someone somewhere ends up embezzling or squandering funds for personal gain.


Doesn't matter. Basically now you're saying that it not only gives Sanders an out to go back on his word about a tax cut, but it allows for corruption.

Why would any sane individual believe that's a good idea?

Your doctor would simply offer the same care, but instead of you paying out of pocket, he would be paid by the government.

There is no reason why he would not be available or the quality would suffer.


Unless, of course, he decides to enter another field because he's no longer able to earn what he had been while practicing medicine. If my insurance company pays my doctor $1,000 for a procedure now, there's no way the government is going to pay him that same $1,000 for that same procedure. They'll either not approve the procedure, or they'll cover less of it and require me to pay more.

Again, that's assuming my doctor doesn't bail on medicine altogether and go into aviation (he's IFR rated). See, he and I have had this discussion, and that's exactly what he would do. Congratulations, idiot libs, you just forced one of the finest doctors in the world out of medicine...

Then why do they work in literally every other country that does it, including developing countries?

Does the rest of the world have magic finances that the USA does not?

I think this near-deliberate ignorance of health care systems around the world is based partly on this irrational fear of “socialism”.


I don't care what goes on around the world. I don't live there. I care about what happens here.

I know you'll dismiss this, but here's a little anecdote for you:

About ten years ago, I was in Toronto on business. While I was there I developed a pretty kickin' sinus infection. I'd had them before, of course, and was well aware that all I needed was a handful of antibiotics to clear it up.

I called one of my clients (more of a friend than a client) who had kids. Kids are always getting strep throat and such, so I asked if he had any amoxicillin or penicillin around the house. He told me that he didn't, but that one of his customers was a dentist in Mississauga and might be able to help me. I happened to know this customer, as well. My buddy called him and gave him my number. In about a minute, my phone rang and it was "Doctor Mike".

He said he didn't have regular hours that day, but that I should come in anyway. He got one of his assistants to come in, as well. The right side of my face was severely swollen, and he suggested that I not fly until I got a handle on the infection (I was leaving for San Diego three days later).

In short, he hit me with a shot of penicillin and wrote me a prescription, as well. When I asked him what I owed him, he smiled and said "You'll have to pay the pharmacy for the prescription, but you don't owe me anything. And be glad you're an American. If you were Canadian you'd have waited three weeks to see me."

He did it all off the books and unrecorded. I have forever since referred to him as the "Mob Doctor".

Now, whether he was pulling my leg about waiting three weeks or being serious (I have heard horror stories), I would much rather pay out of pocket and get seen now than let the government pay and be seen three weeks from now.

A government run health care system would have me suffering through the latter...

This is incorrect, as far as I can tell.


So, you think the government is just going to go ahead and continue to pay my doctor the same amount that I have to pay him?

That's so naive...

Why would you be unable to see your doctor?


Because my doctor is either going to find a new line of work or I'll be required to pay more for the level of care I currently receive.

Again, how is that beneficial to me?
#15059934
@BigSteve You might pay more in taxes, but it(Universal Health Care) would still be cheaper, once you consider that you would pay less for medication and you wouldn't pay private insurance.

You would have a savings, that would be just as good as a tax cut.
#15059943
Insurance companies are all about paying the doctors what they want with no negotiation. Also, no country in the world has ever managed to navigate this through government services. Guess insurance is the only option. Everyone loves insurance companies, and dealing with them is never a hassle.

Doctors also love dealing with insurance agencies and having their medical recommendations countermanded by accountants. Everyone loves the private healthcare insurance!

I called one of my clients (more of a friend than a client) who had kids. Kids are always getting strep throat and such, so I asked if he had any amoxicillin or penicillin around the house. He told me that he didn't, but that one of his customers was a dentist in Mississauga and might be able to help me. I happened to know this customer, as well. My buddy called him and gave him my number. In about a minute, my phone rang and it was "Doctor Mike".

He said he didn't have regular hours that day, but that I should come in anyway. He got one of his assistants to come in, as well. The right side of my face was severely swollen, and he suggested that I not fly until I got a handle on the infection (I was leaving for San Diego three days later).

In short, he hit me with a shot of penicillin and wrote me a prescription, as well. When I asked him what I owed him, he smiled and said "You'll have to pay the pharmacy for the prescription, but you don't owe me anything. And be glad you're an American. If you were Canadian you'd have waited three weeks to see me."

He did it all off the books and unrecorded. I have forever since referred to him as the "Mob Doctor".

Now, whether he was pulling my leg about waiting three weeks or being serious (I have heard horror stories), I would much rather pay out of pocket and get seen now than let the government pay and be seen three weeks from now.

