Is your 'stuff' stressing you out? TV personality Matt Paxton has tips for downsizing and decluttering in our free, two-part webinar! Register now.

Reply
Trusted Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
107
Views

70% Americans Agree

107 Views
Message 21 of 99

RK said, "Yes, those without insurance or with junk insurance get a free ride at the ER."

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
107
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
110
Views

Re: 70% Americans Agree

110 Views
Message 22 of 99

@CriticalThinking wrote:

Emergency Room treatment is a policy which I believe was implemented during the Reagan Administration. It has nothing to do with a Single Payer system.


ct would have to read (and understand) the post rk was responding to in order to make an intelligent response.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
110
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
117
Views

Re: 70% Americans Agree

117 Views
Message 23 of 99

@rk9152 wrote:

@john258 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@john258 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@john258 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

 

Yes, it has worked quite well for me. If you want insurance for the poor, we have Medicaid - expand it.


It does not need expanding as we have care for all, and you are paying for it, and you have high cost Insurance that does not work well for you but you do not even realize that. How sad, but points out why the US has trouble solving the problem.

 

What is wrong with allowing people who are happy with their insurance coverage to keep it and provide the services you want for the poor using Medicaid?

 

Forget the dramatic "how sad" and deal with my point. I may be wrong, if so, explain without the drama.


 


From you answers it is quite clear you do not understand how insurance works so you just go round and round with never and end is sight. A lot of people have junk insurance which cost little and supplies little coverage. When these people have need for their insurance they find out it covers little, and they go to the default ER care part of the system which the rest of us pay for. An example is using Excess Major Medical Insurance as a primary policy. If you Insurance was good Insurance and supplied full coverage you can keep it. My point was you paid to much for it due to people  not having good insurance. Medicaid is an attempt to supply some decent coverage to the poor so they are not in the ER Care, and that saves all of us money. The far right oppose Medicaid. You just saw Trump allow junk policies to again be sold as primary coverage.


I fully understand how insurance works - I buy it, I use it when and if needed.

 

Yes, those without insurance or with junk insurance get a free ride at the ER. That is something that needs fixing without screwing up the existing insurance system.


There are 2 ways to fix it. Everyone has medical coverage. Medi Care for all., or use the Gov. of GA approach. Let them die in the streets. The far right favor the Gov. of Ga. approach which by the way in the long run is more expense that Media Care for all approach. You do not understand Insurance by the way and you have proved that. We are just circling so that will not stop. I have tried to explain Insurance to you, but have failed so I am ending any further back and forth on this thread with you.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
117
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
117
Views

Re: 70% Americans Agree

117 Views
Message 24 of 99

@gordyfl wrote:

70% of the poll numbers support single payer coverage, not 70% of the citizens! Polls lie - polls said Hillary would be President.

 

Then it could be higher than 70%. Interesting.


And it could be 20%!

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
117
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
114
Views

70% Americans Agree

114 Views
Message 25 of 99

Emergency Room treatment is a policy which I believe was implemented during the Reagan Administration. It has nothing to do with a Single Payer system.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
114
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
115
Views

Re: 70% Americans Agree

115 Views
Message 26 of 99

@john258 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@john258 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@john258 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

 

Yes, it has worked quite well for me. If you want insurance for the poor, we have Medicaid - expand it.


It does not need expanding as we have care for all, and you are paying for it, and you have high cost Insurance that does not work well for you but you do not even realize that. How sad, but points out why the US has trouble solving the problem.

 

What is wrong with allowing people who are happy with their insurance coverage to keep it and provide the services you want for the poor using Medicaid?

 

Forget the dramatic "how sad" and deal with my point. I may be wrong, if so, explain without the drama.


 


From you answers it is quite clear you do not understand how insurance works so you just go round and round with never and end is sight. A lot of people have junk insurance which cost little and supplies little coverage. When these people have need for their insurance they find out it covers little, and they go to the default ER care part of the system which the rest of us pay for. An example is using Excess Major Medical Insurance as a primary policy. If you Insurance was good Insurance and supplied full coverage you can keep it. My point was you paid to much for it due to people  not having good insurance. Medicaid is an attempt to supply some decent coverage to the poor so they are not in the ER Care, and that saves all of us money. The far right oppose Medicaid. You just saw Trump allow junk policies to again be sold as primary coverage.


I fully understand how insurance works - I buy it, I use it when and if needed.

 

Yes, those without insurance or with junk insurance get a free ride at the ER. That is something that needs fixing without screwing up the existing insurance system.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
115
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
107
Views

Re: 70% Americans Agree

107 Views
Message 27 of 99

@rk9152 wrote:

@john258 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@john258 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

 

Yes, it has worked quite well for me. If you want insurance for the poor, we have Medicaid - expand it.


It does not need expanding as we have care for all, and you are paying for it, and you have high cost Insurance that does not work well for you but you do not even realize that. How sad, but points out why the US has trouble solving the problem.

 

What is wrong with allowing people who are happy with their insurance coverage to keep it and provide the services you want for the poor using Medicaid?

