That insurance policy is over 2 years late, and counting. Perhaps bark up another tree? I heared Barr wouldn't mind looking into Uranium 1 >_>

Like I said... that's why Democrats are so damn afraid of a new Attorney General. Trump picks a guy that was the AG under G.H.W. Bush and he was nowhere near the Trump campaign, the FBI investigations, or the Clintons. The very first thing they demand is for him to recuse himself.... on what grounds? I'll tell you... because he's a Republican. Last time I checked, the President chooses the AG, and they serve at the pleasure of the President. This is laughable at best.

Apart from Barr being previously fished for by Trump for his personal legal team with the (private) Russia investigation defence, Barr being publicly vocal against Mueller and team cause of political orientated donations (but lets ignore him and his wife donating 750k, dwarfing the entire Mueller team's donations), Barr supported known conspiracy theories and desire to litigate against political opponents by mere being opposite parties, ...

 

Well, lets ignore all that and just go with "cause he got nominated for the specific reasoning of shutting the special council down".

 

But perhaps best of all, this so called "call for recusal" has been timid or downright not present. I sense shenanigans.

Apart from Barr being previously fished for by Trump for his personal legal team with the (private) Russia investigation defence, Barr being publicly vocal against Mueller and team cause of political orientated donations (but lets ignore him and his wife donating 750k, dwarfing the entire Mueller team's donations), Barr supported known conspiracy theories and desire to litigate against political opponents by mere being opposite parties, ...

 

Well, lets ignore all that and just go with "cause he got nominated for the specific reasoning of shutting the special council down".

 

But perhaps best of all, this so called "call for recusal" has been timid or downright not present. I sense shenanigans.

Breaking News: Trump is entitled to legal defense. Everyone has an opinion, and everyone has been asked. Everyone that can afford to donate to preferred political candidates, donates to preferred political candidates. I believe you are supporting conspiracy theories and you have the desire to litigate against your opponents... like anyone who doesn't think climate change is a big deal.

 

Let's ignore all that, and meaningless opinions from Europe. You are trolling me again... am I right?

Actually, all the points I made are usual right-wing talking points, just used back at you. And "litegation for all" is an american past-time, you folks are the origin of frivolous.

 

I personally wouldn't really care about Barr's personal connection to Trump or POTUS in general, as long as offcourse impartiality can be maintained.

 

Rather just waiting how Trump would react when, and this is an "if-scenario", Barr gets approved and he lets Mueller continue. Trump had half a meltdown when Sessions went hands-off and we clearly see him not taking kindly to Whitaker going likewise after a head-to-head with Mueller.

 

Thusfar alot of his appointees stroked his ego to get in but then seemed to just be stroking it, not following it. I sense Barr would be likewise and as such another meltdown could happen.

 

 

And "litegation for all" is an american past-time, you folks are the origin of frivolous.

We agree on something.

 

 

I personally wouldn't really care about Barr's personal connection to Trump or POTUS in general, as long as offcourse impartiality can be maintained.

It doesn't matter if Barr has a personal connection to Trump or not, and partiality is absolutely expected from a U.S. Attorney General. It is not an elected position, they can be fired by the President at any time, for any reason, and they are expected to enforce the law in line with the policies of the President. Eric Holder famously declared he was "Obama's Wingman", and are you even going to begin to lie to us about how Robert Kennedy was "impartial" with Johnny?

 

 

Rather just waiting how Trump would react when, and this is an "if-scenario", Barr gets approved and he lets Mueller continue. Trump had half a meltdown when Sessions went hands-off and we clearly see him not taking kindly to Whitaker going likewise after a head-to-head with Mueller.

Barr will get approved, and I expect he will allow Mueller to close things up. Trump didn't have "half a meltdown"... he had a complete meltdown. If the first thing my new Attorney General did was recuse himself from anything, I would have fired him immediately.

 

 

Thusfar alot of his appointees stroked his ego to get in but then seemed to just be stroking it, not following it. I sense Barr would be likewise and as such another meltdown could happen.

I think your wrong here. I find his way of running things quite refreshing, and I believe he holds back too much because of the 92% of the media that would report how many doctors lost their jobs, instead of reporting that he found the cure for cancer. He's the hardest working President I have ever seen, and he gets no credit for it.

