Also, the disruptions this will cause to Seniors will be catastrophic. Seniors will lose the extra benefits they rely on to survive. They will have to now compete for dollars earmarked specifically for them. Democrats could care less about the collateral and arbitrary damage they will cause in their rush to gain power.

I don't understand this comment.
The government is just going to spend more money overall on health care, and the private sector will spend less overall.
The government might raise taxes or increase deficits, both of which are bad of course, but there's no indication that benefits to seniors would decrease.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Also, the disruptions this will cause to Seniors will be catastrophic. Seniors will lose the extra benefits they rely on to survive. They will have to now compete for dollars earmarked specifically for them. Democrats could care less about the collateral and arbitrary damage they will cause in their rush to gain power.

I don't understand this comment.
The government is just going to spend more money overall on health care, and the private sector will spend less overall.
The government might raise taxes or increase deficits, both of which are bad of course, but there's no indication that benefits to seniors would decrease.

When the government takes over health care waiting lines are longer and health is rationed and prioritized. That's been the case in every country with universal health care. If you think that this would be done without eliminating some types of care for seniors "who are about to die anyway" then you are really naive.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

I don't understand this comment.
The government is just going to spend more money overall on health care, and the private sector will spend less overall.
The government might raise taxes or increase deficits, both of which are bad of course, but there's no indication that benefits to seniors would decrease.

When the government takes over health care waiting lines are longer and health is rationed and prioritized. That's been the case in every country with universal health care. If you think that this would be done without eliminating some types of care for seniors "who are about to die anyway" then you are really naive.

It's rationed and prioritized now.
First to people with the most generous insurance coverage and lowest deductibles, then down the line to people with higher deductibles and copays, then finally those with no coverage at all only get emergency care.  
Our wait times for appointments with specialists are longer than those in some more "socialized" countries today.
The wait time thing has more to do with how many doctors and nurses are able to obtain licenses and work full time, than it does with questions of insurance payments and government involvement.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Also, the disruptions this will cause to Seniors will be catastrophic. Seniors will lose the extra benefits they rely on to survive. They will have to now compete for dollars earmarked specifically for them. Democrats could care less about the collateral and arbitrary damage they will cause in their rush to gain power.

I don't understand this comment.
The government is just going to spend more money overall on health care, and the private sector will spend less overall.
The government might raise taxes or increase deficits, both of which are bad of course, but there's no indication that benefits to seniors would decrease.

Other than the track records of other countries who have similar structures you mean.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I don't understand this comment.
The government is just going to spend more money overall on health care, and the private sector will spend less overall.
The government might raise taxes or increase deficits, both of which are bad of course, but there's no indication that benefits to seniors would decrease.

Other than the track records of other countries who have similar structures you mean.

Tell me.  Let's look at an apples to apples comparison of their wait times and outcome to ours.  Got one?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I'll give just an anecdote, because I haven't found data.
I know a person who got one knee replaced at age 63 and one at age 65.
The first was before she qualified for Medicare, the second was after.
The first one cost her almost $15,000 out of pocket and took about two months from calling the surgeon to going under the knife. 
She needed the second one pretty much right away, but decided to wait for her 65th birthday because she knew that put of pocket costs would be much lower with medicare.
She'd tell you that the wait time for her second knee surgery was only two weeks.  But I would say it was more like two years.
What do you think?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I'll give just an anecdote, because I haven't found data.
I know a person who got one knee replaced at age 63 and one at age 65.
The first was before she qualified for Medicare, the second was after.
The first one cost her almost $15,000 out of pocket and took about two months from calling the surgeon to going under the knife. 
She needed the second one pretty much right away, but decided to wait for her 65th birthday because she knew that put of pocket costs would be much lower with medicare.
She'd tell you that the wait time for her second knee surgery was only two weeks.  But I would say it was more like two years.
What do you think?

