It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sanders Rocks The Democratic Debate By Dropping A Medicare For All Bomb In SC

page: 5
27
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 12:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: yesyesyes

Implementing Medicare for all is not the same thing. Medicare will negotiate for the lower prices and reimbursements.

Plus we will get to spend our money on other things, instead of stuffing the pockets of middlemen, we will save and pay doctors directly.


Whatever it is it needs to take down the cost of insurance inflated costs. I spent 6 days in the Hospital and the bill was 52,000, same care in another country might have been 2,000.


You are right. It's unbelievable they charged you that, it is crocked, straight up.




posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 12:26 AM
link   
It's interesting to me that people mostly just don't seem to see the obviousness of what seems to be going on. It appears to me that Sanders is essentially part 2 to the plan that started with Obamacare.

1. Obamacare sabotages the free market by forcing people to buy insurance and thereby making it impossible to choose not to participate.

2. Sanders (or some other socialist) "fixes" the situation by implementing socialism once their most obvious opposition has been completely neutralized.

Basically, the socialists cheated. They don't have to compete with truly affordable healthcare in a free market because they sabotaged the whole system for many decades. They started out with the end goal of government run healthcare, for a multitude of reasons (Not the least of which is the fact that whoever is at the health control panel controls everything). Again, it's just a great big power grab. They manipulated the public with sad stories and the prospect of insanely massive bills and debt.

Now here's where it gets obvious. If they hadn't needed the health insurance industry, it would have been called what it is decades ago and banned (racketeering). But they realized that health insurance was allowing the healthcare industry to charge whatever they wanted with impunity.

It works like this. If you're a guy who's making $20 an hour and something breaks in your body and you get a $50,000 medical bill, there's just no way you're realistically going to pay it along with all the other massive bills that are so common.

Therefore, society simply wouldn't put up with it. The market would demand inexpensive healthcare FROM THE SOURCE. What is the source? The doctors and hospitals and so forth. They would be forced to actually compete for lower prices and better service. Health insurance inserted a middle man and what that did was basically made the consumer simply not care how much 2 weeks in the hospital costs. The health insurance mafia spreads that out and makes everybody happy. The doctor/hospital/whatever gets their huge payoff. The patient doesn't have to care if it costs 50 grand to fix his problem. The insurance company doesn't have to care about the 50 grand because they have a huge pool, they have the deck stacked and 50 grand just isn't that much the way their business is structured.

Now of course a real capitalist wouldn't do things this way (if he was smart) because it sabotages the free market in the end and that's no good for you if you're a capitalist. Now some of these people are just stupid opportunists looking to make easy money. That doesn't explain it all though because again, insurance is obviously a racket.

Socialists/liberals/Marxists/whatevertheycallthemselvestoday are supposedly all for regulations so why would they sit back and empower the biggest racket in the country for decades unless it was intended to sabotage the market in ways they could only dream about without health insurance?

Thus, I don't think the health insurance people are actually losing. I think a lot of them are socialists and they're basically just opportunistic saboteurs. They simultaneously know what they're doing and what the effect has and will be AND they're taking advantage of the opportunity to enrich themselves and use the profits against capitalism.



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 12:37 AM
link   
Well, finally got around to watching this debate and Sanders for the first time
going in, I figured Clinton is all but signed up as the frontrunner..now, I suspect Sanders is the best bet here.

I dont really understand his numbers and how he plans on getting a medicare for all system implemented, I mean, Obamacare was a nightmare to get through and that was far less ambitious, so really not even sure I believe he can do what he wants to do even if he does win..even if dems take house and senate at that..and I want to see the numbers before believing.

