It is currently 03/28/24 9:43 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next   Page 3 of 4   [ 78 posts ]
Author Message
 Offline
PostPosted: 03/05/20 6:45 pm • # 51 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
The danger is if Bernie wins moderates will stay home and if Bernie loses the Berniecrats stay home.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 03/05/20 7:56 pm • # 52 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 12/27/16
Posts: 10841
I would hope that the majority of the Berniecrats are also anti-trump


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 03/05/20 8:16 pm • # 53 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
shiftless2 wrote:
I would hope that the majority of the Berniecrats are also anti-trump


I'm sure they are but last election many stayed home in a huff after Wasserman-Schultz's shenanigans. Will they do it again?


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 03/05/20 8:52 pm • # 54 
Editorialist

Joined: 10/20/15
Posts: 4032
But there aren't any real "shenanigans" this time.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 03/05/20 8:54 pm • # 55 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
quite true, CM. they need to keep it that way.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 03/05/20 8:58 pm • # 56 
Editorialist

Joined: 10/20/15
Posts: 4032
Yep.

On another note. All three potential candidates for the Presidency are in the high risk demographic for the Coronavirus - and that demographic also has the highest majority of Trump supporters. And they vote ….

Any predictions could well be mucked around quite significantly ….


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 03/05/20 9:02 pm • # 57 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
I was thinking the same thing today.

Trump is also at high risk.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 03/05/20 9:31 pm • # 58 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 12/27/16
Posts: 10841
But Trump is also a germophopbe. Having said that, he needs adulation which means large crowds at rallies. So which is going to win out in his case.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 03/07/20 12:30 pm • # 59 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 12/27/16
Posts: 10841
Sexism Didn't Kill the Warren Campaign. The Warren Campaign Killed the Warren Campaign.
Warren’s supporters were so enamored with her righteousness that they struggled to see her obvious flaws.

KATIE HERZOG

https://reason.com/2020/03/06/sexism-di ... -campaign/


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 03/07/20 2:59 pm • # 60 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
Warren's momentum died around the time she and Bernie had a public spat.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 03/07/20 5:58 pm • # 61 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
it also died around the time that her medicare for all thing got detailed publicly.

it is not the best idea. and it REALLY is not the best idea in the US.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 03/07/20 7:06 pm • # 62 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
Quote:
it is not the best idea. and it REALLY is not the best idea in the US.


Yeah, damn soshulists. ;)


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 03/08/20 1:38 am • # 63 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
the best idea is a dual system.

basic care for EVERYONE, and luxury care for those that can afford it.

it really is the most sensible approach, as well as producing the best outcomes.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 03/08/20 8:03 am • # 64 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 02/09/09
Posts: 4713
shiftless2 wrote:
Sexism Didn't Kill the Warren Campaign. The Warren Campaign Killed the Warren Campaign.
Warren’s supporters were so enamored with her righteousness that they struggled to see her obvious flaws.

KATIE HERZOG

https://reason.com/2020/03/06/sexism-di ... -campaign/



Sorry, but I think this is bullcrap.

The article states, "Elizabeth Warren didn't lose this race simply because of sexism but because she made a series of political miscalculations."

Really? If what is mentioned are truly political mistakes and mistakes that caused serious harm to her campaign, haven't Sanders and especially Biden also made them?

If a woman candidate had talked the way Trump did, she wouldn't stand a chance.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 03/08/20 8:38 am • # 65 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 06/18/16
Posts: 2164
macroscopic wrote:
the best idea is a dual system.

basic care for EVERYONE, and luxury care for those that can afford it.

it really is the most sensible approach, as well as producing the best outcomes.


Please clarify so I have a better understanding of your comment - what do you mean by luxury care, what does it entail?


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 03/08/20 11:21 am • # 66 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
Quote:
what do you mean by luxury care, what does it entail?


Wine and caviar vs beans and wieners. ;)


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 03/08/20 3:23 pm • # 67 
Editorialist

Joined: 10/20/15
Posts: 4032
Its the system we have here.