What data are you looking for? It is well known that with public healthcare, wait times go up. Limited specialists and a large patient pool lead to huge wait times to see a general practitioner, diagnostic testing, then a referral to see a specialist for consultation, now deciding best treatment plan, and finally the procedure. This is a seperate issue from the continual rising cost not only from the government but out of pocket. Why do we continualyl gripe about how the US spends the most of any country on healthcare but fail to look at the why? The large costs rest at the feet of Medicare and Medicaid which are the largest chunk of federal spending by far, even without trying to expand it to everyone. Not sustainable even now! The fact of the matter is the Americans look at health insurance like car insurance and don't find it necessary until it is. We'll spend hundreds if not thousands on cell phones and data plans but not on a health plan. Anyways, take your pick of whatever other countries program that includes a large percentage of socialized medicine and there has been a study on it with data that you can comb over. Here are a few links to breeze through...

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/...anada-2017

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/...b4a03d36b8

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10...6817693599

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/03/fi...rdest-hit/

https://www.cagw.org/thewastewatcher/med...yrocketing

http://hr.cch.com/hld/696264Voluntaryand...models.pdf

---

Other than the track records of other countries who have similar structures you mean.

Tell me.  Let's look at an apples to apples comparison of their wait times and outcome to ours.  Got one?

An apples to apples comparison of two dissimilar things? Lol.

If you really look hard you'll find a fascinating Commonwealth study on the whole thing. You probably won't like what you find there.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I'll give just an anecdote, because I haven't found data.
I know a person who got one knee replaced at age 63 and one at age 65.
The first was before she qualified for Medicare, the second was after.
The first one cost her almost $15,000 out of pocket and took about two months from calling the surgeon to going under the knife. 
She needed the second one pretty much right away, but decided to wait for her 65th birthday because she knew that put of pocket costs would be much lower with medicare.
She'd tell you that the wait time for her second knee surgery was only two weeks.  But I would say it was more like two years.
What do you think?

What data are you looking for? It is well known that with public healthcare, wait times go up. Limited specialists and a large patient pool lead to huge wait times to see a general practitioner, diagnostic testing, then a referral to see a specialist for consultation, now deciding best treatment plan, and finally the procedure. This is a seperate issue from the continual rising cost not only from the government but out of pocket. Why do we continualyl gripe about how the US spends the most of any country on healthcare but fail to look at the why? The large costs rest at the feet of Medicare and Medicaid which are the largest chunk of federal spending by far, even without trying to expand it to everyone. Not sustainable even now! The fact of the matter is the Americans look at health insurance like car insurance and don't find it necessary until it is. We'll spend hundreds if not thousands on cell phones and data plans but not on a health plan. Anyways, take your pick of whatever other countries program that includes a large percentage of socialized medicine and there has been a study on it with data that you can comb over. Here are a few links to breeze through...

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/...anada-2017

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/...b4a03d36b8

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10...6817693599

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/03/fi...rdest-hit/

https://www.cagw.org/thewastewatcher/med...yrocketing

http://hr.cch.com/hld/696264Voluntaryand...models.pdf

None of those links compares what happens in another country to what happens here. They don't answer the question.

---

Tell me.  Let's look at an apples to apples comparison of their wait times and outcome to ours.  Got one?

An apples to apples comparison of two dissimilar things? Lol.

If you really look hard you'll find a fascinating Commonwealth study on the whole thing. You probably won't like what you find there.

You referring to this? 
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/chart/2...ppointment

Canada came out the worst in that study, and they are one of the most socialized.
But the UK is equally socialized, and they came out almost exactly the same as the US.
Clearly something else explains wait times better than the degree of government ownership or control.

---

When the government takes over health care waiting lines are longer and health is rationed and prioritized. That's been the case in every country with universal health care. If you think that this would be done without eliminating some types of care for seniors "who are about to die anyway" then you are really naive.

It's rationed and prioritized now.
First to people with the most generous insurance coverage and lowest deductibles, then down the line to people with higher deductibles and copays, then finally those with no coverage at all only get emergency care.  
Our wait times for appointments with specialists are longer than those in some more "socialized" countries today.
The wait time thing has more to do with how many doctors and nurses are able to obtain licenses and work full time, than it does with questions of insurance payments and government involvement.

I was responding to how "Medicare for All" would affect seniors. Apparently you not only didn't understand the comment, you didn't (and still don't) even understand the subject it was addressing. So let me type this very slowly so you can understand.

If "Medicare for All" is implemented, it will result in longer wait times for seniors already on Medicare.
If "Medicare for All" is implemented it will result in some seniors not getting the medical care they currently get under Medicare because just letting them die will save a lot of money.

