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.

 

Kamalla Harris "i will get rid of private health care".

page: 7
20
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: narrator

Do you comprehend the current cost of college? You do understand that right now, not just are our doctors expected to undergo their 4 to 6 years of undergrad, but they them embark on further years of college up to as many as 12, and that ain't cheap.

Then you want them to become low-pay government employees? More or less like the teachers are now in the public education system?

Look at all the whining and crying about how our teachers are so underpaid that we can't get anyone good to become teachers. Yes, brain drain. It is a phenomena. There is a common saying - Those who can do; those who can't, teach. An education major is not very highly thought of as it is easy to get, nor does it pay the bills.

But you want to put medical doctors in the same tier as public school teachers when it comes to public employees. I'm sure that people would be happy to spend that kind of money on education and go into that kind of debt to become lowly public sector employees with no hope of ever paying off what they owe?

Nope. Not remotely. We'd have very few actual native docs and lots of imported foreign ones.

Or, the standards would be cut until we could stock our offices and hospitals with what we could get, much like what happened in our schools. And you see the results.

And don't tell me we simply pay what's required. That doesn't happen. Somehow, we increase the cost of education endlessly and the money disappears. It NEVER pays teachers enough to satisfy them. The same would happen in medical.




posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: narrator

The U.S. Senate has 51 Republicans and 49 Democrats
Seems the nation does not want it, if the nation did the dems would have 60 seats


www.pbs.org...

thehill.com...

www.pewresearch.org...

It seems the nation does want it. Number of Senators doesn't show total support for universal healthcare, that only shows how many Senators are democrat vs. republican, nothing more.

Perhaps civics is hard for you?
It would take 60 senate votes to pass this bill.
There are not 60 dem senators.
As big and populous as California is they still only have 2 senators.
It is a genius part of our founders plan for the government.

Or is there a way to pass this without the senate?



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: narrator

Well, a significant percentage of our doctors would indeed quit, at least in the medical system in which I work.

Part of the problem is I am in Illinois, and nobody wants to be here, so they must pay more to keep people. If the pay gets cut, folks will go other places to make less money, rather than stay in Illinois to make less.



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Fowlerstoad

As I understand it, you cannot afford to stay in Illinois and make less.



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: narrator

Do you comprehend the current cost of college? You do understand that right now, not just are our doctors expected to undergo their 4 to 6 years of undergrad, but they them embark on further years of college up to as many as 12, and that ain't cheap.

Then you want them to become low-pay government employees? More or less like the teachers are now in the public education system?

Look at all the whining and crying about how our teachers are so underpaid that we can't get anyone good to become teachers. Yes, brain drain. It is a phenomena. There is a common saying - Those who can do; those who can't, teach. An education major is not very highly thought of as it is easy to get, nor does it pay the bills.

But you want to put medical doctors in the same tier as public school teachers when it comes to public employees. I'm sure that people would be happy to spend that kind of money on education and go into that kind of debt to become lowly public sector employees with no hope of ever paying off what they owe?

Nope. Not remotely. We'd have very few actual native docs and lots of imported foreign ones.

Or, the standards would be cut until we could stock our offices and hospitals with what we could get, much like what happened in our schools. And you see the results.

And don't tell me we simply pay what's required. That doesn't happen. Somehow, we increase the cost of education endlessly and the money disappears. It NEVER pays teachers enough to satisfy them. The same would happen in medical.


For starters, what's wrong with "imported" doctors? That's a pretty terrible thing to say. Every GP I've ever had was foreign born, and they were all fantastic. I'd argue that if people left the medical field because they "only" make 175k instead of 200k, they're just too greedy, and I wouldn't want that doctor anyway.

Also, the US has FEWER physician consultations on average than other countries, including those with universal healthcare. So, it's not like we'd have to wait months to see a doc, we already go less than other countries.
www.healthsystemtracker.org...-the-u-s-has-fewer-ph ysician-consultations-per-capita-than-most-comparable-countries_2018

Now, to your point. You're complaining about the state of education in our country, not doctors salaries. You honestly think that when we switch over to universal healthcare, they're going to cut doctor's salaries by more than 50%? Honestly? That is never going to happen. Look at ANY country that has universal healthcare and show me that a doctor makes the same as an average state employee. Say, a DMV office clerk. Anywhere near the same salary? Didn't think so. Just because doctors are going to work for the government doesn't mean they'll make a ton less than they currently do.