I knew this would be coming.

 

The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, has been ruled unconstitutional by a Texas Federal judge. When Justice Roberts allowed the ACA to continue back in 2012, he did so only on the grounds that Congress has the power to tax, and he determined that there was no difference between a "penalty" and a "tax". So the individual mandate was ruled constitutional as long as Congress continues to pay for it, as a tax.

 

In 2017, Congress repealed the tax against individuals that refuse to purchase health insurance, therefore, the ACA can no longer support itself. States that are firmly against socialized medicine... Red States to be precise... sued on the grounds that after the repeal of the individual mandate tax, the law can no longer be constitutional... and they are right.

 

It will be appealed... it will end up back in front of the Supremes... and I believe this time it will fall. Goodbye to the last of Obama.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/obamacare-ruled-unconstitutional-by-texas-judge

As someone who has to deal with the ACA for work it is a nightmare. Most my work hours are dealing with the ACA. I like the idea of something like medicare for all, but the ACA was badly designed and rushed out

 

 

I like the idea of something like medicare for all

Individual states can pass, tax, and enforce all the socialist programs they want. They can destroy their own economies without taking down the entire nation with them, and can then fix the problems they cause on themselves when they discover how stupidly insane it was to entertain... but forcing all states to participate in a Federal program that cannot ever be paid for, will never happen again.

 

Every time we allow the government to take responsibility for another piece of our lives, we lose another piece of our freedom.

 

I personally wouldn't really care about Barr's personal connection to Trump or POTUS in general, as long as offcourse impartiality can be maintained.

It doesn't matter if Barr has a personal connection to Trump or not, and partiality is absolutely expected from a U.S. Attorney General. It is not an elected position, they can be fired by the President at any time, for any reason, and they are expected to enforce the law in line with the policies of the President. Eric Holder famously declared he was "Obama's Wingman", and are you even going to begin to lie to us about how Robert Kennedy was "impartial" with Johnny?

 

.

Meant impartial to law(-enforcement), the fellows can be married for all I care.

.

 

 

Rather just waiting how Trump would react when, and this is an "if-scenario", Barr gets approved and he lets Mueller continue. Trump had half a meltdown when Sessions went hands-off and we clearly see him not taking kindly to Whitaker going likewise after a head-to-head with Mueller.

Barr will get approved, and I expect he will allow Mueller to close things up. Trump didn't have "half a meltdown"... he had a complete meltdown. If the first thing my new Attorney General did was recuse himself from anything, I would have fired him immediately.

 

.

The reclusal was lawfull, or rather law mandated. I'd thought you understood that. Don't think Barr has such "mandate" going for him, offcourse I neither know the extent of the law and of his connection to the investigations topic.

.

 

Thusfar alot of his appointees stroked his ego to get in but then seemed to just be stroking it, not following it. I sense Barr would be likewise and as such another meltdown could happen.

I think your wrong here. I find his way of running things quite refreshing, and I believe he holds back too much because of the 92% of the media that would report how many doctors lost their jobs, instead of reporting that he found the cure for cancer. He's the hardest working President I have ever seen, and he gets no credit for it.

 

 .

I could follow if you said that Congress was working overtime (doing next to nothing with a trifecta, but hey...), but Trump? It isn't cause you don't see him in public that he is actually doing something. Heck in 1 year Trump already outpaced Obama in just golfing trips, which he previously said he would be to busy to do.

 

Most if not all of legislation is Republican in nature with next to no Trump specific laws. Not forgetting alot of those 'I can fix/change this easily' or 'I can do this in 30/60/90 days' or other such replies to various of his scheme's come back blowing right up in his face. He is good in signing stuff, included executive orders (which is rather strange need during a trifecta, but hey...) which he is also outpacing Obama on.

 

Talking about credit, he occasionally gets it when he stays calm for a day, kinda like how you compliment a toddler for not wrecking the family outing.

. 

I knew this would be coming.

 

The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, has been ruled unconstitutional by a Texas Federal judge. When Justice Roberts allowed the ACA to continue back in 2012, he did so only on the grounds that Congress has the power to tax, and he determined that there was no difference between a "penalty" and a "tax". So the individual mandate was ruled constitutional as long as Congress continues to pay for it, as a tax.