A government run health care system would have me suffering through the latter...


Lmbo wow what a compelling story.
#15059946
@BigSteve Your story is simply an anecdote of how foreign countries don't all for visitors. Didn't you have some travel insurance for this?

BigSteve wrote:Now, whether he was pulling my leg about waiting three weeks or being serious (I have heard horror stories), I would much rather pay out of pocket and get seen now than let the government pay and be seen three weeks from now.
Those stories are always bullshit. It's very easy to see a doctor in Canada(UHC), and we don't have even close to the best UHC(that goes to the UK, actually).


BigSteve wrote:A government run health care system would have me suffering through the latter...
Rubbish! You are force-fed that BS by politicians who are bought and paid for by insurance companies and big Pharma.

In Canada, you go to a walk-in clinic, wait sometimes up to 2 hours to see a doctor, then go to the pharmacy(usually next door), for your medication.

Note: You could have walked into any hospital and have been treated. This is what you do after hours, when clinics are closed and it's more than the sniffles. You had options, but chose an odd one, but then again, you never even tried to engage Canada's UHC, so your story is pretty meaningless.
#15059948
annatar1914 wrote::?:


I don't think Sanders is ignoring that welfare has to be paid somewhere, nor he is hiding it from the voters. Therefore, it is absurd to call him a Shill.

Post #15059858 seems to imply that either Sanders or me were blatantly ignoring this fact, which is, at least on my part, not true.


annatar1914 wrote:I know that English may not be your first language perhaps, but I'm very precisely stating that Welfare dehumanizes people because it renders them into parasites.


This is more related to the difference between how we see things, than the difference between our language abilities.

This very statement implies that people do not have ability / willingness to use welfare wisely, OR that the system cannot be designed to sufficiently punish welfare abusers. I at least disagree with the latter.
#15059962
Re According to the GAO, the White House budget office violated the Impoundment Control Act, a 1974 law that limits the White House from withholding funds that Congress has appropriated.

Finfinder wrote:How come he wasn't charged for it?


Well, he could be impeached a third time, but he can't easily be charged with breaking the law. Today, for some reason known mostly to AG Barr and God, a sitting president can't be charged whilest still in office.
#15059965
@Patrickov

I don't think Sanders is ignoring that welfare has to be paid somewhere, nor he is hiding it from the voters. Therefore, it is absurd to call him a Shill.


No, he's a shill because he portrays himself as the authentic American Left, when in fact he is anything but that.

Post #15059858 seems to imply that either Sanders or me were blatantly ignoring this fact, which is, at least on my part, not true.


Saying it doesn't make it so.




This is more related to the difference between how we see things, than the difference between our language abilities.

This very statement implies that people do not have ability / willingness to use welfare wisely, OR that the system cannot be designed to sufficiently punish welfare abusers. I at least disagree with the latter.


No, welfare works great, as a means of undermining systemic change in the overall system, or creating a reserve army of permanently unemployed, underemployed, or unemployable who yet have the capacity to consume goods and services, alleviating the crisis of overproduction in the Capitalist system.
#15059966
annatar1914 wrote:No, he's a shill because he portrays himself as the authentic American Left, when in fact he is anything but that.


I do not see him as one either (I thought he is just some SJW), but if there are a significant number people (other than himself) who genuinely do, who am I to judge?


annatar1914 wrote:No, welfare works great, as a means of undermining systemic change in the overall system, or creating a reserve army of permanently unemployed, underemployed, or unemployable who yet have the capacity to consume goods and services, alleviating the crisis of overproduction in the Capitalist system.


I choose not to comment on the case of "permanently unemployed or underemployed", as I cannot decide whether welfare has the effect of creating (or catalysing the creation of) these two groups.

However, the "unemployable" (IMHO would include those badly injured or so) is somewhat constant no matter how the society is (unless, of course, one goes the Nazi way, but it is safe to assume nobody would agree with that now), and welfare more or less helps them live comparably normal lives.
#15059967
BigSteve wrote:Such a foolish thing to say. It absolutely IS relevant. If people don't believe it, they won't vote for the person endorsing it. The plan has to be presented in such a manner as for it to maker sense. As of right now, no one on the left has gotten too specific as to how they're planning on paying for their pipe-dream programs, and they really need to do that if they want people to vote for them...


Again, this is irrelevant to my point: it should cost less.

And again, this is all irrelevant because the people who need this much reassurance would not vote for it anyway because of the previously mentioned fear of socialism.

Has he become too uncomfortable a subject for you? Sanders' plan is ridiculous and unworkable.

