2tap

Everyone here on OPP who has more than an ameoba sized brain knows that the whole purpose behind Obamacare was the eventual call for single payer healthcare right. sInce this is the case and the fact that it was designed to fail and also a fact that that asshole Gruber came right out and said we stipid Americans basically fell for it, in all the time that the repeal/replace has been talked about, why in the hell did the Republicans not bother to argue that it was the precursor to SOCIALIZED HEALTHCARE THAT THE DEMOCRATS WERE LOOKING TO INSTALL IN THE UNITED STATES? Im pretty sure that if the healthcare debate (?), had been frained in a way that exposed the ulterior motive behind fricken Obamas plan was to force the U.S. into a European style Socialist mess. Hell, just look at that poor babyin the UK that might have an opportunity to survive if he was allowed to come to the U.S. or France or Hell for that mattter the Vatican which requested the opportunity to assist as well. SInce the UK has a SOCIALIZED Healthcare system where the Government basically tells you if you can live or die, that childs life is in limbo because of burocratic bulls**t!. If anyone here ever doubted that so called death panel was BS look for yourselves. At one point I was thinking that the reason for the UK governement didnt want anyone to help was that if the U.S. or whoever were to actually be able to save it is that it would look bad on their fucked up healthcare system and be forced to admit their system sucks. Just that idea royaly pissed me off!. SO why in the hell have our most intteligent law makers (NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!) Debate the argument by saying the United States of America is not a SOCIALISTIC country therefore we do not want SOCIALIZED MEDICINE HERE? A little help please.

Semper Fi

E

Agreed. Totally agreed.

Patsaco1

Totally agree with you!!! More people need to know that fact. Obamacare was made to fail for that exact reason. Government takeover of healthcare. One of Salinsky's rules for socialism (c*******m). The Sheeple need to WAKE UP!!?

Candace Grugel

If you can reach one cellar-dweller with this fact maybe you will get this t***h in the main stream conversation, but since one of the original cellar-dweller folks is Bernie, we intelligent thinkers will never be heard. Sadly the loud voices are the fools who think c*******m is the way to go. You know how they think.
........oh boy! Everything is going to be free! Can they not understand that the money has to come from somewhere. Morons will live and die morons. We need to speak up LOUDLY and refuse to let them speak for everyone with protests destruction and the low life media on their side. I just don't know how.

badbob85037

When has any bill pass that wasn't named everything it's not? The 'Federal' Reserve Act to the 'Affordable' Care Act. The Clinton 'Crime' Bill, Social Security was what was left of the 'New Deal'. We also have the the Patriot Act and the hundreds of assaults on our rights that followed. I feel more patriotic how bout you? How many bills have been passed on the War on Drugs, to take out the CIA competition? Hell, they don't even need a bill anymore to call it what it ain't

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

Step 1 in bringing Socialism to a free country is :

"Call it something else"

buffalo Loc: Texas

A little help? You need a lot of help.

First off equating single payer, like a Medicare for All system, with socialized medical CARE is just a scare tactic the private, for profit health INSURANCE industry uses on ignorant and gullible sheople. A Medicare for All system would be just like the current Medicare system (which works very well despite its detractors) but include every US citizen.

An example of socialized medicine in the US is the care delivered through the Department of Veterans Affairs, where medical professionals are government employees and the facilities are paid for and owned by we the people. In contrast, single payer and Medicare for All are are universal health insurance, not socialism. So, stop throwing the terms around as if they were interchangable!

No one is proposing the the government taking control of all the doctors, hospitals, nurses and everyone else. Medicare for All is we the people creating our own insurance risk pool with no profit seekers skimming of the top and trying to DENY health CARE. A 250 million strong pool of people contributing to a Medicare for All program would not only save money for everyone and lower costs by eliminating the high premiums, co-pays and deductibles of the private, for profit health INSURANCE industry., It would also give more money to actual medical CARE providers and facilities.

Medicare for All would give true freedom to people who are trapped in circumstances like a bad job or a bad marriage who remain just to have medical insurance.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

I agree. Whether you call it socialized medicine, single payer, Medicare for all have an honest debate. If we get single payer maybe they can use a picture of baby Charlie Gard for their poster.

vernon

Medicare is paid for by the person earning a paycheck,it' not free no matter what you think.I personally had money deducted from my pay check every week until i retired.now being retired i have the money deducted from my ss check and i also pay 149 a month insc to cover the uncovered part of medicare.My wife also pays over 300 a quarter for her medicare.There is no free ride and if you think medicare can cover all those crazy coverage's that the c****es have put in it would work you ARE DEAD WRONG.There is not a government agency that anyone should have confidence in,they are basically corrupt.
As far as 250 mil paying into this pie in the sky plan just what are you going to do with the other 120 million that aren't working and don't do anything but live off the govt.