 

Forget the dramatic "how sad" and deal with my point. I may be wrong, if so, explain without the drama.


 


From you answers it is quite clear you do not understand how insurance works so you just go round and round with never and end is sight. A lot of people have junk insurance which cost little and supplies little coverage. When these people have need for their insurance they find out it covers little, and they go to the default ER care part of the system which the rest of us pay for. An example is using Excess Major Medical Insurance as a primary policy. If you Insurance was good Insurance and supplied full coverage you can keep it. My point was you paid to much for it due to people  not having good insurance. Medicaid is an attempt to supply some decent coverage to the poor so they are not in the ER Care, and that saves all of us money. The far right oppose Medicaid. You just saw Trump allow junk policies to again be sold as primary coverage.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
107
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
125
Views

Re: 70% Americans Agree

125 Views
Message 28 of 99

@Olderscout66 wrote:

@gordyfl wrote:

If you're a visitor in the U.K. emergency treatment is free.

  • If you have an accident or need emergency medical treatment, you will receive that treatment free of charge, regardless of your nationality or place of residence as long as that emergency treatment is delivered at:
  • a primary care facility or General Practitioner's office, known as a GP's Surgery
    a hospital emergency room, called Accident and Emergency (A&E) or Casualty in UK hospitals
  • A walk-in center providing services similar to an emergency room.

That service only extends to the immediate emergency. Once you are admitted to a hospital - even for emergency surgery or further emergency treatment - you have to pay for your treatment and medicines.

 

That's not the case in Canada.


It is highly recommended that international tourists visiting Canada must get a Travel Medical Insurance for their visit to Canada, since the healthcare can be very expensive without a proper health insurance coverage. ... No, the Canadian national universal health coverage is only for Canada citizens and lawful residents.

 

Each country with universal healthcare has different rules fo visitors.

 

If you're a visitor in the U.S. you can try a Go-Fund-Me.


That seems to be the Republcian alternative for the bottom 99% of Citizens as well, and they'd like to see it extended to your retirement as well.


I am not a 1%er and yet am very happy with my financial situation. You may want to redefine your borderline for who is supposed to hate who (or maybe even whom).

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
125
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
122
Views

Re: 70% Americans Agree

122 Views
Message 29 of 99

@Olderscout66 wrote:

So Capitalism will make everyone rich, lack of health care will make everyone well and more Republicans will end the need for taxation because there will be no government to support - that about cover the GOPer Gospel according to Fox?

Where do you find these strange ideas? I never heard that from Fox or any gospel. In fact, you are the only one to propose it

 

Have you EVER in your entire life actually checked a number from the GOPerLords BEFORE you swallowed it?

I don't think it was GOPerLords who came up with the strange claim that before the Reagan tax cuts, the feds paid 75% of the cost of colleges and universities. Let's see - who was that????

 

Here's a wake-up for ya, free of charge:

 

Total personal income in 2016: $16.010 TRILLION x 65% = $10.407 TRILLION in Federal REVENUE according to your source.

 

If we first took off the entire FY2018 budget expenditures ($4.094 Trillion) AND

simply handed an equal share of the remaining $6.313Trillion over to each of the 142 million households in the USA, everyone would have a minimum family income of $ $44,457 from the transfer and, on average, (since we'd all keep 35% of the average $54,000 we already have) the typical American Family would have to struggle by on $63,357, an instantaneous increase of 17%.

 

That would mean the bottom 10% would get around $56,000 (vs about $12,000 today) - plenty to buy insurance-  and someone who had an income of $1,000,000 would have around $400,000 to struggle by on..and you think this would be a BAD thing???

 

It sounds like you see some budgetary surplus that should be redistributed. I had not heard of that.


 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
122
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
125
Views

Re: 70% Americans Agree

125 Views
Message 30 of 99

@MaVolta wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:


 

Your basic thinking seems to be like scout's - the only way to fix anything is to become a country run by a one Party system. 

 

Let's get passed that and back to healthcare - since we already have Medicaid, what is wrong with fitting it to the perceived needs of the poor that it currently does not address?


No, it doesn't have to be one party, and yes, Medicaid could be changed and expanded to better serve those who need insurance but cannot afford it. It would also have to address what happens in the "no" states, like Texas and Florida. It won't happen as long as Trump is president, and there are R's in Congress that give him a rubber stamp to do whatever. Voting those people out of office would be a good start, IMO.

 

Whatever the system, at whatever level (city, county, state, or federal), it still requires tax money to pay for it. Since the state of Texas does very little, it's mostly left to the city and county services to deal with it. The budgets are strained at all levels. Non-profits pick up some of the underserved, but their resources are also limited. 


What is done in Texas and Florida has nothing to do with Rs in Congress - it has to do with the Legislatures of those States. Do you see it a federal responsibility to control the actions of the State Legislatures?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
125
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Have a question about AARP membership or benefits? Ask it in the AARP Help Membership forum, Benefits & Discounts forum, or General forum.


multiple white question marks with center red question mark

Top Authors