 

In 2017, Congress repealed the tax against individuals that refuse to purchase health insurance, therefore, the ACA can no longer support itself. States that are firmly against socialized medicine... Red States to be precise... sued on the grounds that after the repeal of the individual mandate tax, the law can no longer be constitutional... and they are right.

 

It will be appealed... it will end up back in front of the Supremes... and I believe this time it will fall. Goodbye to the last of Obama.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/obamacare-ruled-unconstitutional-by-texas-judge

 .

Atleast you are on point on knowing why it is now deemed unconstitutional (awating SCOTUS offcourse). Thou partially a dick move and something you could easily replicate to other laws to make them moot.

 

Funnily also that not only lots of red states are fuming over it but likewise using lots of it to tend to their internal sub-par health system. Guess they aren't to shy in Idaho, Nebraska and Utah to take federal money with the expanded acception of Medicaid.

.

As someone who has to deal with the ACA for work it is a nightmare. Most my work hours are dealing with the ACA. I like the idea of something like medicare for all, but the ACA was badly designed and rushed out

.

So fix it? Think I heared a party making that line a campaign point of their election(s)...

The reclusal was lawfull, or rather law mandated. I'd thought you understood that. Don't think Barr has such "mandate" going for him, offcourse I neither know the extent of the law and of his connection to the investigations topic.

No such thing. Justice Elena Kagan has never, not once, recused herself from ruling on the ACA, even after very loud calls for her to do so, because she was instrumental in the creation of the ACA as Solicitor General for Barack Obama. Recusal is a conscience call when an official understands their own bias concerning a case, and know within themselves they cannot possibly render a fair ruling. I do not believe there is such a thing as an impartial judge any longer... but there is no law or mandate that requires this action.

 

Atleast you are on point on knowing why it is now deemed unconstitutional (awating SCOTUS offcourse). Thou partially a dick move and something you could easily replicate to other laws to make them moot. Funnily also that not only lots of red states are fuming over it but likewise using lots of it to tend to their internal sub-par health system. Guess they aren't to shy in Idaho, Nebraska and Utah to take federal money with the expanded acception of Medicaid.

There is nothing easy about the ACA... it's a massive trunk load of confusing gibberish that seizes total control of one sixth of the US economy, strangles the entire business world, and makes health insurance unaffordable for more people than it helps. The expansion of Medicaid was the smart way to deal with the uninsured, and is still the better way to go even though I despise all government intervention.

 

 

So fix it? Think I heared a party making that line a campaign point of their election(s)...

 

 

Voting system is a bit broken at the moment so fixing it would be quite difficult especially since the key issue is that ACA includes insurance companies which are for profit not for care.

 

 

Individual states can pass, tax, and enforce all the socialist programs they want. They can destroy their own economies without taking down the entire nation with them, and can then fix the problems they cause on themselves when they discover how stupidly insane it was to entertain... but forcing all states to participate in a Federal program that cannot ever be paid for, will never happen again.

 

 

Health costs are expensive because of insurance companies. The ACA is a nightmare because of insurance companies. If we did medicare for all it would actually cut down costs and improve the lives of the healthcare providers. Right now the US health system is a racket designed to milk its "customers" for profit, its not designed to provide the best care for a fair price.

 

 

Health costs are expensive because of insurance companies. The ACA is a nightmare because of insurance companies. If we did medicare for all it would actually cut down costs and improve the lives of the healthcare providers. Right now the US health system is a racket designed to milk its "customers" for profit, its not designed to provide the best care for a fair price.

The United States Federal Government is the motherlode of all rackets. It spends money like the water of Niagara Falls, and wastes money like a drain where the water lands. It doesn't care about you, your healthcare, your family, your business, or if you live another day. It only cares about snaking more money for who is in control currently, and getting ready for who is in control next. It's easy for the government to waste an endless stream of wealth, because it is not concerned about having any of it later... it will just suck more of it from the owners. The government can't even run a post office without creating another trillion of debt, and you want to turn our healthcare, and our very lives, over to an entity that has set the bar on irresponsible.

 

Insurance is a nightmare because of government intervention. Everyone should be given the option to buy into Medicaid.

