7 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

I'm 71 today (thanks), and 50 yrs of health insurance would have added up to a silly amount of money.   If my gene pool was a bit tainted, then yea, I may not have rolled the dice.   But healthcare was affordable, before ACA for most families.

 

It wasn't even a thought with me, having healthcare, till 32 yrs old, and one reason I again became a salaried employee, that offered health ins.   But didn't really need it the whole 13+ yrs I worked there.

 

They were self insured (let that sink in), so it didn't cost them anything, except subcontracting the accounting part.

What kind of BS are you spouting? The reason ACA was created was precisely because private health insurance was rapidly becoming unaffordable for middle class people. Especially for middle aged people or older or those who had lost their jobs.

Are you claiming that the healthcare system in America wasn't the most costly system in the world before ACA?

 

And despite your allegedly good genes, you think health catastrophes only happen to those at a genetic disadvantage? Good genes ward off accidents or exposure to environmental or workplace toxins?

Just because it turns out that you didn't need the insurance, that doesn't mean it was prudent go go without it. Unless, of course, you've got that crystal ball or time machine.

3 hours ago, JAG said:

The nub of the argument is really whether you wish to live in a society which features health care available to all free at the point of need, funded by a variety of taxation methods, or a society in which the individual must purchase healthcare  through either private insurance or simple payment.

 

The former case - a government (taxation) funded system of course relies upon the parliament supporting and voting the funds. Taxation is greater, but if the ministers are drawn from and answerable to the parliament then the impetus to manage that taxation is greater. That only works properly when the executive (ministers running the system) and the government, are drawn from the parliament,  are directly accountable to and can be dismissed by that parliament.

 

The later case certainly reduces the burden on the state - which in turn should reduce taxation. It's principle disadvantage is that it does not serve the needs of the poorer or sicker members of society ( often linked), they go without. It does of course benefit the wealthier or healthier (again often linked), they buy treatment. 

 

Thinking on, I am not sure that the US system lends itself to a "National Health System" on the British, Canadian or other European models. This is simply because the executive (health minister) is removed from direct parliamentary involvement.  The discussion could be deepened of course to cover the current effective emasculation, of parliamentary (Congress) contribution to government, but perhaps this is not the place for that. That would open up a whole new debate on how "universal" a society should be, and how it governs itself.

 

 

 

 

Which to some extent means totally blocking private enterprise people and their greed from developing the policies and their implementation. In other words don't allow greed to be part of policy development and don't allow / ban / make it totally illegal for inurance companies or their proxies to give politicians / parties funds to support their election campaigning.  

4 hours ago, KhunLA said:

No such thing as free, as you have a huge tax burden, and probably your biggest monthly expense.  50% of USA income earners pay 2.5% federal income tax.  Canada's overall tax burden is huge in comparison.  Most pay 20% or 26% for federal alone.

 

That's a lot taxes for free healthcare, especially for someone like me, who never really needed it.

 

 

 

 

You don't need healthcare until you need it. A serious health incident can incur a massive medical bill. The taxes you reference above provide dental care for children and seniors, medications in participating  provinces, access to subsidized child daycare,  subsidized seniors residences and subsidized public transport. Social benefit payments for unemployment, disability, old age security, public pensions are relatively higher in Canada than the USA. 

Taxes are also higher because Canada has a small population in the 2nd largest land mass  on earth. In order to provide services in its lightly populated but very valuable far north and rural areas, the federal and provincial governments and territories have to cover alot of the  expense. The country also occupies the land of almost 2 million native people and as a result of treaties and court cases is liable for covering the cost of all social services including housing, education and medical care for these people. In a population of only 40 million, that's a lot of people and a very large rental and royalty obligation.

10 hours ago, scorecard said:

 

Trumps plan will never be seen. Plus he's not strong enough to write it now, and in last 2 weeks fell on the aircraft steps and is having trouble with all walking.   