In saying that though..he seemed like the less corrupt out of the two.

minor question though..who was that guy standing next to them...security or a bodyguard or something? it was odd that sometimes he would even speak...not too much of course



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 12:41 AM
link   
Lmao...That must be a family plan. I pay $200 for myself with a $4100 deductible & 30% copay. Went to a Dr. last week for the first time in year for some preventative mole wacking...In my opinion things like that should be free,actually anything helping to prevent or spot cancer or HIV/AIDS should be free. Best way to start in wiping that # out. a reply to: yesyesyes



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 12:43 AM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Sander's wants to basically tax us all to death. That dead horse has been beat to a new level of death! Nothing is free, the middle class can not take another blow and if the super rich keep getting taxed they will pull the plug and opt to other countries leaving us with nothing. (that's already happening a little more push and poof no more businesses) I know many people have a problem with the wealthy - but you better think long and hard about who you vote for and what the consequences will be long term.

Hillary is...laughable.



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 12:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: yesyesyes

You are right. It's unbelievable they charged you that, it is crocked, straight up.


Here is the crazy part. A MRI and a cat scan was 15,000 dollars. As an out patient the same thing with the same machine and same technician was less than 2000. I talked to my insurance company as to how this could be and they just said that is how it is billed.



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 12:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: daaskapital
What's up with Americans and a hatred of anything even remotely socialist or fair? Lol.

People, it's time to take proper steps and start catching up with the rest of the world. Seriously. The USA isn't looked at as the beacon it once was. Other countries like Canada or Australia are doing much better with our 'socialist' policies!




Just for the record, it's only some Americans who are like that. But they have a stranglehold, err, I mean they control the majority of State legislatures, have majorities in both chambers of Congress, have the majority of governorships, and have a majority on the Supreme Court. And in this specific election cycle, they've gotten far more publicity for their candidates than the crappy DNC has. In other words, you're probably hearing more from their perspective than you are from the other voting blocks in America.

As for "Medicare For All", this is what should've happened in 2009. "Medicare For All" will be vastly superior even to the proposed "Public Option" that almost made it into the ACA. In fact, the possibilities with "Medicare For All" are so good that my skeptical instincts kicked in. There's no way the health insurance industry is going to allow that. It would put most of them out of business (maybe they'd squeeze in some supplemental insurance requirements to keep a piece of the pie?). And too many people make money off of investments in health care & health insurance for them to willingly give up on their highly profitable investments without a fight. I almost suspect a true "Medicare For All" program would be the deathblow of his campaign just from that angle (no way a non-progressive majority Congress passes it or supports it).

One major note though: Single payer in the US will be useless without serious reform on prices too. I'll be looking into this more & more because it's starting to sound like a pipe dream. Crap, have I become so cynical of our process that I simply don't expect any of them to do something as helpful as this?



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 12:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
How much do you Yanks spend on average for Insurance annually???

If it's more than $1500 dollars you're being robbed.


If it's anything less then you're no better or worse off than a universal healthcare system.


For a £26k annual salary in the UK just over a £1k in tax goes towards healthcare, with no added costs for anything.



You can google dollars to pounds to work out the difference there.


For one person, as a "benefit" when working for a corporation, it's about 99-150 dollars per month. That does not include Vision, or dental, so add another 45 or 50 dollars per month for that. The company you work for pays the difference.

On top of that, you either have to meet a deductible of 1 or 2 thousand dollars before your insurance starts paying for things. Except for preventative visits, like checkups or vaccinations.
Also, prescriptions are partially covered, and you usually have to pay the first 20 or 30 bucks, and insurance covers the rest. Same for non-preventative doctor visits, there is usually a co-pay for those too.

If you are married, and this is a new thing...If you are married, you now pay an additional 300 dollars per month for your spouse, yes, per month....

with very little doctoring, Americans are now out 5 to 7 thousand dollars per year..barely using

Plans of course, vary by company...but my last three medical options look like the above.

There is some catastrophic care available, where you are covered for extremely expensive things. All in all though, insurance can almost bankrupt you, before you even use it...