Teachers are woefully underpaid. And education costs WAY more than it should. But, you know what else a lot of the countries that are shining lights in the realm of universal healthcare also offer their citizens? Free college. Or, at least, incredibly cheap college. You know why university in America is way overpriced? Because we allow education to be a for-profit enterprise, which it never should be.

America is the most greedy country in the world. If there is any possible way to make a profit from something, we'll figure out a way to do it. A kid shouldn't have to pay 40k per year to go to school. If they CHOOSE to go to a really expensive school, that's on them. But state schools should be free, or at the very least, incredibly affordable. Same with Med school. If you CHOOSE to go to really expensive school, it's on you. But state schools (any school funded by the government) should be affordable for all.

Fix the greed in this country, and we fix a LOT of other problems. The first we should implement, is not charging exorbitant prices for healthcare. Why does a hip replacement cost the average american $29,000, and the NEXT most expensive country is $19,000? And that's Australia, where healthcare is AT LEAST on par with America, so it isn't like we're getting better care to a degree of 10k.
The average cost of an MRI in America is $1,119. Australia? $215. Spain? $181.
We, as a country, are insanely greedy. The exact same care shouldn't cost THAT much more, just because 'Murica.
www.investopedia.com...



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Exactly.

You know how I know it BS on her part , on the democrats part, and on the republicans part.

Because nobody is talking about the blatant obvious elephant in the room called conflict of interest. It makes zero sense to expect or demand a solution from a group of people riddled with conflict of interest, who are benefiting from the current system THEY implemented.

Until a candidate or party starts talking about conflict of interest first , there will be no solution coming our way for anything. Certainly not one as profitable and complicated as healthcare.



edit on 07131America/ChicagoTue, 29 Jan 2019 15:07:26 -0600000000p3142 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

That is largely true.

Taxes here are on the high side in Illinois, and costs of living are high, and the climate is less than optimal. That is a bad combination for a lot of people. At least with higher pay, we can attract 'FMG's' (foreign medical graduates) ... since Illinois doesn't train enough doctors locally to fill all our need. If the pay goes down, we lose our FMG appeal, and a lot of locals will pack up and go also.


edit on 29-1-2019 by Fowlerstoad because: edit



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: narrator

So everything should be free and America is too greedy?
That about cover it?
Who will be deciding how much those in the healthcare industry will make?

Is the healthcare industry the only one you want to reform?
What will be next?
Energy?
Sports?
Entertainment?
Yeah those guys make too much as well, they are too greedy as well?

Who is going to pay for all this free stuff when you have eliminated the wealthy?
Where will the tax money come from so this can all be free?



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: narrator

The U.S. Senate has 51 Republicans and 49 Democrats
Seems the nation does not want it, if the nation did the dems would have 60 seats


www.pbs.org...

thehill.com...

www.pewresearch.org...

It seems the nation does want it. Number of Senators doesn't show total support for universal healthcare, that only shows how many Senators are democrat vs. republican, nothing more.

Perhaps civics is hard for you?
It would take 60 senate votes to pass this bill.
There are not 60 dem senators.
As big and populous as California is they still only have 2 senators.
It is a genius part of our founders plan for the government.

Or is there a way to pass this without the senate?


Perhaps reading comprehension is hard for you? (Look, I can be a jerk, just like you!)

We weren't talking about whether or not a vote would pass. We were talking about the majority of the population wanting universal health care or not, and judging by the countless polls of late, it seems that a majority does.
Again, just because there aren't 60 Dem senators doesn't mean the majority of the country doesn't want universal health care.

The majority of the voters in the country wanted Hillary. Look where we are though. Just because we didn't get her doesn't mean the majority didn't want her.