Sure if you can afford to go outside the Medicare route then you can avoid the longer wait times associated with universal health care, but that wasn't the thrust of the comment you claimed not to understand.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

I reject any expansion of government. The fact of the matter is there is no efficient or economic way for the government to provide health care to their citizens, nor should they have to. Even if they implement an expensive "for-all" system, it will eventually erode to have to include private subsidy insurance. At that point, you've figured out that you need to crawl back to the private sector but you've already done irreversible damage. Now you will need the government to influx another stream of cash to bring the private sector back up from the dumps. One needs to look no further than every example on this planet as well as our own recent ObamaCare failure to see the writing. Remove unnecessary barriers to entry and let healthcare naturally adjust to fair market levels. This is not something and will never be something that the government can influence to benefit all.

I suggest you read the second of the two articles.
Many countries have a blend of public and private care and public and private insurance. 
The natural free market position of health Care is that most people don't get health care.  People can't price shop when they fear imminent death or maiming.
You're inventing a narrative where people shift everything completely to the public sector and then come "crawling back" to the private sector.  That hasn't been the sequence of events or the outcome at any point in history in any place in the world.

---

I  don’t trust the government to run everyone’s health care. You need only look at the V.A to see what is in store for all of us. Now I know the V.A works well in some areas for some people, but overall it is inefficient and ineffective.

I don't "trust them to run everyone's health care" either, but I think it's necessary for the government to provide a baseline of coverage for everyone, that the private sector can then improve upon.

---

Every plan claims to regulate prices, therefore every plan will collapse.

Expanding Medicare merely creates adverse selection in the private market.

Your first sentence is refuted in the second article I posted.
Your second sentence doesn't make sense to me.

Why on earth should government provide any coverage? It's not the job of the government to "provide" anything like this, it's their job to legislate and govern. Do you see the cluster Washington is currently in and has been for decades? You really want those folks overseeing healthcare for the people of this country? I don't care that it works in other countries. This country was not built for socialism or any socialist programs and is one reason the programs will never work as designed (and never have) and socialism will never work for this country.

---

It's rationed and prioritized now.
First to people with the most generous insurance coverage and lowest deductibles, then down the line to people with higher deductibles and copays, then finally those with no coverage at all only get emergency care.  
Our wait times for appointments with specialists are longer than those in some more "socialized" countries today.
The wait time thing has more to do with how many doctors and nurses are able to obtain licenses and work full time, than it does with questions of insurance payments and government involvement.

I was responding to how "Medicare for All" would affect seniors. Apparently you not only didn't understand the comment, you didn't (and still don't) even understand the subject it was addressing. So let me type this very slowly so you can understand.

If "Medicare for All" is implemented, it will result in longer wait times for seniors already on Medicare.
If "Medicare for All" is implemented it will result in some seniors not getting the medical care they currently get under Medicare because just letting them die will save a lot of money.

Sure if you can afford to go outside the Medicare route then you can avoid the longer wait times associated with universal health care, but that wasn't the thrust of the comment you claimed not to understand.

Oh I understood your assertions just fine and I still understand them.
I just don't find any evidence for them.
You're taking a leap of faith that a plausible scenario is the only scenario.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I suggest you read the second of the two articles.
Many countries have a blend of public and private care and public and private insurance. 
The natural free market position of health Care is that most people don't get health care.  People can't price shop when they fear imminent death or maiming.
You're inventing a narrative where people shift everything completely to the public sector and then come "crawling back" to the private sector.  That hasn't been the sequence of events or the outcome at any point in history in any place in the world.

---

I don't "trust them to run everyone's health care" either, but I think it's necessary for the government to provide a baseline of coverage for everyone, that the private sector can then improve upon.

---

Your first sentence is refuted in the second article I posted.
Your second sentence doesn't make sense to me.

Why on earth should government provide any coverage? It's not the job of the government to "provide" anything like this, it's their job to legislate and govern. Do you see the cluster Washington is currently in and has been for decades? You really want those folks overseeing healthcare for the people of this country? I don't care that it works in other countries. This country was not built for socialism or any socialist programs and is one reason the programs will never work as designed (and never have) and socialism will never work for this country.