 

Seems to me he and his cronies don't know where to start to develop a health scheme which provides full cover to all and is funded by the state through various taxation / public funds mechanisms, and insurance companies are totally blocked from any involvement. 

 

17 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

I, too, chose to live without healthcare.

I save a VERY silly amount of money.

 

The only difference between me and you is that, for example, you have an investment plan for 2026.

 

And, no doubt, you invested the money you saved on refusal to pay healthcare premiums during the past 50 years.

 

I, on the other hand, did not.

 

If I, these days, were to have a coconut fall on my head, provided it did not kill me, then I would be in big trouble.

Fortunately, I do have some money in the USA to cover such scenarios.

 

But, who knows what will happen.

 

IF there were zero waste in the USA healthcare system, with no gaming of the system, without pharma milking the system, and without undue expenditures on keep the living-dead living on machines, just for profit, THEN it might make sense to pay for health insurance in the USA.

 

Which reminds me:  Maybe I should marry a Taiwanese girl, if I were to become ill or incapacitated.  Taiwan healthcare is magnificent, comparatively.

 

Yea, at a very conservative $100 a month for insurance, time 50 yrs, is $60k USD

 

That is actually more than the 3 house I bought, that provided rent, that paid the mortgages, and appreciated very nicely.   I paid $24k + $23k + $9k = $56k

 

Very conservative ... 

 

 

Obviously I'd be on Medicare, Plan B, C & D ... $241

$241 X 12 months X 5 yrs $14,460

 

Part B is $185/month, with a $257 deductible

Part C (Advantage) costs vary by plan (avg ~$17/mo)

Part D (drugs) premiums average around $39/month

 

If I bought ACA at my retiring age, 45 yrs old ... All those ACA policies have deductible, and don't really kick in, till you spend $10k+ yearly out of pocket  

 

 

 

The VAST MAJORITY of the USA population wants SINGLE-PAYER healthcare.

There is NO QUESTION about this point...and...

Just ask GALLUP.

 

The REAL question is:  Is DEMOCRACY in the USA nothing but a long-held ILLUSION.

Just ask NOAM.

 

And, for the USA, what is the cost in human suffering in the USA which maintains this ILLUSION.

 

Yes:  We DO have Free Speech in the USA.  But...Does anyone take advantage of this gift?

Just ask NOAM.

 

With every new generation, the same questions are asked, over and over.

Why don't we have healthcare up to the par set by Taiwan, or the UK in the past....

 

The answer, my friends, is Blowin in the Wind, The answers are blowin in the wind....

 

 

3 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

The VAST MAJORITY of the USA population wants SINGLE-PAYER healthcare.

There is NO QUESTION about this point...and...

Just ask GALLUP.

 

The REAL question is:  Is DEMOCRACY in the USA nothing but a long-held ILLUSION.

Just ask NOAM.

 

And, for the USA, what is the cost in human suffering in the USA which maintains this ILLUSION.

 

Yes:  We DO have Free Speech in the USA.  But...Does anyone take advantage of this gift?

Just ask NOAM.

 

With every new generation, the same questions are asked, over and over.

Why don't we have healthcare up to the par set by Taiwan, or the UK in the past....

 

The answer, my friends, is Blowin in the Wind, The answers are blowin in the wind....

 

 

It depends on the poll.  Here are a couple of interestng results from a Data for Progress Poll

 

https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2025/11/medicare-for-all-is-popular-even-when-put-up-against-attacks

 

On the other hand a Pew poll shows that 35% of Americans favor single payer, while another 31% favor a mix of government programs and private insurance

 

Most Americans say government has a responsibility to ensure health care coverage

Most Americans (66%) say the federal government has a responsibility to make sure all Americans have health care coverage. Far fewer (33%) say it does not, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted Nov. 17-30, 2025, among 10,357 U.S. adults.