15 years ago, maybe a bit more...it was a benefit...the company covered it all. The deductibles were much lower.
As a matter of fact, I used to get a REBATE, because my spouse was insured by her own employer. Each month I filled out a form, showing she was covered elsewhere, and I would get a check for about 100 bucks.

LETS HEAR IT FOR COMPETITION! KEEPING THOSE PRICES LOW!



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 12:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Staroth





Sander's wants to basically tax us all to death.

Who is this "all" The top 3 percent that now hold over double the wealth of America's poorest 90 percent of families??
edit on 18-1-2016 by Spider879 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 12:57 AM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

Martin O'Malley?

I didn't watch the debate so I'm guessing this is who you're talking about. I was originally leaning towards him because he's also a better candidate than Hillary (he recently released a proposed "Workers Bill of Rights"). He's a former governor, and the reason you haven't heard of him is because he's getting the same treatment Bernie was getting from the DNC. The only difference is that Bernie's inspired a grassroots revolt which is building momentum for him in spite of the DNC's crap. I wouldn't be surprised if he'll be Bernie's VP choice if Bernie gets the nomination.

Here's his campaign site to see more of what he's about.
edit on 18-1-2016 by enlightenedservant because: lol what's wrong with me? I think I'm losing it. I originally typed "i'm guessing this is who you're speaking of". i don't even talk like that lol. maybe i need some sleep



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 03:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
Here's his campaign site to see more of what he's about.

Well, at this particular debate, he was just sorta there..he got almost no airtime, no real meaty questions, and when he did actually get to speak, he mostly just gave agreeable somewhat generic answers.
He should back out to be honest, no way he can win with the two powerhorses at each others throats now.

I suspect Bernie will get the nomination if he continues this performance to be honest, Clinton is mostly just golden calfing Obama and not really giving any solid pictures of the future..politics as usual vote.

I dont believe Bernie..but I do believe he believes in what he is saying, I just dont think he can get it done..not in this washington. I suspect he will give it one hell of a shot though and inevitably realize its pretty impossible with what may be both sides working against him
So..a lame duck president..Clinton also will potentially be a lame duck. Trump definately will be...yep..bright future I see. lol



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 06:05 AM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Sure! Let's take a system that's been in the red every single year except for one since 1966 and make it larger so it's even more ripe for fraud, abuse, and debt!!

"Medicare Funds Totaling $60 Billion Improperly Paid, Report Finds"

abcnews.go.com...

Throw in Medicaid while you're at it...

"The $272 billion swindle: Why thieves love America’s health-care system"

www.economist.com...

Haven't some of you learned anything yet about the lack of competency by our government? Was the Obamacare roll-out not a big enough clue for you?



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 06:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: DBCowboy

LOl's you might want to do your own research, or you contact me and for a large non-refundable fee I will gladly research it for you!



I'm not entirely sure why you laugh at people who point out that none of the "solutions" that have ever been offered or enacted have ever been anything but complete disasters.

Aren't you inviting criticism by promoting this stuff?

Shouldn't you at least give valid questioners the time of day?


That's because all of the politicians that put those previous policies in place were already bought out by the corporations. Bernie's main message is to take back control from the corporations. This obviously won't be easy to do, mainly due to the fact that almost the entire senate is bought out as well.

The way I see it:

Option 1: Continue to screw many Americans "that work" and just can't afford health insurance under ACA....due to policies put in place by lobbyists and their bought out politicians.

Option 2: Bernie's plan

Option 3: Wait for the Republican party to actually put out another plan for healthcare. Kills me to say it, but Trump is the only one talking about corruption. Just like the Democratic party, the Republican party is run by bought out politicians.

Now this is my opinion, but if corruption in politics isn't someones #1 priority to fix right now. I don't even know why they would cast a vote to be honest. Until corruption is reduced, we're just gonna see a lot of the same things, which is catering to big business.

