Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Bernie Sanders Tells Union Worker: “I’d ‘Absolutely’ Take Away Your Health Care Plan”
Comments
-
Blob the prolific strawman fucker strikes again!SFGbob said:
That is pure crap.dhdawg said:
"Delays in getting care"SFGbob said:
Hell Hondo, you even previously posted that exact same fucking stupid Fox Online poll. Like I said, there's no point trying to educate your ignorant ass. This is just one of the many times this information has been posted here.2001400ex said:
Lol lyin Bob again. You just can't help yourself.SFGbob said:
There's no point in trying to educate your ignorant ass Hondo. If you're so fucking uninformed that you're not aware that support for "Medicare for All" drops like a stone when you tell people that it will cause them to lose their private insurance and pay higher taxes, something that has been discussed here a number a times, then there's no point in discussing the issue with such an ignorant dumbfuck. I will administer a swift steel toed boot to your snatch if you like because I believe that may be the one thing that might help you.2001400ex said:
Lil lyin Bob can't back up his mouth again. Pussy.SFGbob said:
Gofuckyourself.com2001400ex said:
Link?SFGbob said:
Gosh Hondo, why are you showing me a poll from last year? As soon as people found out that the "costs" were going to include an increase in taxes and the loss of their private insurance support for it fucking cratered.2001400ex said:SFGbob said:
Of the people that support Medicare for all that's their biggest motivation. "Free" shit. And as you saw with the poll numbers even the parasites who what more "free" shit from the government once they found out it wasn't going to be "free" their support disappeared and that's why Harris is no longer talking about Medicare for AllBendintheriver said:
The democrat voter just knows that someone else is going to be paying for their free healthcare.Sledog said:
I enjoy how people for it think it's free and have no clue how to pay for it.TheKobeStopper said:I enjoy that the people most against Medicare For All have literally no clue what it even means.
The poll found that Americans initially support “Medicare-for-all,” 56 percent to 42 percent.
However, those numbers shifted dramatically when people were asked about the potential impact, pro and con.
Support increased when people were told “Medicare-for-all” would guarantee health insurance as a right (71 percent) and eliminate premiums and reduce out-of-pocket costs (67 percent).
But if they were told that a government-run system could lead to delays in getting care or higher taxes, support plunged to 26 percent and 37 percent, respectively. Support fell to 32 percent if it would threaten the current Medicare program.
“The issue that will really be fundamental would be the tax issue,” said Robert Blendon, a professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health who reviewed the poll. He pointed out that state single-payer efforts in Vermont and Colorado failed because of concerns about the tax increases needed to put them in place.
No country with universal healthcare has wait times for mandatory procedures, elective procedures maybe.
Sounds like a much better way to ration care than how we do it, which is based on how much money you have.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jul/13/nhs-operation-waiting-lists-reach-10-year-high-at-43m-patients -
How is that a strawman you fucking worthless piece of shit? The guy just claimed "No country with universal healthcare has wait times for mandatory procedures." I just provided you with an article that shows in the UK that claim is pure bullshit.GDS said:
Blob the prolific strawman fucker strikes again!SFGbob said:
That is pure crap.dhdawg said:
"Delays in getting care"SFGbob said:
Hell Hondo, you even previously posted that exact same fucking stupid Fox Online poll. Like I said, there's no point trying to educate your ignorant ass. This is just one of the many times this information has been posted here.2001400ex said:
Lol lyin Bob again. You just can't help yourself.SFGbob said:
There's no point in trying to educate your ignorant ass Hondo. If you're so fucking uninformed that you're not aware that support for "Medicare for All" drops like a stone when you tell people that it will cause them to lose their private insurance and pay higher taxes, something that has been discussed here a number a times, then there's no point in discussing the issue with such an ignorant dumbfuck. I will administer a swift steel toed boot to your snatch if you like because I believe that may be the one thing that might help you.2001400ex said:
Lil lyin Bob can't back up his mouth again. Pussy.SFGbob said:
Gofuckyourself.com2001400ex said:
Link?SFGbob said:
Gosh Hondo, why are you showing me a poll from last year? As soon as people found out that the "costs" were going to include an increase in taxes and the loss of their private insurance support for it fucking cratered.2001400ex said:SFGbob said:
Of the people that support Medicare for all that's their biggest motivation. "Free" shit. And as you saw with the poll numbers even the parasites who what more "free" shit from the government once they found out it wasn't going to be "free" their support disappeared and that's why Harris is no longer talking about Medicare for AllBendintheriver said:
The democrat voter just knows that someone else is going to be paying for their free healthcare.Sledog said:
I enjoy how people for it think it's free and have no clue how to pay for it.TheKobeStopper said:I enjoy that the people most against Medicare For All have literally no clue what it even means.