..irrelevant ad hominem...


I would ask for evidence that his plan is “ridiculous and unworkable”, but we both know you will not provide it.

Doesn't matter. Basically now you're saying that it not only gives Sanders an out to go back on his word about a tax cut, but it allows for corruption.

Why would any sane individual believe that's a good idea?


I never said either of those things. You have misunderstood.

Did Sanders ever say anything about a tax cut?

Am I incorrect about the corruption in the USA?

Unless, of course, he decides to enter another field because he's no longer able to earn what he had been while practicing medicine. If my insurance company pays my doctor $1,000 for a procedure now, there's no way the government is going to pay him that same $1,000 for that same procedure. They'll either not approve the procedure, or they'll cover less of it and require me to pay more.

Again, that's assuming my doctor doesn't bail on medicine altogether and go into aviation (he's IFR rated). See, he and I have had this discussion, and that's exactly what he would do. Congratulations, idiot libs, you just forced one of the finest doctors in the world out of medicine...


If he is just doing it for the money, then I have no problem saying goodbye to this possibly nonexistent doctor. Tons of people would do it for the money even at the rates the government pays. And many of them will be just as good or better than your anecdotal example.

I don't care what goes on around the world. I don't live there. I care about what happens here.


Your feelings are not a rebuttal of evidence.

I know you'll dismiss this, but here's a little anecdote for you:

About ten years ago, I was in Toronto on business. While I was there I developed a pretty kickin' sinus infection. I'd had them before, of course, and was well aware that all I needed was a handful of antibiotics to clear it up.

I called one of my clients (more of a friend than a client) who had kids. Kids are always getting strep throat and such, so I asked if he had any amoxicillin or penicillin around the house. He told me that he didn't, but that one of his customers was a dentist in Mississauga and might be able to help me. I happened to know this customer, as well. My buddy called him and gave him my number. In about a minute, my phone rang and it was "Doctor Mike".

He said he didn't have regular hours that day, but that I should come in anyway. He got one of his assistants to come in, as well. The right side of my face was severely swollen, and he suggested that I not fly until I got a handle on the infection (I was leaving for San Diego three days later).

In short, he hit me with a shot of penicillin and wrote me a prescription, as well. When I asked him what I owed him, he smiled and said "You'll have to pay the pharmacy for the prescription, but you don't owe me anything. And be glad you're an American. If you were Canadian you'd have waited three weeks to see me."

He did it all off the books and unrecorded. I have forever since referred to him as the "Mob Doctor".

Now, whether he was pulling my leg about waiting three weeks or being serious (I have heard horror stories), I would much rather pay out of pocket and get seen now than let the government pay and be seen three weeks from now.

A government run health care system would have me suffering through the latter...


He was pulling your leg.

You could have gone to a prescribing pharmacy, a walk-in clinic, or if you want to wait the longest time, an emergency room.

The emergency room world take the longest, simply because of triage. The pharmacist would take about ten minutes.

So, you think the government is just going to go ahead and continue to pay my doctor the same amount that I have to pay him?

That's so naive...


If his only reason is not being paid exorbitant fees, then I am correct that there is no good reason that he could not continue practicing and providing quality health care.

Because my doctor is either going to find a new line of work or I'll be required to pay more for the level of care I currently receive.

Again, how is that beneficial to me?


That is the fault of your doctor’s avarice. It is not a fault of the system.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15059970
About ten years ago, I was in Toronto on business. While I was there I developed a pretty kickin' sinus infection. I'd had them before, of course, and was well aware that all I needed was a handful of antibiotics to clear it up.

I called one of my clients (more of a friend than a client) who had kids. Kids are always getting strep throat and such, so I asked if he had any amoxicillin or penicillin around the house. He told me that he didn't, but that one of his customers was a dentist in Mississauga and might be able to help me. I happened to know this customer, as well. My buddy called him and gave him my number. In about a minute, my phone rang and it was "Doctor Mike".

He said he didn't have regular hours that day, but that I should come in anyway. He got one of his assistants to come in, as well. The right side of my face was severely swollen, and he suggested that I not fly until I got a handle on the infection (I was leaving for San Diego three days later).

In short, he hit me with a shot of penicillin and wrote me a prescription, as well. When I asked him what I owed him, he smiled and said "You'll have to pay the pharmacy for the prescription, but you don't owe me anything. And be glad you're an American. If you were Canadian you'd have waited three weeks to see me."

He did it all off the books and unrecorded. I have forever since referred to him as the "Mob Doctor".