Now, if you want to move the goalposts and discuss whether or not a vote would actually pass, I'm happy to. But don't move goalposts mid-discussion. Bad form. We were discussing whether or not the majority of US citizens want it. A majority does.
edit on 29-1-2019 by narrator because: voters



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: narrator

So everything should be free and America is too greedy?
That about cover it?
Who will be deciding how much those in the healthcare industry will make?

Is the healthcare industry the only one you want to reform?
What will be next?
Energy?
Sports?
Entertainment?
Yeah those guys make too much as well, they are too greedy as well?

Who is going to pay for all this free stuff when you have eliminated the wealthy?
Where will the tax money come from so this can all be free?


You seem to be getting very upset in this hypothetical conversation. Simmer.

Yes, America is too greedy. No, not everything should be free. I never said that. Everything should be AFFORDABLE for every single citizen. That I'll get behind 100%.

I'd wager that doctors, nurses, etc. would have some sort of say in how much they make, because it would involve months of negotiations between the government and medical staff if the US were to switch over. Ultimately, the government would probably decide what to pay, but I at least have enough faith in the government to realize that they aren't going to cause a nationwide healthcare worker strike over pay, negotiations would work.

Sports, I'd love to cut their salaries to the bone. A college football coach doesn't need to make multiple millions per year. A pro baseball player doesn't need a 4 year, 125 million dollar contract. That's ludicrous, no one needs that. Put all that excess towards education and healthcare, perhaps?
Same with actors and musicians.

We would pay for it. It isn't going to be "free". It'll be affordable, because it will come out of everyone's taxes. The tax money would come from our salaries. If you look at, say, Norwegian countries, they have everything that you, and most conservatives, are terrified of in this scenario, yet still have a higher level of happiness and more satisfaction with their standard of living.
But but but, how is that possible if they're taxed so much?! Because they aren't nearly as greedy as us, that's how. They live wonderfully happy lives, and are still taxed way more than us. They recognize that the extra they pay in taxes is actually going towards useful things, and they're happy with that outcome.

ETA: The wealthy don't pay for any of this as is, why would getting rid of the ultra-rich change anything?
edit on 29-1-2019 by narrator because: eta



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 03:54 PM
link   
It's not the governments place, or politicians place to determine what is best for us. We decide that.



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: ADVISOR

Really? Then why do we elect people to represent us?



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
Single payer seems like a great idea but I just cant see the Fed doing it in a way that does anything other than line pockets.
They cant handle 22 million vets, but I am supposed to believe they can handle 330+ million people, I just don't see it working out like people think.
You can bet your bottom dollar everyone will be treated equally as shoddy as our vets.



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Im a vet. I have it good. I dont use the VA though. As a retiree i go to the local base here in the uk. I pay x amount per year.



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: narrator

The U.S. Senate has 51 Republicans and 49 Democrats
Seems the nation does not want it, if the nation did the dems would have 60 seats


www.pbs.org...

thehill.com...

www.pewresearch.org...

It seems the nation does want it. Number of Senators doesn't show total support for universal healthcare, that only shows how many Senators are democrat vs. republican, nothing more.

Perhaps civics is hard for you?
It would take 60 senate votes to pass this bill.
There are not 60 dem senators.
As big and populous as California is they still only have 2 senators.
It is a genius part of our founders plan for the government.

Or is there a way to pass this without the senate?


Perhaps reading comprehension is hard for you? (Look, I can be a jerk, just like you!)

We weren't talking about whether or not a vote would pass. We were talking about the majority of the population wanting universal health care or not, and judging by the countless polls of late, it seems that a majority does.
Again, just because there aren't 60 Dem senators doesn't mean the majority of the country doesn't want universal health care.

The majority of the voters in the country wanted Hillary. Look where we are though. Just because we didn't get her doesn't mean the majority didn't want her.

Now, if you want to move the goalposts and discuss whether or not a vote would actually pass, I'm happy to. But don't move goalposts mid-discussion. Bad form. We were discussing whether or not the majority of US citizens want it. A majority does.