Everyone has medicare. That means that if you go to your doctor then some of them will charge a small extra fee, but others will "bulk bill" and not charge you anything extra. Because I am retired and have a pension card, my doctor doesn't charge me any extra fee.

If you require urgent treatment then you will be treated immediately, usually in a public hospital. When my wife broke her leg she was flown to and from a major trauma Hospital where she underwent 2 major operations. Overall she spent about 3 weeks in hospital. The only charge we had to pay was $50 for the rental of a wheelchair and other aids when she came home.

If you require non-urgent treatment (like, for instance, a replacement knee) then you will be put on a waiting list.

So, for example, I am developing cataracts in my eyes. I've seen the specialist, but because I still have quite reasonable eyesight, he probably wont get around to doing mine until next year.

If I had private insurance it would be quicker, and would probably be done in a private hospital with a better standard of accommodation.

But actually, many people who have private insurance end up paying a hell of a lot when they do have some major procedure. The specialists sometimes charge exorbitant fees to private patients, and their insurance doesn't cover the difference.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 03/08/20 3:57 pm • # 68 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 06/18/16
Posts: 2164
oskar576 wrote:
Quote:
what do you mean by luxury care, what does it entail?


Wine and caviar vs beans and wieners. ;)


:lol


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 03/08/20 4:08 pm • # 69 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 06/18/16
Posts: 2164
Cattleman wrote:
Its the system we have here.

Everyone has medicare. That means that if you go to your doctor then some of them will charge a small extra fee, but others will "bulk bill" and not charge you anything extra. Because I am retired and have a pension card, my doctor doesn't charge me any extra fee.

If you require urgent treatment then you will be treated immediately, usually in a public hospital. When my wife broke her leg she was flown to and from a major trauma Hospital where she underwent 2 major operations. Overall she spent about 3 weeks in hospital. The only charge we had to pay was $50 for the rental of a wheelchair and other aids when she came home.

If you require non-urgent treatment (like, for instance, a replacement knee) then you will be put on a waiting list.

So, for example, I am developing cataracts in my eyes. I've seen the specialist, but because I still have quite reasonable eyesight, he probably wont get around to doing mine until next year.

If I had private insurance it would be quicker, and would probably be done in a private hospital with a better standard of accommodation.

But actually, many people who have private insurance end up paying a hell of a lot when they do have some major procedure. The specialists sometimes charge exorbitant fees to private patients, and their insurance doesn't cover the difference.


You say better standard of accommodations, but what about the standard of medical care? I am grudgingly ok with better accommodations, wine caviar instead of beans and wieners as oskar amusingly said, but not better medical care, facilities or doctors.

I do know the wealthier would not go for everyone having equal treatment all around, accommodations and care, because they feel the deserve better if they can pay for it. Wouldn't it be nice though if everyone was treated the same in all areas and not by the pocketbook - then healthcare and accommodations would most likely improve a whole lot for everyone.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 03/08/20 4:52 pm • # 70 
Editorialist

Joined: 10/20/15
Posts: 4032
The basic difference in accommodation is that private hospitals tend to have individual rooms where the public ones have shared rooms.
My wife actually liked that. It gave her someone to talk to.

The standard of care in both cases is the same. The majority of Doctors work in both systems and they even share facilities.

With my wife's injuries, for example, the team who operated on her was one of the best in the country. And it was done in a huge, and very well equipped hospital.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 03/08/20 5:18 pm • # 71 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 06/18/16
Posts: 2164
Cattleman wrote:
The basic difference in accommodation is that private hospitals tend to have individual rooms where the public ones have shared rooms.
My wife actually liked that. It gave her someone to talk to.

The standard of care in both cases is the same. The majority of Doctors work in both systems and they even share facilities.

With my wife's injuries, for example, the team who operated on her was one of the best in the country. And it was done in a huge, and very well equipped hospital.