35% of all adults favor a single national health insurance system run by the government.
31% say insurance should continue to be provided through a mix of private companies and government programs

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/12/10/most-americans-say-government-has-a-responsibility-to-ensure-health-care-coverage/

 

I think the politically most feasible path is to open Medicare coverage to those who want it.

 

3 hours ago, Woke to Sounds said:

 

Except no one mentions the weather.

 

5-6 months of winter in most parts of Kanada.

 

You will need to earn $1-2 million/yr after tax to live comfortably on the west coast (B.C.) to avoid that.

 

Most Americans cannot do that.

 

Most of the USA the climate is agreeable.

 

Even Minnesota looks like tropical Mexico compared to Alberta.

Weather??? Good one!😄

42 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

Which to some extent means totally blocking private enterprise people and their greed from developing the policies and their implementation. In other words don't allow greed to be part of policy development and don't allow / ban / make it totally illegal for inurance companies or their proxies to give politicians / parties funds to support their election campaigning.  

I am no, in principle,  a fan of "banning things" - I am an old fashioned liberal (the term has come to mean something different in modern politics, both in the UK and the US).

 

But you raise a very good point. The aim, I suspect, of many health insurance companies, in lobbying and funding politicians is to ensure that any proposals for plans which may impinge upon their colossal money making machine do not make it as far as being put before the electorate. I rather agree that how a society plans for and operates something as fundamental as healthcare provision should be protected from such influences - a lesson can be drawn from the way in which Obama Care has been mangled almost beyond recognition,  and is now on the verge of being destroyed.

12 hours ago, Celsius said:

 

Perhaps USA should join Canada.

 

Everything free. I'm livin' the dream.

Yes free state sponsorred euthanasia.

 

Euthanasia as a healthcare option .

Or how to cut healthcare costs.

2 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

It depends on the poll.  Here are a couple of interestng results from a Data for Progress Poll

 

https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2025/11/medicare-for-all-is-popular-even-when-put-up-against-attacks

 

On the other hand a Pew poll shows that 35% of Americans favor single payer, while another 31% favor a mix of government programs and private insurance

 

Most Americans say government has a responsibility to ensure health care coverage

Most Americans (66%) say the federal government has a responsibility to make sure all Americans have health care coverage. Far fewer (33%) say it does not, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted Nov. 17-30, 2025, among 10,357 U.S. adults.

35% of all adults favor a single national health insurance system run by the government.
31% say insurance should continue to be provided through a mix of private companies and government programs

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/12/10/most-americans-say-government-has-a-responsibility-to-ensure-health-care-coverage/

 

I think the politically most feasible path is to open Medicare coverage to those who want it.

 

 

95-percent DO support single-payer healthcare of all Americans.

 

But, the polls do not accurate show the views of Americans.

Why is this?

BECAUSE, most Americans do not understand,  REALLY, what Single-Payer health actually IS.

 

The REASON Americans do not know is this:

 

The biased and LOUSY American Public-Education System is SUBSTANDARD, and does not teach anything based on reality.

 

Americans become totally brainwashed by the public ed system in the USA, the moment they enter grade school.

 

But, do not listen to me, per se....

Just listen to my friend and fellow alum, NOAM Chimpsky.

 

No matter how hard you might try to use valid logic to convince anyone of the truth, based on evidence, NOBODY will change their views based, purely, on the logic of any given argument.  Therefore, it is POINTLESS to try.

 

Let them move to Taiwan for a few years.

Then, let them return to the USA, suddenly, and get the SHOCK of their lives.

 

But, let us not waste our breath convincing fools of the obious, the obvious based on a proven system.

This system has been proven in the past in the UK.

This system is NOW RUNNING WELL AND SMOOTHLY in Taiwan.

 

There is no point in debate. Debate is useless and hopeless, and it will remain this way for ETERNITY, because Humans are ONLY HUMAN, after-all....

 

Because, there is NO POINT in trying to alter.....