If the majority wanted it they would have put people in office to pass it.
The majority did want health care reform. Its why we got trump and both houses gop. The gop couldnt get their crap together and fix it.



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 04:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: narrator

So everything should be free and America is too greedy?
That about cover it?
Who will be deciding how much those in the healthcare industry will make?

Is the healthcare industry the only one you want to reform?
What will be next?
Energy?
Sports?
Entertainment?
Yeah those guys make too much as well, they are too greedy as well?

Who is going to pay for all this free stuff when you have eliminated the wealthy?
Where will the tax money come from so this can all be free?


You seem to be getting very upset in this hypothetical conversation. Simmer.

Yes, America is too greedy. No, not everything should be free. I never said that. Everything should be AFFORDABLE for every single citizen. That I'll get behind 100%.

I'd wager that doctors, nurses, etc. would have some sort of say in how much they make, because it would involve months of negotiations between the government and medical staff if the US were to switch over. Ultimately, the government would probably decide what to pay, but I at least have enough faith in the government to realize that they aren't going to cause a nationwide healthcare worker strike over pay, negotiations would work.

Sports, I'd love to cut their salaries to the bone. A college football coach doesn't need to make multiple millions per year. A pro baseball player doesn't need a 4 year, 125 million dollar contract. That's ludicrous, no one needs that. Put all that excess towards education and healthcare, perhaps?
Same with actors and musicians.

We would pay for it. It isn't going to be "free". It'll be affordable, because it will come out of everyone's taxes. The tax money would come from our salaries. If you look at, say, Norwegian countries, they have everything that you, and most conservatives, are terrified of in this scenario, yet still have a higher level of happiness and more satisfaction with their standard of living.
But but but, how is that possible if they're taxed so much?! Because they aren't nearly as greedy as us, that's how. They live wonderfully happy lives, and are still taxed way more than us. They recognize that the extra they pay in taxes is actually going towards useful things, and they're happy with that outcome.

ETA: The wealthy don't pay for any of this as is, why would getting rid of the ultra-rich change anything?

Nothing hypothetical about communism.
Imo its those who haven't achieved that want to take from those who have.
Those evil greedy coaches are the worst.
Good luck with your communist fantasy. Ain't happening here.
Being jealous of what others have must be exhausting, i feel sorry for you.



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: narrator

The U.S. Senate has 51 Republicans and 49 Democrats
Seems the nation does not want it, if the nation did the dems would have 60 seats


www.pbs.org...

thehill.com...

www.pewresearch.org...

It seems the nation does want it. Number of Senators doesn't show total support for universal healthcare, that only shows how many Senators are democrat vs. republican, nothing more.

Perhaps civics is hard for you?
It would take 60 senate votes to pass this bill.
There are not 60 dem senators.
As big and populous as California is they still only have 2 senators.
It is a genius part of our founders plan for the government.

Or is there a way to pass this without the senate?


Perhaps reading comprehension is hard for you? (Look, I can be a jerk, just like you!)

We weren't talking about whether or not a vote would pass. We were talking about the majority of the population wanting universal health care or not, and judging by the countless polls of late, it seems that a majority does.
Again, just because there aren't 60 Dem senators doesn't mean the majority of the country doesn't want universal health care.

The majority of the voters in the country wanted Hillary. Look where we are though. Just because we didn't get her doesn't mean the majority didn't want her.

Now, if you want to move the goalposts and discuss whether or not a vote would actually pass, I'm happy to. But don't move goalposts mid-discussion. Bad form. We were discussing whether or not the majority of US citizens want it. A majority does.
First let’s talk about what constitutes a majority here, because democracy can mean a simple majority, such as 50-49. So does that really mean that most of the country supports the socialist notion ? Or did you mean to say that the majority of Democrats who voted for Hillary want socialized medicine ... because I wonder if illegals and dead people constitute a “majority” of US citizens.... because we know that’s who’s Voting Democrat these days. What about the half of the country who voted for Trump, cause I’m
Pretty sure they were voting against socialized medicine. So, really, not so many people as you would like to believe. Then there’s the low-info voter factor, like those who vote Democrat no matter what silly-$$& stuff they say, or the ones who don’t even know that the Senate and the house are the two chambers of Congress(reference to Ocasio-Cortez) and not the 3 chambers of government.