Then I can't find fault with that system - but have little faith in the powers that be here that would be the case. :(


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 03/08/20 5:34 pm • # 72 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
Karolinablue wrote:
macroscopic wrote:
the best idea is a dual system.

basic care for EVERYONE, and luxury care for those that can afford it.

it really is the most sensible approach, as well as producing the best outcomes.


Please clarify so I have a better understanding of your comment - what do you mean by luxury care, what does it entail?


anything non-essential. cosmetic surgery would be an example.
there are other exceptions, but I don't think it is a good idea to get off in the weeds on a fairly basic distinction.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 03/08/20 6:10 pm • # 73 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 06/18/16
Posts: 2164
macroscopic wrote:
Karolinablue wrote:
macroscopic wrote:
the best idea is a dual system.

basic care for EVERYONE, and luxury care for those that can afford it.

it really is the most sensible approach, as well as producing the best outcomes.


Please clarify so I have a better understanding of your comment - what do you mean by luxury care, what does it entail?


anything non-essential. cosmetic surgery would be an example.
there are other exceptions, but I don't think it is a good idea to get off in the weeds on a fairly basic distinction.


Makes sense, did not think of that example and other like exceptions. Wondering though, how does the Australian and Canadian heath care system handle medical non essentials?


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 03/08/20 6:12 pm • # 74 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
Cattleman wrote:
Its the system we have here.

Everyone has medicare. That means that if you go to your doctor then some of them will charge a small extra fee, but others will "bulk bill" and not charge you anything extra. Because I am retired and have a pension card, my doctor doesn't charge me any extra fee.

If you require urgent treatment then you will be treated immediately, usually in a public hospital. When my wife broke her leg she was flown to and from a major trauma Hospital where she underwent 2 major operations. Overall she spent about 3 weeks in hospital. The only charge we had to pay was $50 for the rental of a wheelchair and other aids when she came home.

If you require non-urgent treatment (like, for instance, a replacement knee) then you will be put on a waiting list.

So, for example, I am developing cataracts in my eyes. I've seen the specialist, but because I still have quite reasonable eyesight, he probably wont get around to doing mine until next year.

If I had private insurance it would be quicker, and would probably be done in a private hospital with a better standard of accommodation.

But actually, many people who have private insurance end up paying a hell of a lot when they do have some major procedure. The specialists sometimes charge exorbitant fees to private patients, and their insurance doesn't cover the difference.


this is actually quite common. "specialty care" is about the same cost in the US as it is elsewhere- and the cost is beyond the means of most people. the difference between "elsewhere" and the US is in general medicine, which is 2-3x the cost in the US as elsewhere.

this is why in a place like Spain (as a for-instance) 90% of the population utilize the public rather than private system. the private system is considered a luxury, and beyond the reach of the average Spaniard. that does NOT deny them basic care, or even emergency care. it just means that they will have to put up with the Spanish bureaucracy in getting (some) of it. having said that, AGAIN, 90% opt for the public system. and this is a pattern in almost every nation other than the US.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 03/08/20 6:19 pm • # 75 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
Karolinablue wrote:
macroscopic wrote:
[quote="Karolinablue]
Please clarify so I have a better understanding of your comment - what do you mean by luxury care, what does it entail?[/quote]

anything non-essential. cosmetic surgery would be an example.
there are other exceptions, but I don't think it is a good idea to get off in the weeds on a fairly basic distinction.[/quote]

Makes sense, did not think of that example and other like exceptions. Wondering though, how does the Australian and Canadian heath care system handle medical non essentials?[/quote]


in Canada, I would assume that it is handled rather poorly, in that they don't have a private system "piggybacked" on the public system, like all of the best healthcare systems in the world.

in Australia, however, you could opt for private specialty care, if you can afford it.


Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next   Page 3 of 4   [ 78 posts ] New Topic Add Reply

All times are UTC - 6 hours



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
© Voices or Choices.
All rights reserved.