The poll found that Americans initially support “Medicare-for-all,” 56 percent to 42 percent.
However, those numbers shifted dramatically when people were asked about the potential impact, pro and con.
Support increased when people were told “Medicare-for-all” would guarantee health insurance as a right (71 percent) and eliminate premiums and reduce out-of-pocket costs (67 percent).
But if they were told that a government-run system could lead to delays in getting care or higher taxes, support plunged to 26 percent and 37 percent, respectively. Support fell to 32 percent if it would threaten the current Medicare program.
“The issue that will really be fundamental would be the tax issue,” said Robert Blendon, a professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health who reviewed the poll. He pointed out that state single-payer efforts in Vermont and Colorado failed because of concerns about the tax increases needed to put them in place.
No country with universal healthcare has wait times for mandatory procedures, elective procedures maybe.
Sounds like a much better way to ration care than how we do it, which is based on how much money you have.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jul/13/nhs-operation-waiting-lists-reach-10-year-high-at-43m-patients
Fuck you Scotty. -
“Cancer targets have been missed for the last two months, waiting lists have hit a 10-year high and the number of people waiting more than 18 weeks for planned care has gone up by more than 100,000 compared to this time last year,” said Janet Davies, the Royal College of Nursing’s general secretary.
Yeah it's a strawman, right Scotty you mouthy dumbfuck. -
The doctor makes the decision. IdiotSFGbob said:
Isn't that nice of the government. If it's "life saving" they'll get you in a timely matter. And if the government decides that you can live with for a few months they'll get around to you later.GDS said:
JFC Atl just stop lying man. If someone needs cancer surgery in Canada and it’s deemed to be life or limb saving you see the surgeon within 24 hours and are under the knife 24 hours later. Why do you constantly lie on an anonymous message board?Bendintheriver said:
Uhh, you are full of shit. There are 1000's of documented instances of people coming to this country to get life saving "mandatory" (whatever that means) procedures. My own family member had to come down from Canada for life saving breast cancer treatment. She was told to wait 12 weeks in Canada. 12 weeks would have meant her life. A customer from Europe came here for Prostate surgery, saving his life as well. His wait was months in Europe.dhdawg said:
"Delays in getting care"SFGbob said:
Hell Hondo, you even previously posted that exact same fucking stupid Fox Online poll. Like I said, there's no point trying to educate your ignorant ass. This is just one of the many times this information has been posted here.2001400ex said:
Lol lyin Bob again. You just can't help yourself.SFGbob said:
There's no point in trying to educate your ignorant ass Hondo. If you're so fucking uninformed that you're not aware that support for "Medicare for All" drops like a stone when you tell people that it will cause them to lose their private insurance and pay higher taxes, something that has been discussed here a number a times, then there's no point in discussing the issue with such an ignorant dumbfuck. I will administer a swift steel toed boot to your snatch if you like because I believe that may be the one thing that might help you.2001400ex said:
Lil lyin Bob can't back up his mouth again. Pussy.SFGbob said:
Gofuckyourself.com2001400ex said:
Link?SFGbob said:
Gosh Hondo, why are you showing me a poll from last year? As soon as people found out that the "costs" were going to include an increase in taxes and the loss of their private insurance support for it fucking cratered.2001400ex said:SFGbob said:
Of the people that support Medicare for all that's their biggest motivation. "Free" shit. And as you saw with the poll numbers even the parasites who what more "free" shit from the government once they found out it wasn't going to be "free" their support disappeared and that's why Harris is no longer talking about Medicare for AllBendintheriver said:
The democrat voter just knows that someone else is going to be paying for their free healthcare.Sledog said:
I enjoy how people for it think it's free and have no clue how to pay for it.TheKobeStopper said:I enjoy that the people most against Medicare For All have literally no clue what it even means.
The poll found that Americans initially support “Medicare-for-all,” 56 percent to 42 percent.
However, those numbers shifted dramatically when people were asked about the potential impact, pro and con.
Support increased when people were told “Medicare-for-all” would guarantee health insurance as a right (71 percent) and eliminate premiums and reduce out-of-pocket costs (67 percent).
But if they were told that a government-run system could lead to delays in getting care or higher taxes, support plunged to 26 percent and 37 percent, respectively. Support fell to 32 percent if it would threaten the current Medicare program.