Now, whether he was pulling my leg about waiting three weeks or being serious (I have heard horror stories), I would much rather pay out of pocket and get seen now than let the government pay and be seen three weeks from now.

A government run health care system would have me suffering through the latter...


There is so much bullshit here I need a bigger shovel. Since I sorta do this stuff, let me tell you about real health care.

Others have already told you how this story of yours does not even resemble health care in Canada in the least.

Your comment about "a handful of antibiotics" belays a dangerous lack of knowledge of medicine. Antibiotics are serious drugs only to be used when absolutely necessary. Your drug seeking behavior is dangerous and I recommend you not do it again. Good doctors do not hand out antibiotics because "it always worked in the past".

A dentist who would give you an antibiotic for your self-diagnosed sinus infection should have his license revoked. It is illegal and he is not even close to qualified to do it.

As for your "finest doctor in the world". If your doctor is so disenchanted with medicine that he would leave to be a professional pilot (and an "IFR rating" is not what he would need to do it) he is not dedicated to his patients but rather to the money. I know a lot of doctors. Probably far more than you do. I know a very few who are doing it pretty much only for the money but I don't want them to be my doctor. Very few family practice docs are in it for the money.

Canadian doctors earn very good pay.

British doctors earn very good pay.

You want choice of doctors? Go with universal health care. I have medicare and tricare. I can choose any doctor who accepts medicare. That is just about all of them. This would not be true if I had private insurance. The cold fact of life is that private insurance limits one's choice of doctors far more than government insurance does.

If you have private insurance you have to have a referral to see a specialist. I don't. Medicare does not require it. So I have far more control over my health care than you do with your private insurance.

As someone earlier has said, the right has simply sold this shit to people who are not smart enough to know they are being fooled or to lazy to find out.

As for who pays for it? Here is the number sport. The US pays about 18% if its GDP on health care. This is criminal. We have less coverage and poorer outcomes that just about any developed nation and we pay vastly more. Arguing about taxes is just stupid. If we do a government single payer system we will save an immense amount of money. YOU will pay much less in the form of taxes than you do now buying your coverage and YOU will get more choice and better services.

You see son, if the government is in control of the system you have a voice in it. Private insurance companies do not care if you are inconvenienced. They just want your money and they have the political clout to limit your choices.

So tell your nonsensical stories to someone else. To those here who have universal health care, they are obviously bullshit. To those who actually think through the issues they are just exercises in ignorance through indoctrination.

One little statistic to send your nonsense on its way. You say universal health care will limit choice. 96% of US doctors accept medicare. So much for that idiotic argument. :roll:

I get sick of even talking about this stuff. The shear lack of knowledge on the subject is astonishing.
#15059971
Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, this is irrelevant to my point: it should cost less.


"Should" and "will" are two vastly different things.

When Obamacare went into affect, Americans were told they should save right around $2,500 per family a year. That didn't happen. In fact, there were horror stories about premiums skyrocketing. A young couple I know; successful, in their 30's with one child, had their premiums almost triple.

Yeah, they "should" have saved money.

They didn't...

And again, this is all irrelevant because the people who need this much reassurance would not vote for it anyway because of the previously mentioned fear of socialism.


If you could actually demonstrate how a tax cut would provide the additional funds required to pay fot it, maybe people would be more accepting of it...

I would ask for evidence that his plan is “ridiculous and unworkable”, but we both know you will not provide it.


Hell, and you and I both know that if I dragged Bernie Sanders before you and he told you why it was ridiculous and unworkable, you'd dismiss him...

Did Sanders ever say anything about a tax cut?


Not that I remember hearing.

But I asked you if Americans would see a tax cut under such a plan, and you said "yes".

I'd love for you to explain how a tax cut would raise the requisite revenue...

Am I incorrect about the corruption in the USA?


Corruption exists everywhere. It's going to happen whether we implement Bernie's plan or not...

If he is just doing it for the money, then I have no problem saying goodbye to this possibly nonexistent doctor. Tons of people would do it for the money even at the rates the government pays. And many of them will be just as good or better than your anecdotal example.


Why should he be forced to sacrifice the standard of living he's worked so hard to achieve?

You could liken it to the argument about minimum wage. If minimum wage goes up, business owners aren't going to start making less, they're going to start charging more. In the case of health care, doctors aren't going to suddenly become these altruistic angels at the expense of the comfort of them and their families, they're going to
find something which will allow them to continue their current standard of living...

Your feelings are not a rebuttal of evidence.


You've provided zero evidence that what works in one country would work here, so there's no reason to believe it would...

He was pulling your leg.

You could have gone to a prescribing pharmacy, a walk-in clinic, or if you want to wait the longest time, an emergency room.