WHAT A FOOL BELIEVES....and, I am not the ONLY one to SING ABOUT THIS, I guess:

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

 

This is your idea of evidence? A stupid quip? The percentage of uninsured Americans was cut in half by the ACA. That's what it did.

23 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

This is your idea of evidence? A stupid quip? The percentage of uninsured Americans was cut in half by the ACA. That's what it did.

Yea, it showed people that couldn't afford healthcare, that they qualified for Medicaid 

They didn't need ACA to find that out.  They just had to ask.

 

ACA simply raised the cost of everything, for everyone else.   

You really don't have a clue, do you 

 

 

Not only did people now have to pay more for healthcare insurance, their taxes went up, because insurance companies are making a profit, due to govt subsidies.  Next year, those end, so the Dems better win in mid term election.

 

One point payment would eliminate insurance company profits, and bring the cost of healthcare down, theoretically.   If the govt could run any program efficiently without corruption, and yet to happen 

 

 

 

I await your next ignorant post that you'd like me to pick apart with facts ... 😎

23 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Yes, they committed the sin of living in America. Some of them compound that by coming down with life threatening illnesses. Shame on them!

 health care for illegals

but not citizens

is just fine.

We all agree, right.?

Just now, papa al said:

 health care for illegals

but not citizens

is just fine.

We all agree, right.?

You should start a new topic about that issue.

29 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Yea, it showed people that couldn't afford healthcare, that they qualified for Medicaid 

They didn't need ACA to find that out.  They just had to ask.

 

ACA simply raised the cost of everything, for everyone else.   

You really don't have a clue, do you 

 

 

Not only did people now have to pay more for healthcare insurance, their taxes went up, because insurance companies are making a profit, due to govt subsidies.  Next year, those end, so the Dems better win in mid term election.

 

One point payment would eliminate insurance company profits, and bring the cost of healthcare down, theoretically.   If the govt could run any program efficiently without corruption, and yet to happen 

 

 

 

I await your next ignorant post that you'd like me to pick apart with facts ... 😎

Talking about ignorance. Do you even read what you post. According to the information you provided Medicaid is extended to people with low incomes. Up to 138% of the poverty level. This is your idea of middle class? What's more, offering extemded Medicaid to those people is voluntary on the part of the states. Red states like Florida and Texas refuse to offer it.

AI is a good place to start. But you should always check its sources. I go with super reliable sources like the Wall Street Journal:

 

"Health insurance has never been a flashy, high-growth business. But for many years it offered something nearly as good: steady, dependable returns, fueled by the expansion of government programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and the Obamacare exchanges.
Lately, though, Wall Street has a problem with America’s health insurers: They keep missing their numbers. What began as trouble in Medicare Advantage has now spread across nearly all government-backed plans, signaling deeper issues in the model itself.

https://archive.ph/LUlDU#selection-747.0-755.103

 

And as the article on which this topic is based noted, insurers are withdrawing from the market.

Anyway, it's good to see that you are opposed in principle  to private insurers making a profit from health care. I am, too. I think it's inevitable that some time in the future America will switch to single payer. But getting there will take some time. 

 

19 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Yea, it showed people that couldn't afford healthcare, that they qualified for Medicaid 

They didn't need ACA to find that out.  They just had to ask.

 

ACA simply raised the cost of everything, for everyone else.   

You really don't have a clue, do you 

 

 

Not only did people now have to pay more for healthcare insurance, their taxes went up, because insurance companies are making a profit, due to govt subsidies.  Next year, those end, so the Dems better win in mid term election.

 

One point payment would eliminate insurance company profits, and bring the cost of healthcare down, theoretically.   If the govt could run any program efficiently without corruption, and yet to happen 

 

 

 

I await your next ignorant post that you'd like me to pick apart with facts ... 😎

Biden fixed medicare after [he beat medicare to death].

 

 

5 minutes ago, armagetiton said:

Biden fixed medicare after [he beat medicare to death].

 

 

I'm sure you think a gaffe proves something. And in a way it does. It proves that you've got nothing.