buffalo Loc: Texas

Do you not think that people are denied health CARE in the US EVERY DAY, even if they have a better prognosis than Charlie Gard? Denied health CARE because of lack money or lack of unaffordable health INSURANCE or that health INSURANCE be cancelled because of some obscure technicality hidden in the policy? The reality is little Gard has no prospect of ever seeing (he is permanently blind), of ever hearing (he is permanently deaf), of ever feeling, of ever feeding himself (he will always have a feeding tube in his stomach or vein) but most of all, he will never breath on his own (he will always be on a breathing machine). That being said, if little Charlies parents want to try an unproven treatment, then they should be allowed to. However, brain damage is irreversible. Charlie's situation is not as black and white as it is made out by the media and the anti-socialized medicine shills.

The US spends in excess of $10,000 per person annually on health CARE and health INSURANCE. Fully, $3,000 plus of that $10,000 is siphoned off by the private, for profit health INSURANCE industry that uses much of that $3000.00/per person, NOT TO PROVIDE HEALTH CARE, but to eat up in administrative costs, multi-million propaganda...er...advertising campaigns, multi-million dollar executive salaries and bonuses, and profits of $500 BILLION annually. While the other $6,000 per person is paid for by the taxpayers. Taxpayers (government) paying for the groups that generate the most in health CARE expense, the elderly, disabled, poor and veterans. The private, for profit health INSURANCE industry does not want to insure those groups because THEY ARE NOT PROFITABLE, again, unless subsidized heavily by the taxpayers.

Cutting the middle man profiteers out of the health CARE loop would save BILLIONS annually and make quality health CARE available for every man, woman, and child citizen and doctors and hospitals would get reimbursed at higher rates than currently.

And the Medicare for All system would not be free. Some people, because they are poor, get their medical CARE for free now and will continue to get it for free. Or should they be denied access to quality health CARE by virtue of the fact that they are poor?

buffalo Loc: Texas

I never said Medicare is free or that a Medicare for All system would be free. Under a Medicare for All system, a family of 4 earning $50,000.00 annually, for example would pay approximately $200.00/month in Medicare for All premiums in the form of payroll taxes which would eliminate the nearly $2000.00/month that that employee and his employer pay in premiums to private, for profit health INSURERS. His employer would save enough money to give him a raise, and still save money, that would more than cover the $200.00/month and his whole family would be covered for health CARE with no co-pays or deductibles. YOU wouldn't need that ripoff $149/month supplemental policy, whose premiums will only increase IF you have to use it. But include in the Medicare for All taxes on all incomes, taxes on annual stock increases, interest and dividend incomes and capital gains incomes. At the same time eliminate the wage cap on social security.

J, the government (taxpayers) already funds 65% of the cost of medical Care in the US.

How do you like your Medicare?

BearK Loc: TN

My question is a simple one - why doesn't Congress get their damn hands out of healthcare? They have managed to screw up just about everything they touch (unless it makes money for them). That is both houses of Congress. They are the ONES who NEED TERM LIMITS.

buffalo Loc: Texas

CARE

Congress monkeys can't get their hands out of health CARE they are the monkeys for the private, for profit health INSURANCE organ grinders. Who is going to pay for the health CARE of the elderly if they themselves and the taxpayers don't? Who is going to pay for the health CARE of the poor and disabled if the taxpayers don't. It goddamn sure ain't going to be the private, for profit health INSURANCE corporations, that would be profitable.

The elderly, poor and disabled generate 80% of the cost of health CARE in the US annually. Without massive taxpayer subsidies the health INSURANCE giants aren't going to touch those groups.

You need to wake up to the realities of the disparities in the US health CARE system.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Buffalo, You get no argument from me on how screwed up, expensive, and greedy the healthcare industry is. You happen to use government figures and proponent's of Medicare for all to back your claims. You also have a doctor in the family that seems inclined to believe it's a good idea. I have five doctors in the family. I have talked to three. Two would retire and ones not sure what they'd do under a single payer system. You want to cut out the middle man so do I. I believe the system would be much more accessible and t***sparent if there was less interference between doctor and patient. In my opinion what you propose doesn't cut out the middle man. You are replacing him with government bureaucracies. If you do the research all the countries with single payer like systems are running into much higher expenses than predicted. How would we put millions more on a single payer system and not ration care with the number of doctors we have? I would love to have a two system healthcare system. One would be completely done without any government interference or mandates. The other would be government supplied (as you wish) and run. Give the American people the FREEDOM to choose. That's what used to make us American.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

If you want politicians out of healthcare how do you propose that would work? You want the healthcare system run by bureaucrat's appointed by politicians. The poor will still be subsidized.