You cannot be serious. You want to line up people against the wall who, while acting within the law of the land, you disagree with? Have you thought this disgusting position through?
This does not invalidate my point.
It does. There's nobody to vote for who would do what's necessary. This murder has at least raised the topic in America. Of course, I don't approve of it either but....
I never said that. Don't strawman my position. I ablsolutely DO NOT want to line people up against a wall. But I absolutely am serious.
The US electorate did. Governments around the world would fall if they decided to eliminate their universal health systems. If both major parties agreed to do so a third party would arise and win.
No, it actually didn't. It was never on the ballot.
My point, which I’m certain you know, is that if a universal health system was something US people really wanted, it would require it of government. Other nations have done this.
Part of the problem is that the oligarchy has effectively disenfranchised the voting public. A lot of people would love to be able to vote for someone who would change it, but they aren't given that option.
Bernie Sanders was there. He wasn’t wanted.
We can hardly change anything with the very undemocratic US Senate and the gerrymandered House. So much also involves media. And trust me. It's amazing how much money is invested by the corporations to protect their very profitable business interests.
A lot of people wanted Bernie. The oligarchy wouldn't permit it. Also, what acbytesla just said.
Didn’t stop Carter, Clinton, Obama and Biden being elected.
Don’t they represent the oligarchy? They got voted on the premise that they wouldn’t change too much.
Obama was when the oligarchy kicked it into high gear because the oligarchy is also racist. I can't explain Biden.
And they have enough money and influence to be able to change the law
yeah, they would like to change the law, so they only take in premiums and deny all claims.
One could argue anything, that doesn't mean it would convince anyone. In court or out of it.
Pretty sure abortion clinic attackers have burned that defensive bridge, not to mention political assassins.
True.
I'm sure they have. This is kind of the basis for jury nullification. Kevorkian was obviously violating the law and people still wouldn't convict him. And the government attempted to. What was it? Three or four times?
Only an idiot would try.
I don't disagree with most of your point but just want to clarify that pretty much no one making 80k would be paying 25k. If it's employer sponsored from same study I think ur referring to puts it at $6,300. Through marketplace would depend on family size but in a state like NJ kids would be on medicaid and a silver plan would less than a grand a year for the adults.
No. Disagree completely. You can argue the time sink but the cost? Believe the mean is 200k. Between loan forgiveness, loan repayment from employers and just the level of income possible i see no issue with the overall cost. Anyone that views it as a hindrance is unfamiliar or being dishonest.
No, the problem is that people want it without any costs. I'm sure 'do you want universal healthcare' will poll well. Add in the caveats of tradeoffs it would require and that number be more reflective of reality.
What "trade-offs"? Ones that aren't in the current system?
Obvious ones at first. Increased taxes for middle-class and above, offsetting savings from premiums being gone. Longer wait times. Doctor and healthcare provider shortages.
There is no need for any increased taxes for anyone for the USA to adopt one of the many successful UHC models in use in other countries. There is no need for longer wait times nor doctor and healthcare provider shortages.
Exactly. They act as if UHC isn't working anywhere else in the world and that no other place made the change from a profit-driven system.
I'm sorry but there is no mathematical way that is true. You're are adding by a quick search 26 million Americans into the insurance system that currently have none. Just that alone will affect both of those first two. You could be optimistic that over a long time horizon that would be the case, but to deny reality in the short term is not possible. On the long term I haven't seen any studies that have shown a decrease in cost or utilization of services anytime coverage has expanded. If you want to disagree, what are you basing it on besides hope?
Maybe a few people should die because of this.
There's a great chart here:
ourworldindata.org
There's a great chart here:
Life expectancy vs. health expenditure
The period life expectancy at birth, in a given year. Health expenditure includes all financing schemes and covers all aspects of healthcare. This data is adjusted for inflation and differences in living costs between countries.
: Health expenditure per capita: $5,052; life expectancy: 81.29. I think those numbers also include 
and 
.
ranked first out of 35 countries in a study measuring resilience to the post-truth phenomenon (CNN), but ranked #2 - and #1 in transparency and social justice. And only 5% of Danes would have voted for him.)
with come confidence i can say that i believe 2-5 years of longer life is worth more than -$5000
Sure, and i am sure you will provide evidence of your claims as well.
It is no secret that management of diabetes has improved considerably since 2013.
Dr. Sachin Jain is the author of this article:
I am not quite sure what he hopes to accomplish. It seems to be something along the lines of, 'Please, let us in the industry regulate this on our own,' while trying to come across as a compassionate representative of the industry. In spite of what he wrote in the article, he says:
He contradicts himself, which makes me think that he wrote the article as a please-don't-shoot-me-I'm-one-of-the-good-guys plea to potential vigilantes. And since the article appeared, he was then criticized by his colleagues for having suggested that "health insurers should be subject to intensive regulation."