“The issue that will really be fundamental would be the tax issue,” said Robert Blendon, a professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health who reviewed the poll. He pointed out that state single-payer efforts in Vermont and Colorado failed because of concerns about the tax increases needed to put them in place.
No country with universal healthcare has wait times for mandatory procedures, elective procedures maybe.
Sounds like a much better way to ration care than how we do it, which is based on how much money you have.
If you are going to just spew lies, do it somewhere else or educate yourself before spouting off. -
Yeah the "doctor" makes that decision. What a child.2001400ex said:
The doctor makes the decision. IdiotSFGbob said:
Isn't that nice of the government. If it's "life saving" they'll get you in a timely matter. And if the government decides that you can live with for a few months they'll get around to you later.GDS said:
JFC Atl just stop lying man. If someone needs cancer surgery in Canada and it’s deemed to be life or limb saving you see the surgeon within 24 hours and are under the knife 24 hours later. Why do you constantly lie on an anonymous message board?Bendintheriver said:
Uhh, you are full of shit. There are 1000's of documented instances of people coming to this country to get life saving "mandatory" (whatever that means) procedures. My own family member had to come down from Canada for life saving breast cancer treatment. She was told to wait 12 weeks in Canada. 12 weeks would have meant her life. A customer from Europe came here for Prostate surgery, saving his life as well. His wait was months in Europe.dhdawg said:
"Delays in getting care"SFGbob said:
Hell Hondo, you even previously posted that exact same fucking stupid Fox Online poll. Like I said, there's no point trying to educate your ignorant ass. This is just one of the many times this information has been posted here.2001400ex said:
Lol lyin Bob again. You just can't help yourself.SFGbob said:
There's no point in trying to educate your ignorant ass Hondo. If you're so fucking uninformed that you're not aware that support for "Medicare for All" drops like a stone when you tell people that it will cause them to lose their private insurance and pay higher taxes, something that has been discussed here a number a times, then there's no point in discussing the issue with such an ignorant dumbfuck. I will administer a swift steel toed boot to your snatch if you like because I believe that may be the one thing that might help you.2001400ex said:
Lil lyin Bob can't back up his mouth again. Pussy.SFGbob said:
Gofuckyourself.com2001400ex said:
Link?SFGbob said:
Gosh Hondo, why are you showing me a poll from last year? As soon as people found out that the "costs" were going to include an increase in taxes and the loss of their private insurance support for it fucking cratered.2001400ex said:SFGbob said:
Of the people that support Medicare for all that's their biggest motivation. "Free" shit. And as you saw with the poll numbers even the parasites who what more "free" shit from the government once they found out it wasn't going to be "free" their support disappeared and that's why Harris is no longer talking about Medicare for AllBendintheriver said:
The democrat voter just knows that someone else is going to be paying for their free healthcare.Sledog said:
I enjoy how people for it think it's free and have no clue how to pay for it.TheKobeStopper said:I enjoy that the people most against Medicare For All have literally no clue what it even means.
The poll found that Americans initially support “Medicare-for-all,” 56 percent to 42 percent.
However, those numbers shifted dramatically when people were asked about the potential impact, pro and con.
Support increased when people were told “Medicare-for-all” would guarantee health insurance as a right (71 percent) and eliminate premiums and reduce out-of-pocket costs (67 percent).
But if they were told that a government-run system could lead to delays in getting care or higher taxes, support plunged to 26 percent and 37 percent, respectively. Support fell to 32 percent if it would threaten the current Medicare program.
“The issue that will really be fundamental would be the tax issue,” said Robert Blendon, a professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health who reviewed the poll. He pointed out that state single-payer efforts in Vermont and Colorado failed because of concerns about the tax increases needed to put them in place.
No country with universal healthcare has wait times for mandatory procedures, elective procedures maybe.
Sounds like a much better way to ration care than how we do it, which is based on how much money you have.
If you are going to just spew lies, do it somewhere else or educate yourself before spouting off. -
Nice work dumbfuck. You just supported my case.2001400ex said:
The wait times that Canada might experience are not caused by its being a single-payer system.
Wait times aren’t like cancer. We know what causes wait times; we know how to fix them. Spend more money.
Our single-payer system, which is called Medicare (see above), manages not to have the “wait times” issue that Canada’s does. There must, therefore, be some other reason for the wait times. There is, of course.
In 1966, Canada implemented a single-payer health care system, which is also known as Medicare. Since then, as a country, Canadians have made a conscious decision to hold down costs. One of the ways they do that is by limiting supply, mostly for elective things, which can create wait times. Their outcomes are otherwise comparable to ours.