 

Medicare is for retired persons that no longer have a job to help them with health insurance. It only covers so much, and these people still rely on insurance to help them with the rest. You are using the words "Medicare for all" because the words "Universal Healthcare" are tainted with that unavoidable socialist stench. When a slogan becomes too soiled with socialism, count on a name change from Progressives to get the message back on track. It's called "lipstick on a pig".

 

The reclusal was lawfull, or rather law mandated. I'd thought you understood that. Don't think Barr has such "mandate" going for him, offcourse I neither know the extent of the law and of his connection to the investigations topic.

No such thing. Justice Elena Kagan has never, not once, recused herself from ruling on the ACA, even after very loud calls for her to do so, because she was instrumental in the creation of the ACA as Solicitor General for Barack Obama. Recusal is a conscience call when an official understands their own bias concerning a case, and know within themselves they cannot possibly render a fair ruling. I do not believe there is such a thing as an impartial judge any longer... but there is no law or mandate that requires this action.

 

.

I would put Kagan between Sessions and Barr. Sessions is clearly implicated in that mess (talking to ambassador of Russia numerous times) while Kagan seems more of a "worked for X, had passing knowledge of Y" type deal (she doesn't seem to have a hand in ACA creation/drafting). I would none the less fall on the side of recusal for her.

 

There does seem to be laws about this, it is tied into the ability of any person appearing before court to for instance ask/demand a different judge when possible personal bias or prejudice is inferred. Google says: US Judicial Code, Title 28, sections 144 and 455.

.

 

Atleast you are on point on knowing why it is now deemed unconstitutional (awating SCOTUS offcourse). Thou partially a dick move and something you could easily replicate to other laws to make them moot. Funnily also that not only lots of red states are fuming over it but likewise using lots of it to tend to their internal sub-par health system. Guess they aren't to shy in Idaho, Nebraska and Utah to take federal money with the expanded acception of Medicaid.

There is nothing easy about the ACA... it's a massive trunk load of confusing gibberish that seizes total control of one sixth of the US economy, strangles the entire business world, and makes health insurance unaffordable for more people than it helps. The expansion of Medicaid was the smart way to deal with the uninsured, and is still the better way to go even though I despise all government intervention.

 

.

You make it sound like a Medicaid expansion was/is a good method of insuring proper health of your society. Perhaps your prefered elected officials should take note and act like that then...

 

Pfffft, doubt the ACA is more gibberish then a +200 pages "Terms of service" booklet you would get when buying a razor . Biggest issue I had is that a largly republican legislation, adopted by Democrats to work as a framework for bi-partisan concensus got torpedoed just cause it had a "D" before it. Have stated it before and shall state into eternity, no doubt about that, that you folks need concensus.

.

 

So fix it? Think I heared a party making that line a campaign point of their election(s)...

Voting system is a bit broken at the moment so fixing it would be quite difficult especially since the key issue is that ACA includes insurance companies which are for profit not for care.

Individual states can pass, tax, and enforce all the socialist programs they want. They can destroy their own economies without taking down the entire nation with them, and can then fix the problems they cause on themselves when they discover how stupidly insane it was to entertain... but forcing all states to participate in a Federal program that cannot ever be paid for, will never happen again.

Health costs are expensive because of insurance companies. The ACA is a nightmare because of insurance companies. If we did medicare for all it would actually cut down costs and improve the lives of the healthcare providers. Right now the US health system is a racket designed to milk its "customers" for profit, its not designed to provide the best care for a fair price.

 

.

Which is indeed part of the issue, profit. Then again, the american dream must continue being fleeting.

.

You are using the words "Medicare for all" because the words "Universal Healthcare" are tainted with that unavoidable socialist stench. When a slogan becomes too soiled with socialism, count on a name change from Progressives to get the message back on track. It's called "lipstick on a pig".

Offset offcourse by conservatives calling anything they don't like, and is pro-society, as having a socialist stench...

 

 

Sessions is clearly implicated in that mess (talking to ambassador of Russia numerous times)

What mess? Jeff Sessions was a U.S. Senator from Alabama... a big part of his job was to talk with all Ambassadors from all countries. He did appear on a stage with Trump wearing a MAGA hat once, and supported Donald Trump for President. This I guess makes him guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, according to anti-capitalists.

