Giantaxe

You're a resident of Colorado not a resident of England. It's completely irrelevant to a discussion of universal coverage that a non-resident may not have coverage.

Of course, we're all used to you playing semantic games rather than discussing issues. Fortunately there are many posters on here who don't go down that road.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care

scrubbedexpat099

So we can agree than nobody well currently provides universal coverage for very obvious reasons.

Giantaxe

I see you're still playing semantic games.

Many countries provide universal coverage - I will take the WHO's opinion over that of our resident troll.

scrubbedexpat099

So which Country provides health care for undocumented? I can not think of one.

Giantaxe

Article on how some donors are donating to multiple candidates at this stage. I guess the debate requirements for number of donors is encouraging this:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ial-candidate/

robtuck

I would have no problem with a Healthcare system that charged non-residents. That is a little different to people who are resident and paying taxes but not documented/legally resident. It's a tough call in that case of denying care when they have funded it.

What is clear is that the USA is getting close to the tipping point on accepting the Govt being involved in the administration of Healthcare. The mid terms proved it had an appeal to a number of people and created a reason to vote. This goes back to my point around Trump - nobody is going to change their mind on him so the game is about getting the other people to the polls.

Giantaxe

2008 seemed to be a tipping point as well though, and although the ACA moved us forward towards universal coverage, it got us nowhere near it. That was at least somewhat due to the Supreme Court ruling that allowed states to opt out of the Medicaid expansion, and the more recent actions by Republicans to undermine it. So I am not exactly holding my breath that anything will happen, even with a Democratic president. Otoh, at least Democrats are talking about universal access whereas the Republicans are choosing to sit on their hands.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019...-2020-election

Ingles

WTF has this to do with this thread ???????????

scrubbedexpat099

Reparations?

One of the issues of 2020.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/ca...-slavery#story

Ingles

The Dem's are making money off the back of "Moscow Mitch"


https://dailysoundandfury.com/kentuc...m_campaign=tti

Steerpike

But that's California only, and they only offer it to those under 25 and under a certain 'poverty' threshold. I can personally support that (as someone who has paid high taxes in CA all my working life), but I doubt that's going to make it into the national platform. I do think the candidates will back off on this particular proposal, as suggested in the second linked article.

Steerpike

So you are using your own definition of 'Universal' then. Granted, the term is open to interpretation, but you are trying to suggest that 'universal' must mean - 'everyone from everywhere'. I'm quite OK with calling something 'universal' when it may be restricted to residents of the particular country.

I don't understand why you are even making the argument, though ... why not just think of all the current talk of 'universal' as meaning, 'a lot more people will be covered than under today's plan'?

Anian

Let's not lose sight that his point was that Canada and Europe don't count as socialist because their healthcare doesn't meet a standard he decided on.

scrubbedexpat099

You can look up what Socialist means and no they are not, begs the question whether those in the US who describe them as being Socialists know what it actually means. I doubt they do.

https://www.vox.com/2019/4/10/183044...dicare-for-all

I just chose Bernie as I do believe Bernie believes in the majority of his policies. I just do not see how it is practical, US has some very good Healthcare, but that is the exception. So now everybody has access to that very good horribly expensive Healthcare, there are Drugs that cost $2m a treatment.

It also includes long term care and I know quite a few people going through this at great cost, and I am sure they would love this. How is it affordable? Even with the waste in the current system which is significant, what European Country has worked out how to do this?, I know the UK has not.

Just look at the demographics, we are all getting older, people are sicker, more treatments are available and will be available and the cost is increasing as anything with a large labour and research element will.

20% of GDP is currently spent, for argument lets say that is a reasonable amount, decide how you get the biggest bang for that buck and do that, do not promise what you can not deliver. Tough if you need that $2m treatment but that would do a lot more good in preventative care.

johnwoo

We keep hearing that providing healthcare for all US residents is too expensive and unaffordable, yet under the present mishmash of healthcare systems and providers, the US far pays more per person than any other developed country, with few if any better outcomes. With no healthcare at all for a significant number of it's population. A situation many those with good payed for healthcare are seemingly indifferent to.
Not to mention all the discarded throw away people, not wanted here, lying on the sidewalks and doorways of every major city in the USA.

Healthcare costs