More Than 50% of Republicans Support Medicare For All

When one uses survivability as a benchmark for cancer, heart disease etc, the US comes out near the top.  This is a true indicator of health care success.

The US is the only country that has a stricter definition of infant mortality.  The other countries have a looser definition that reduces their infant mortality. 

The US has a drug & obesity problem & a penchant to murder each other.  Socialized medicine will not change this problem.  This has been brought up before, but PJ continues to trot out the wrong studies.

As indicated above 3 states have tried to implement this scam, but withdrew due to the huge tax increase that would incur. 

lvfritz said, Kindly define "a hell of a lot cheaper".

1/3 to 1/2 cheaper.

PJ Stroh said, Tom's citation is correct - because they're all old people...and Medicare has a "name your own price" relationship with the drug companies.

But wait that is not all. Don't forget disabled people and people with kidney disease of all ages are on Medicare because the private system can't handle the strain of the sickest of the sick.

Tom, take a look at this.  It is from the source PJ cited. 

Again, what is the criteria for this study?  These studies tend to emphasize things like fairness (whatever that is) & minimize factors such as survivability rates (which the US does very well in).  They don't take into account Americans desire to have the best care, no matter the cost.

Berniecare does not take into account that 5% of the population uses 30% of the resources & I doubt that berniecare does not take into account the huge medicare/medicaid fraud rates.  Not does it take into account the fact that federal programs always come in higher than estimated.

Nor does it take into account the present 48 trillion in unfunded liability the present government program has.

I don't think the 150+ million people currently with private insurance will appreciate losing it.

Mark hasn't explained why the the 3 states that have looked into this, have already dropped the the idea due to cost.

And finally, not a word on paying for it

How to pay for it...

Well lets see.   

Step 1) Take the amount you pay for your insurance today. 

Step 2) Divide that by two. 

Step 3) Take one half to buy the cheaper healthcare in line with what the rest of the industrialized world pays

Step 4) Take the other half and buy a shiny, new snowmobile.

What else can I help with today?

Perhaps PJ can share his analysis with California, Illinois & Vermont, which found that such a proposal would require a prohibitive tax increase

You get what you pay for.

Poor old DonDiego likes the insurance which he has chosen to purchase in combination with Medicare for which he had no choice but to pay.

Why do PJStroh and others of a leftist/collectivist, ever-growing Government inclination want to force poor old DonDiego into a non-voluntary system likely to yield less available healthcare-per-citizen as the hand of Government inevitably leads to an ever-growing bureaucracy, less efficiency, and higher costs ?

[Investigate, for example, "wait-times", "emergency care", and "rejection of drugs based on cost instead of efficacy" in the National Health Service of Great Britain.]

You get what you pay for.

[It's worth repeating.]

I would argue the rest of the free world stands in contradiction to DonDiego's point.   As already shown - they pay less and get more.    Its like they shop at Wal*Mart .... and we still use Sears. 

I usually agree with DonDiego.  But I have one first hand account of National Health Service satisfaction. 

My sister has lived in Canada for some 40 years.  Raised four kids there.  Every month, every mother was sent a "check", something like $250 for each minor child.  Not a voluntary thing.  Just money for childrens' care.  Ha.  Every mother celebrated check day.  She had no complaints about the health care, no delays.  I don't know how much in taxes she paid/pays.

In about 1998 we all visited her in Canada.  Our dad, 83 y/o developed some heart palpatations.  We took him to a hospital ER.  I worried because he didn't have his health insurance card, his Medicare card, etc.  Of course the joke was on me because...they don't accept our stuff in Canada.  It was a wonderful ER.  After about 4 hours of excellent care, labs, MD evaluation, treatment, etc.  They charged us all of $120 American dollars!  Damn.  Here in the US that ER visit would be in the thousands.  I was impressed. 

More recently, her husband had sudden rupture of an old aortic graft.  Air lifted from one hospital to another, desperation surgeries, weeks long seiges in ICU and more.  She didn't have to pay a penny. 

I can't say that was the experience of all Canadians, but they seem very satisfied. 

"they pay less and get more"

They pay very high income taxes & a value added tax.

You have yet to explain your secret sauce to pay for it after 3 states already found it cost prohibitive.

DonDiego wrote: "You get what you pay for."  and "Poor old DonDiego likes the insurance which he has chosen to purchase in combination with Medicare for which he had no choice but to pay."

How does PJStroh know:

 i. the rest of the free world stands in contradiction to DonDiego's point.

ii. they pay less and get more.   

The rest of the world does not know what DonDiego pays or what benefits he receives.  Come to think of it neither does PJStroh.

Poor old DonDiego is an old man with occasional needs for medical care.

Example: recently he experienced his first episode of vertigo - very unpleasant.  Even less pleasant than any description one might Google on the internets.  It required ambulance transportation and an overnight stay in the hospital.

DonDiego paid nothing, zero, nada, zilch.  DonDiego is satisfied with his medical insurance;  he doubts he would benefit from being forced into a Federally mandated and run medical services system, . . . especially with the well-documented delays in treatment experienced under many of those systems worldwide.