 

 

You make it sound like a Medicaid expansion was/is a good method of insuring proper health of your society.

No, it's not. It's 3rd rate medical care for the poor... much like first rate medical care in socialist countries. Half the battle is to find a doctor that will accept it. Pretty much everyone on welfare is on Medicaid, and it's a money drain on taxpayers. Now get all these uninsurable people, and all those people that just don't want to pay for health insurance, to buy into Medicaid. Everyone gets their healthcare, and we get an offset on some of the costs of Medicaid. If a mandate is appropriate for healthcare, the mandate should be cash, loan, Medicare, VA, insurance, or Medicaid... no more unpaid medical bills.

 

There is no problem with our healthcare. We have a huge problem with people that don't want to pay for their own lives. There are too many people that want other people to take responsibility for them. I know a few socialists very well, and they are beyond hope. I will fight them, protect the USA, and our Constitution, until my last cell dies. Why I am discussing this with a Belgian Socialist is something terribly wrong with myself. Geez... I got some work to do.

 

 

Everyone should be given the option to buy into Medicaid.

 

 

Now that is a good idea.

 

 

 

The United States Federal Government is the motherlode of all rackets. It spends money like the water of Niagara Falls, and wastes money like a drain where the water lands. It doesn't care about you, your healthcare, your family, your business, or if you live another day. It only cares about snaking more money for who is in control currently, and getting ready for who is in control next. It's easy for the government to waste an endless stream of wealth, because it is not concerned about having any of it later... it will just suck more of it from the owners. The government can't even run a post office without creating another trillion of debt, and you want to turn our healthcare, and our very lives, over to an entity that has set the bar on irresponsible.

 

There's a lot of instances where the government did a good job as well, and almost every instance where the government gave up something to a private company to run it the costs went up. For example the private prison system is garbage that has severe implications besides just costing much more than when it was all government run. When student loans were no longer government ran everything went down hill and cost us billions not counting the students who owe{d) immense money. Perhaps the best way to do it is to have what you suggested, medicaid competing against the insurance companies, but as is the system needs to be more than just insurance companies or you are screwed

 

 

There does seem to be laws about this, it is tied into the ability of any person appearing before court to for instance ask/demand a different judge when possible personal bias or prejudice is inferred. Google says: US Judicial Code, Title 28, sections 144 and 455.

I forgot to comment on this. A "recusal" is when a judge or official takes themselves off a case because of bias or a conflict of interest, on their own volition. This code is when a judge is removed by force, because they refuse to recuse. Hey that rhymes... "I refuse to recuse!".

 

 

There's a lot of instances where the government did a good job as well, and almost every instance where the government gave up something to a private company to run it the costs went up. For example the private prison system is garbage that has severe implications besides just costing much more than when it was all government run. When student loans were no longer government ran everything went down hill and cost us billions not counting the students who owe{d) immense money. Perhaps the best way to do it is to have what you suggested, medicaid competing against the insurance companies, but as is the system needs to be more than just insurance companies or you are screwed

I don't know anything about private prison systems. It doesn't make much sense for the government to convict someone and then turn them over to civilians to incarcerate them. Free market business operates on customer service, customer satisfaction, quality control, and profit... hard to find a reason for a private prison to operate on satisfying the customers, so I get what you mean.

 

Student loans are something different. Education costs money, and if they want the education, someone has to pay for it. If they apply for the loans, they agree to the terms, they sign the documents, and they spend the money... they are bound by contract to pay it back. They know this going in. I have no sympathy for them... I have children myself that are still paying back their student loans.

 

Regarding healthcare... you seem to blame insurance companies for everything, and you believe that creating anything that will undercut and destroy them will make healthcare cheaper. It will not.

 

Take "Medicare for all" for instance. Medicare is for seniors, and doctors accept Medicare because it's only for the seniors. They will make less, and it will take them much longer to get paid, but they do it for the seniors. Most of what they make, and what keeps their offices running, comes from employer based medical insurance. Now suddenly, Medicare is available to all... employer based insurance cannot compete, and is destroyed. Do you believe they will just accept this? No they won't. They will no longer accept Medicare, and they will only accept private insurance, credit, or cash. People become doctors because they want to be rich, it's not about taking care of the sick... at all. If they can help people, that is what justifies their income.