Please understand, the wait times could be overcome. Canadians could spend more. They don’t want to. We can choose to dislike wait times in principle, but they are a byproduct of Canada’s choice to be fiscally conservative.
Yes, they chose this. In a rational world, those who are concerned about health care costs and what they mean to the economy might respect that course of action. But instead, they attack the system.
So they do have longer wait times but it's not caused by the single payer system, it's caused by the decision to hold down cost of the single payer system by limiting the supply.
Yeah, that totally destroys the claim to the contrary.
Once again Hondo the dumbfuck doesn't read what he links. -
SMH idiot. Seriously.... Bob you don't even understand what single payer means.SFGbob said:
Nice work dumbfuck. You just supported my case.2001400ex said:
The wait times that Canada might experience are not caused by its being a single-payer system.
Wait times aren’t like cancer. We know what causes wait times; we know how to fix them. Spend more money.
Our single-payer system, which is called Medicare (see above), manages not to have the “wait times” issue that Canada’s does. There must, therefore, be some other reason for the wait times. There is, of course.
In 1966, Canada implemented a single-payer health care system, which is also known as Medicare. Since then, as a country, Canadians have made a conscious decision to hold down costs. One of the ways they do that is by limiting supply, mostly for elective things, which can create wait times. Their outcomes are otherwise comparable to ours.
Please understand, the wait times could be overcome. Canadians could spend more. They don’t want to. We can choose to dislike wait times in principle, but they are a byproduct of Canada’s choice to be fiscally conservative.
Yes, they chose this. In a rational world, those who are concerned about health care costs and what they mean to the economy might respect that course of action. But instead, they attack the system.
So they do have longer wait times but it's not caused by the single payer system, it's caused by the decision to hold down cost of the single payer system by limiting the supply.
Yeah, that totally destroys the claim to the contrary.
Once again Hondo the dumbfuck doesn't read what he links. -
And here we go with the obfuscation run around this clown hondo always reverts to when he gets his ass kicked.2001400ex said:
SMH idiot. Seriously.... Bob you don't even understand what single payer means.SFGbob said:
Nice work dumbfuck. You just supported my case.2001400ex said:
The wait times that Canada might experience are not caused by its being a single-payer system.
Wait times aren’t like cancer. We know what causes wait times; we know how to fix them. Spend more money.
Our single-payer system, which is called Medicare (see above), manages not to have the “wait times” issue that Canada’s does. There must, therefore, be some other reason for the wait times. There is, of course.
In 1966, Canada implemented a single-payer health care system, which is also known as Medicare. Since then, as a country, Canadians have made a conscious decision to hold down costs. One of the ways they do that is by limiting supply, mostly for elective things, which can create wait times. Their outcomes are otherwise comparable to ours.
Please understand, the wait times could be overcome. Canadians could spend more. They don’t want to. We can choose to dislike wait times in principle, but they are a byproduct of Canada’s choice to be fiscally conservative.
Yes, they chose this. In a rational world, those who are concerned about health care costs and what they mean to the economy might respect that course of action. But instead, they attack the system.
So they do have longer wait times but it's not caused by the single payer system, it's caused by the decision to hold down cost of the single payer system by limiting the supply.
Yeah, that totally destroys the claim to the contrary.
Once again Hondo the dumbfuck doesn't read what he links. -
And you can throw scotti into that dumbfuck category as well. Your article just backed up what I know to be fact.SFGbob said:
Nice work dumbfuck. You just supported my case.2001400ex said:
The wait times that Canada might experience are not caused by its being a single-payer system.
Wait times aren’t like cancer. We know what causes wait times; we know how to fix them. Spend more money.
Our single-payer system, which is called Medicare (see above), manages not to have the “wait times” issue that Canada’s does. There must, therefore, be some other reason for the wait times. There is, of course.
In 1966, Canada implemented a single-payer health care system, which is also known as Medicare. Since then, as a country, Canadians have made a conscious decision to hold down costs. One of the ways they do that is by limiting supply, mostly for elective things, which can create wait times. Their outcomes are otherwise comparable to ours.
Please understand, the wait times could be overcome. Canadians could spend more. They don’t want to. We can choose to dislike wait times in principle, but they are a byproduct of Canada’s choice to be fiscally conservative.
Yes, they chose this. In a rational world, those who are concerned about health care costs and what they mean to the economy might respect that course of action. But instead, they attack the system.
So they do have longer wait times but it's not caused by the single payer system, it's caused by the decision to hold down cost of the single payer system by limiting the supply.
Yeah, that totally destroys the claim to the contrary.
Once again Hondo the dumbfuck doesn't read what he links.