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Half of the country didn't vote for Trump. In one paragraph you get into the semantics of "majority", then you throw all of it out the window when discussing Trump voters.

Let's entertain the notion that thousands of dead people and illegals voted for her. Every single number spouted by Conservatives is still off by about 2 million. Yes, voter fraud is a terrible thing. But unless 3+ million cases of voter fraud occurred in the last election, Hillary still got more votes than Trump.

When I say majority in this sense, I don't necessarily mean the majority of the country. I mean, the majority of the people polled (in dozens of polls now, from both sides of the aisle and independent organizations) show that they would prefer universal health care.



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: narrator

The U.S. Senate has 51 Republicans and 49 Democrats
Seems the nation does not want it, if the nation did the dems would have 60 seats


www.pbs.org...

thehill.com...

www.pewresearch.org...

It seems the nation does want it. Number of Senators doesn't show total support for universal healthcare, that only shows how many Senators are democrat vs. republican, nothing more.

Perhaps civics is hard for you?
It would take 60 senate votes to pass this bill.
There are not 60 dem senators.
As big and populous as California is they still only have 2 senators.
It is a genius part of our founders plan for the government.

Or is there a way to pass this without the senate?


Perhaps reading comprehension is hard for you? (Look, I can be a jerk, just like you!)

We weren't talking about whether or not a vote would pass. We were talking about the majority of the population wanting universal health care or not, and judging by the countless polls of late, it seems that a majority does.
Again, just because there aren't 60 Dem senators doesn't mean the majority of the country doesn't want universal health care.

The majority of the voters in the country wanted Hillary. Look where we are though. Just because we didn't get her doesn't mean the majority didn't want her.

Now, if you want to move the goalposts and discuss whether or not a vote would actually pass, I'm happy to. But don't move goalposts mid-discussion. Bad form. We were discussing whether or not the majority of US citizens want it. A majority does.

If the majority wanted it they would have put people in office to pass it.
The majority did want health care reform. Its why we got trump and both houses gop. The gop couldnt get their crap together and fix it.


That's a complete strawman. The majority of the country wants marijuana to be legalized on a federal level. Not going to happen anytime in the near future. The majority of the country wants Trump impeached. Not going to happen anytime soon. The majority of the country wants Hillary investigated. Not anytime soon. Number of Dem/Repub senators does NOT reflect every wish of the population.

Furthermore, we don't get to go in and change Senators every single time an issue comes up to vote on. Healthcare isn't the only issue to think about nowadays. The majority of the the country wants this. Doesn't mean a vote will pass, doesn't mean senators will or won't back it. Senators don't always vote exactly like their constituents want them to.

Yea, the GOP, with both houses controlled, couldn't pass healthcare reform. Maybe because a lot of people actually don't want "reform", they'd rather have universal health care? What other excuse does the GOP have in that instance? Incompetence?



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: lakenheath24

Just wanted to interject what I believe to be, (I could be wrong), a bit of sobering reality here.

Kamala Harris is running for the office of POTUS.

Assuming she won, I kinda dont think that POTUS can, with the stroke of a pen, mandate the end of the business of Private Health Insurance companies selling Health Insurance.

My guess would be that only Congress, (an utterly broken body of government) could pass the laws and regulations necessary to do that I suspect such a scheme would not pass Constitutional requirements. Assuming Congress is the only body that could do that, I suspect it couldnt happen because the Health Insurance companies are some of the richest Lobbying groups on Capital Hill.

Even in the UK where there is the NHS, there are still private Health Insurance companies and private hospitals as I was told by a UK ATS member.

All that being the case of course, Harris will continue to promote the idea because her low informaton voter base doesnt have the facts or where with all to think it through.

ETA: There are more than 1 Million people employed in the Health Insurance Indu stry, last time I checked.
edit on 29-1-2019 by TonyS because: ETA



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join