 

 

Regarding healthcare... you seem to blame insurance companies for everything, and you believe that creating anything that will undercut and destroy them will make healthcare cheaper. It will not.

 

 

Well to be fair it isn't the insurance companies solely to blame. Its the companies that own the insurance companies, hospitals and suppliers that hike up the prices crazy like. There are more than a few states (might be all of them I haven't looked that deep) where you get up-charged all along the way. The aspirin cost $10 per tablet but its provided by a company that charges $5 per tablet (which they either bought or produced for less than $.02 each) and insurance is charged that $10 and your insurance will then charge you that $10 or a reduced amount depending on if you had hit your deductible meanwhile they are all owned by the same parent company so that company is making money off of the ridiculously overpriced aspirin a minimum of 2 times. 

 

Now according to free market principles someone is supposed to compete against them to lower the prices and raise the quality of service, instead what happened is the insurance companies got together and divided up the states and used predatory tactics such as saying that some places can only accept certain insurance companies. As is the healthcare system is broken because these corporations prevent healthy competition and the government has done nothing to regulate it. That is why a lot of people want a government ran healthcare system because the current one is for profit, and sadly the ones who are making that tremendous profit are not the doctors, nurses and other people who treat you. \

 

While doctors do make a lot you have to consider how many patients they see per day and how much they get off each one. I have insurance and a visit can cost me up to $50, and they last about 15 tops, an average work day is 8 hours. 32 patients in one day with each getting you a minimum $50 is $1,600. Being as the average visit is actually $200 if the doctor works only an average of 4 days a week and has that many patients (I have heard of horror stories where doctors had a lot more than that) that is 1.2mil rounded down. Average salary of a doctor is 190k, average salary of a nurse is 72k, and those are the two highest cost positions. Keep in mind most offices have multiple doctors working there to also bring down costs such as the building and so on making the overhead lower. So a long story short, the money is going somewhere and its not the doctors and nurses that are taking it.

 

There's a lot of instances where the government did a good job as well, and almost every instance where the government gave up something to a private company to run it the costs went up. For example the private prison system is garbage that has severe implications besides just costing much more than when it was all government run. When student loans were no longer government ran everything went down hill and cost us billions not counting the students who owe{d) immense money. Perhaps the best way to do it is to have what you suggested, medicaid competing against the insurance companies, but as is the system needs to be more than just insurance companies or you are screwed

I don't know anything about private prison systems. It doesn't make much sense for the government to convict someone and then turn them over to civilians to incarcerate them. Free market business operates on customer service, customer satisfaction, quality control, and profit... hard to find a reason for a private prison to operate on satisfying the customers, so I get what you mean.

 

Student loans are something different. Education costs money, and if they want the education, someone has to pay for it. If they apply for the loans, they agree to the terms, they sign the documents, and they spend the money... they are bound by contract to pay it back. They know this going in. I have no sympathy for them... I have children myself that are still paying back their student loans.

 

Regarding healthcare... you seem to blame insurance companies for everything, and you believe that creating anything that will undercut and destroy them will make healthcare cheaper. It will not.

 

Take "Medicare for all" for instance. Medicare is for seniors, and doctors accept Medicare because it's only for the seniors. They will make less, and it will take them much longer to get paid, but they do it for the seniors. Most of what they make, and what keeps their offices running, comes from employer based medical insurance. Now suddenly, Medicare is available to all... employer based insurance cannot compete, and is destroyed. Do you believe they will just accept this? No they won't. They will no longer accept Medicare, and they will only accept private insurance, credit, or cash. People become doctors because they want to be rich, it's not about taking care of the sick... at all. If they can help people, that is what justifies their income.

 

 

The amount doctors make from medicare and the amount they make from insurance patients are pretty comparable. Medicare in the USA. A lot of the difference in cost is because medicare will, at least some of the time, inform a clinic or hospital where and how they can go fuck themselves if they try to bill several hundred dollars for a saline IV for example. As well, much of the cost is either in the cost of medication or in the cost to use equipment, which isn't money that goes to the doctor. Across all OCED nations, doctor salaries are about the same. In the USA for they make a little more than the average, but it's offset ion part by the much much higher cost of malpractice insurance. Adjusting for cost of living and currency differences, the OCED range is between 100k USD a year and 150k USD a year. 