Just my 2 cents





posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 06:54 AM
link   
It's threads like this that make me damn glad I live in Scotland with an NHS paid for through National insurance. Never any bills, never any excess (I believe that is what you call a deductable). My friend had a car accident and now has two new hips and a new knee and no worries. Nobody needs to worry about getting treatment. For sure we have issues with supply side at times due to the increasing demand but by and large no worries we all get treatment. Up here in Scotland we don't pay for prescriptions either, or eye tests or dental check ups or amalgam fillings (I pay for white fillings but still significantly cheaper than US).

One caveat : our UK government is slowly privatising the NHS in England (tories hate this socialist idea) and it is drifting to US style system, we already have US firms handling some parts of the NHS and insurance companies handling GP budgets (yes folks didn't you spot that one !!!!!!!!). Thank christ I live in Scotland where our NHS is safe. ENGLAND WAKE UP BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 07:14 AM
link   
a reply to: amicktd

I think part of the problem has been the adopting of the wrong target or, at least, the wrong rhetoric.

We don't want everybody to have health insurance, we want everybody to have access to quality health care.

It is the distortions in the way that health care is handled that have caused diminished quality and exorbitant artificial prices. We have forsaken the tried and true market mechanism which would allow only efficient high quality providers and have instead promoted the most politicized and inefficient mechanisms which are antithetical to quality and efficiency.

Having distorted and sabotaged the market mechanism, capitalism, we shouldn't be surprised.



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 07:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Would I have he freedom to opt out or would I be forced to purchase another government-mandated plan?


I think individuals should be allowed to opt out, with a couple of caveats:

1) Once you opt out, you're out for life - no jumping back in should you become diabetic or develop MS

2) If you ever want healthcare, you pay your own way. No free ER trips for heart attacks.

With those caveats fulfilled, I believe you should be allowed to opt out. You won't be allowed to, but you should be.



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

We'll see what happens.. a candidate has emerged from NH and is gaining a huge following from his Diablo III friends (there are a lot of them, most of them are voters too!).



Didn't see this one coming..



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: FamCore

You did not include his video from 2012.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: FamCore

You did not include his video from 2012.

www.youtube.com...



there were some great ones running for Governor of VT last year as well - absolutely hysterical lol





edit on 18-1-2016 by FamCore because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: yorkshirelad
It's threads like this that make me damn glad I live in Scotland with an NHS paid for through National insurance. Never any bills, never any excess (I believe that is what you call a deductable). My friend had a car accident and now has two new hips and a new knee and no worries. Nobody needs to worry about getting treatment. For sure we have issues with supply side at times due to the increasing demand but by and large no worries we all get treatment. Up here in Scotland we don't pay for prescriptions either, or eye tests or dental check ups or amalgam fillings (I pay for white fillings but still significantly cheaper than US).

One caveat : our UK government is slowly privatising the NHS in England (tories hate this socialist idea) and it is drifting to US style system, we already have US firms handling some parts of the NHS and insurance companies handling GP budgets (yes folks didn't you spot that one !!!!!!!!). Thank christ I live in Scotland where our NHS is safe. ENGLAND WAKE UP BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE


This talk about privatising of the NHS is extremely misleading. The last figure I saw was that it had risen from 4% to 6% since labour were last in power - I don't hear labour or the SNP mentioning that figure - do you?

Privatisation in the NHS includes catering and cleaning in some trusts - my other half's theatre scrubs are washed by a private company and a private company handles the cleaning of the hospital - is this killing the NHS, or allowing firms for whom it's their specialism to do the job at least as good and at a lower cost?

More to the point, the NHS was built on a financial model that worked in 1948, not 2016. An ageing, growing population to name but two areas challenge that original model, but more to the point, the NHS was never about how or by whom the services were provided, but they were free at point of service. It's a mantra in the left wing, I don't disagree, but I often think they are being lobbied by the unions who are worried about losing subscription fees.

And don't get me started on the junior doctor dispute..............................




top topics



 
27
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join