The emergency room world take the longest, simply because of triage. The pharmacist would take about ten minutes.


So pharmacists in Canada can prescribe medications?

If his only reason is not being paid exorbitant fees, then I am correct that there is no good reason that he could not continue practicing and providing quality health care.


He could, but it would be at the expense of him and his family. Why should he do that?

That is the fault of your doctor’s avarice. It is not a fault of the system.


But changing the system will change how he does business. Changing the system will not be beneficial to me, despite your naive assertion that it will be...
#15059974
Drlee wrote:There is so much bullshit here I need a bigger shovel. Since I sorta do this stuff, let me tell you about real health care.

Others have already told you how this story of yours does not even resemble health care in Canada in the least.


I never suggested it did. Don't put words in my mouth...

Your comment about "a handful of antibiotics" belays a dangerous lack of knowledge of medicine. Antibiotics are serious drugs only to be used when absolutely necessary. Your drug seeking behavior is dangerous and I recommend you not do it again. Good doctors do not hand out antibiotics because "it always worked in the past".

A dentist who would give you an antibiotic for your self-diagnosed sinus infection should have his license revoked. It is illegal and he is not even close to qualified to do it.


I never claimed to have an in depth knowledge of medicine. What I know is how I feel and what my symptoms are when I have a raging sinus infection. And, every time I've taken antibiotics for it, prescribed or otherwise, it's taken care of it.

Every.

Fucking.

Time.

Is what he did illegal? I don't know. But here's the more important point: I don't care. I got the impression that this wasn't the first time he'd done something like that.

As for your "finest doctor in the world". If your doctor is so disenchanted with medicine that he would leave to be a professional pilot (and an "IFR rating" is not what he would need to do it) he is not dedicated to his patients but rather to the money.


Oh, are you now going to regale us with your vast knowledge of aviation?

I never said IFR was what was required. I mentioned it simply to reference his level of training.

He's certainly dedicated to his patients, but he's dedicated to his family, too. There's no reason he shouldn't be. He's not disenchanted with medicine. He's practiced it for 30 years and is tops in his field. What he's disenchanted with is the idea of some pin-headed bureaucrat calling the shots for patients instead of doctors.
If I want government run health care, I'll go to the VA. But they're so fucking dismal I'd rather spend money out of my own pocket and pay a doctor who's actually interested in curing sick patients...

I know a lot of doctors. Probably far more than you do. I know a very few who are doing it pretty much only for the money but I don't want them to be my doctor. Very few family practice docs are in it for the money.


Your personal little anecdote is pretty meaningless...

Canadian doctors earn very good pay.


Define "very good"...

British doctors earn very good pay.


Define "very good"...

You want choice of doctors?


Actually, no, I don't. I want the doctor I have. He's exceptional...

Go with universal health care. I have medicare and tricare. I can choose any doctor who accepts medicare. That is just about all of them. This would not be true if I had private insurance. The cold fact of life is that private insurance limits one's choice of doctors far more than government insurance does.


When I first moved to Florida, I got one of those sinus infections. Instead of driving up to Jacksonville I went to the local Care Spot, which accepts Tri-Care.

First, there was no doctor. There was a PA. Second, when the PA asked what was wrong I told her it was a sinus infection. I explained to her the symptoms I was experiencing. She listened to my breathing, looked down my throat and actually said "I agree with you."

She didn't "diagnose" anything. But, there were about 25 people in the waiting room and it was going for 5:00pm, and she wanted to get out of there on time (they were open until 7:00pm).

There wasn't a single hint that she was ever really concerned about my health. Hell, if I told her I'd been shot she probably would've just given me a band-aid...

Nonsensical blabbering and bullshit unworthy of comment...


I don't want government run health care, and I don't need it. I believe the quality of care will be diminished and that's just not something I'm interested in...
#15059975
Godstud wrote:@BigSteve You might pay more in taxes, but it(Universal Health Care) would still be cheaper, once you consider that you would pay less for medication and you wouldn't pay private insurance.

You would have a savings, that would be just as good as a tax cut.


I don't understand. Your fellow lib has claimed that I would get a tax cut. Now you're saying I would pay more i taxes.

See, this is part of the problem. Libs can't get their stories straight.

And you wonder why people don't believe you...
  • 1
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 40
Election 2020

Rep. Ilhan Omar underperformed Biden in her dis[…]

@annatar1914 It matters little in any case wh[…]

Neoliberal obesity and coronavirus in Mexico

As you say, this is a choice of the consumer, and[…]

EU-BREXIT

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DTdMH46X[…]