The country was built to exploit various natural resources for the benefit of England and Scotland.  Old-growth timber in New England, tobacco and indigo in the South, etc.  And it was built to bring in and exploit slave labor to the fullest in the process of returning cash to the English and Scottish.
Then it was rebuilt into something that existed for its own benefit but still allowed the possibility of some people owning other people.  
Then it was rebuilt into something that didn't allow people to own other people, but this phase allowed the federal government to standardize money and make it scarce without allowing the federal government to spend money on welfare or social safety net.
Then a supreme Court decision in 1937 said that the federal government could spend money on welfare.
Each of these phases was pretty different from what any other country was, and none of them were permanent.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

What data are you looking for? It is well known that with public healthcare, wait times go up. Limited specialists and a large patient pool lead to huge wait times to see a general practitioner, diagnostic testing, then a referral to see a specialist for consultation, now deciding best treatment plan, and finally the procedure. This is a seperate issue from the continual rising cost not only from the government but out of pocket. Why do we continualyl gripe about how the US spends the most of any country on healthcare but fail to look at the why? The large costs rest at the feet of Medicare and Medicaid which are the largest chunk of federal spending by far, even without trying to expand it to everyone. Not sustainable even now! The fact of the matter is the Americans look at health insurance like car insurance and don't find it necessary until it is. We'll spend hundreds if not thousands on cell phones and data plans but not on a health plan. Anyways, take your pick of whatever other countries program that includes a large percentage of socialized medicine and there has been a study on it with data that you can comb over. Here are a few links to breeze through...

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/...anada-2017

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/...b4a03d36b8

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10...6817693599

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/03/fi...rdest-hit/

https://www.cagw.org/thewastewatcher/med...yrocketing

http://hr.cch.com/hld/696264Voluntaryand...models.pdf

None of those links compares what happens in another country to what happens here. They don't answer the question.

---

An apples to apples comparison of two dissimilar things? Lol.

If you really look hard you'll find a fascinating Commonwealth study on the whole thing. You probably won't like what you find there.

You referring to this? 
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/chart/2...ppointment

Canada came out the worst in that study, and they are one of the most socialized.
But the UK is equally socialized, and they came out almost exactly the same as the US.
Clearly something else explains wait times better than the degree of government ownership or control.

Try again, that's old data. Good luck!

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

None of those links compares what happens in another country to what happens here. They don't answer the question.

---

You referring to this? 
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/chart/2...ppointment

Canada came out the worst in that study, and they are one of the most socialized.
But the UK is equally socialized, and they came out almost exactly the same as the US.
Clearly something else explains wait times better than the degree of government ownership or control.

Try again, that's old data. Good luck!

Nah. I did my searching, and I read what I found. your turn.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Try again, that's old data. Good luck!

Nah. I did my searching, and I read what I found. your turn.

I'm sorry your data is obsolete, does explain your perspective though.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Nah. I did my searching, and I read what I found. your turn.

I'm sorry your data is obsolete, does explain your perspective though.

The report I linked was from 2013! Just six years ago.  Not much has changed in the UK or in Canada with regard to health care in that time.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I'm sorry your data is obsolete, does explain your perspective though.

The report I linked was from 2013! Just six years ago.  Not much has changed in the UK or in Canada with regard to health care in that time.

Says the guy who hasn't bothered to read the most current information.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The report I linked was from 2013! Just six years ago.  Not much has changed in the UK or in Canada with regard to health care in that time.

Says the guy who hasn't bothered to read the most current information.

I googled "Commonwealth medical wait time study".  The only more recent result is an interview they did with a Canadian health care administrator which appears sympathetic to the Canadian government point of view.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Says the guy who hasn't bothered to read the most current information.

I googled "Commonwealth medical wait time study".  The only more recent result is an interview they did with a Canadian health care administrator which appears sympathetic to the Canadian government point of view.

Your thinking is limited to wait times, so you're missing a lot of the broader concepts. I think anyone who wishes to take part in this discussion should first spend an hour reading and digesting this:

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publica...rom-abroad

then follow that up with this:

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/20...-countries

and this:

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/char...item-start

then move on to the numerous reports of care rationing and provider shortages faced by every care system.

But hey, what do I know?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato