NY Post : "Trump is totally right about the dangers of Medicare for All"

I was told the US is actually 50 separate countries by right wingers on this forum. So which is it?

If we're talking about economic impact it's not the same as federal vs states. If we're making the comparison it'd be we're better off with one country than they are with 4.
 
Every other major country has figured out a way to offer its citizens health care without people going broke from being sick.

America clearly isn’t great quite yet


Bullshit hit piece fake news bla bla. The fact is the average american will pay less for health care under medicare for all and get better care.

The only people who might get less quality care are the super wealthy who largely only have catastrophic health care insurance and pay cash to high end doctors for everything else.

This thread is bullshit and so is the article.
 
I will never understand this about America. 700 billion for the army but no healthcare for its own citizens.

Why can't America figure something out? We're closer to 2034 than we are the year 2000 and America still doesn't offer healthcare to all. Fucking bizarre and embarrassing.
 
Because the New York Times and Washington post are not predominantly left-wing publications.

vaya-con-dios.gif
Uh. Is this a pretending-to-be-stupid troll you are doing?

My point was that they are predominantly left-wing. Unlike the NY Post. Which is why I suggested he was confusing them with the NY post when he referred to the NY Post as if it was also left-wing.
 
Because the New York Times and Washington post are not predominantly left-wing publications.

vaya-con-dios.gif
Left wing publications that have won countless journalism awards. How many journalism awards have the NY Post and Washington Times won? How many journalism awards has Fox News won compared to CNN?
 
I will never understand this about America. 700 billion for the army but no healthcare for its own citizens.

Why can't America figure something out? We're closer to 2034 than we are the year 2000 and America still doesn't offer healthcare to all. Fucking bizarre and embarrassing.

And the army isnt doing zhit with that money except likely spending it on hookers and blow.
 
I have never seen people so against providing people health insurance as republicans.

Dont do this zebby. You know damn well Republicans arent against people having healthcare. They are against paying for other peoples stuff.
 
I will never understand this about America. 700 billion for the army but no healthcare for its own citizens.

Why can't America figure something out? We're closer to 2034 than we are the year 2000 and America still doesn't offer healthcare to all. Fucking bizarre and embarrassing.


And it would contribute to the health and well-being of vets too. This is a no brainier. It's wealthy people scaring their constituents into voting against their interests. That's all.
 
Dont do this zebby. You know damn well Republicans arent against people having healthcare. They are against paying for other peoples stuff.

In private insurance if you dont get sick you pay for other peoples healthcare....

Why arent you campaigning against private insurance then?
 
Every other major country has figured out a way to offer its citizens health care without people going broke from being sick.

America clearly isn’t great quite yet

Those other don't have 300 million people and then people coming from other parts of the World for treatment. Its not as easy to make affordable healthcare for a country that size and we with people from other parts of the world coming for treatment like the Democrats like to think.
 
there is no such thing as "government insurance" as they are not competing. There is the public system and then the private system. 2 seperate entities. The private system is only ever involved in the public system if it is contracted to do so.

Your top doctors will not go anywhere as they will stay private.
It states:
it shall be unlawful for — (1) a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act; or (2) an employer to provide benefits for an employee, former employee, or the dependents of an employee or former employee that duplicate the benefits provided under this Act.
The private coverage will not be able to cover any treatments covered by the universal system. Unless I'm wildly mistaken, it is not a matter of 'public doctors' vs 'private doctors'. It is 'treatments included in public coverage' vs 'treatments not included in public coverage'. If I'm correct that means that a doctor who specializes in something that is covered by the universal system only has the choice accept the gubmint money or to work for cash only because private insurers are forbidden to cover the same shit as the gubmint.
Edit: For example, if a specific surgery is covered by the universal healthcare, a private insurer cannot cover that type of surgery. That leaves surgeons who may specialize in that without many choices of where to work.

The text is somewhat open to interpretation, but most seem to believe that its broad verbage would ban most private health insurance.

Those who claim that the bill doesn't ban private insurance don't reference the verbage of the bill at all and seldomly say anything that even indicates that they've read any of it. Generally people claiming that the bill wouldn't ban private insurances are just making assumptions, like you did, based on others countries or on (possibly misplaced) faith in politicians.
 
In private insurance if you dont get sick you pay for other peoples healthcare....

Why arent you campaigning against private insurance then?

Because private insurance isnt government mandated. Was that a serious question?
 
Because private insurance isnt government mandated. Was that a serious question?

So you dont have any insurance at all for anything then correct? You just pay out of pocket exorbitant prices for everything?
 
And it would contribute to the health and well-being of vets too. This is a no brainier. It's wealthy people scaring their constituents into voting against their interests. That's all.

I think it's deeper then that. Someone or something controls the American military. And it's not Americans.

Who can fight America? Nobody. Yet they still put hundreads of billions into the army yearly? Why?
 
Yeah it's an op-ed by the NY Posts resident anti-government healthcare writer. It's not a startling revelation and she has written and published such stories with the Post before. It's her thing. She's got a book called Beating Obamacare.

So you're really hanging you hat on an op-ed piece?
Have you read any of this morons (TS) other posts. He's either 12 or legally mentally handicapped.
 
It states:

The private coverage will not be able to cover any treatments covered by the universal system. Unless I'm wildly mistaken, it is not a matter of 'public doctors' vs 'private doctors'. It is 'treatments included in public coverage' vs 'treatments not included in public coverage'. If I'm correct that means that a doctor who specializes in something that is covered by the universal system only has the choice accept the gubmint money or to work for cash only because private insurers are forbidden to cover the same shit as the gubmint.

The text is somewhat open to interpretation, but most seem to believe that its broad verbage would ban most private health insurance.

Those who claim that the bill doesn't ban private insurance don't reference the verbage of the bill at all and seldomly say anything that even indicates that they've read any of it. Generally people claiming that the bill wouldn't ban private insurances are just making assumptions, like you did, based on others countries or on (possibly misplaced) faith in politicians.
there is nothing in that quote that states doctors will not be permitted from performing procedures.... its stating that insurers cannot compete against the private system. Private healthcare will still exist, but it will be optional.
 
ssshhhhhh I never thought nor do I believe the Democrats would ever turn against Medicare-for-all. They're THAT stupid.

And the Post has said many unflattering things about Trump in the past so excuse me for not believing Quipling's "assessment" of the paper.
I suppose next you both will tell me that the Daily News is a right-wing publication too. {<hhh]

( @waiguoren , care to comment? )

EDIT : Well....I think it's long overdue to check Quipling and SaiWa into my Ignore List hotel. Liberal clowns are only so funny...until they open their mouths. Buh-Bye. (god, I love not being able to see their garbage anymore!!)

This post definitely needs to be enshrined into the hall of fame of dumbest WR posts. I wondered why the TE even bothered to reproduce a full article of the NY Post of all.

Next thing you know, he's gonna quote the Washington Times and be surorised it's right leaning.
 
ssshhhhhh I never thought nor do I believe the Democrats would ever turn against Medicare-for-all. They're THAT stupid.

And the Post has said many unflattering things about Trump in the past so excuse me for not believing Quipling's "assessment" of the paper.
I suppose next you both will tell me that the Daily News is a right-wing publication too. {<hhh]

( @waiguoren , care to comment? )

EDIT : Well....I think it's long overdue to check Quipling and SaiWa into my Ignore List hotel. Liberal clowns are only so funny...until they open their mouths. Buh-Bye. (god, I love not being able to see their garbage anymore!!)

This post definitely needs to be enshrined into the hall of fame of dumbest WR posts. I wondered why the TE even bothered to reproduce a full article of the NY Post of all.

Next thing you know, he's gonna quote the Washington Times and be surorised it's right leaning.
 
Back
Top