 

They also don't make any less under medicare/medicaid. Pharmaceutical companies and for profit hospitals make less, but that's because they if they try to charge a 400 bucks for a saline IV  medicare/medicaid tells them to go fuck themselves. The idea that healthcare providers would simply decline to take medicare is ridiculous, since medicare and medicaid already make up something like half of the healthcare spending in the USA  (turns out most of the cost of healthcare is spent on seniors, go figure). Physician and Clinical Services make up about a fifth of the USA health spending, and private health insurance pays for less than a third of that.  The idea that "Most of what they make, and what keeps their offices running, comes from employer based medical insurance." is manifestly incorrect. This is part of the scam of insurance companies in the USA; since they refuse to insure anyone that might maybe actually costs them money they don't actually pay for shit. 

 

With the USAs current healthcare system system, almost no one wins except the insurance companies and a handful of other corporations and they win in the same sense a parasite "wins". No matter how you cut it, the USA spends twice as much per capita as any other western country, outcomes are worse  (For example the worst maternal mortality rate in the developed world), and physicians don't really make more than anywhere else. Universal healthcare plans are not some new experimental idea, they've been in place for nearly a century in much of the west, and every single one of those nations has comparable *or better* healthcare than the USA, at literally half the cost. Infact at this point the sheer number of different countries with a universal healthcare system demonstrate that *what* model of UHC you adopt doesn't seem to matter, whether it's the government provided insurance you see in Canada, the nationalized health service in the UK, or something like the multi payer statutory health insurance in Germany. they *all* get it done and they get it done at half the cost. 

All that and you guys didn't even mention the cost of malpractice insurance. I'm glad I'm not a doctor.

All that and you guys didn't even mention the cost of malpractice insurance. I'm glad I'm not a doctor.

 

 

Which is of course vastly higher in the USA than in most of the rest of the world. By about an order of magnitude. A doctor in europe might pay 10k USD a year for insurance. The same doctor in the USA could pay 10k *a month*. 

 

Sessions is clearly implicated in that mess (talking to ambassador of Russia numerous times)

What mess? Jeff Sessions was a U.S. Senator from Alabama... a big part of his job was to talk with all Ambassadors from all countries. He did appear on a stage with Trump wearing a MAGA hat once, and supported Donald Trump for President. This I guess makes him guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, according to anti-capitalists.

 

.

He was vice-chair on the transition team for Trump, under which guise he had such restrictions on him. Let alone he "forgot" he talked numerous times AND either him or Carter Page are found to be lying about Sessions knowing Page talked to russians aswell.

 

Unsure why Sessions involvement in Trumps campaign and following transition are being minimized, perhaps he did understand the minimal fuck-up he had happen to himself with those talks. Fuck-ups happen, lying and trying to keep it downplayed don't really help.

.

 

 

You make it sound like a Medicaid expansion was/is a good method of insuring proper health of your society.

No, it's not. It's 3rd rate medical care for the poor... much like first rate medical care in socialist countries. Half the battle is to find a doctor that will accept it. Pretty much everyone on welfare is on Medicaid, and it's a money drain on taxpayers. Now get all these uninsurable people, and all those people that just don't want to pay for health insurance, to buy into Medicaid. Everyone gets their healthcare, and we get an offset on some of the costs of Medicaid. If a mandate is appropriate for healthcare, the mandate should be cash, loan, Medicare, VA, insurance, or Medicaid... no more unpaid medical bills.

 

There is no problem with our healthcare. We have a huge problem with people that don't want to pay for their own lives. There are too many people that want other people to take responsibility for them. I know a few socialists very well, and they are beyond hope. I will fight them, protect the USA, and our Constitution, until my last cell dies. Why I am discussing this with a Belgian Socialist is something terribly wrong with myself. Geez... I got some work to do.

 

 .

Calling me a socialist won't help in your faulty argument and unscrupulous attack on people you deem "unworthy" by mere lack of piles of $$. America's medical prowess is top of the world, its health system is shambles.

 

Darkfox and RH are more knowledgable on the overall healthcare systems both in USA or Canada, so read up their discussion aswell.

.

 

There does seem to be laws about this, it is tied into the ability of any person appearing before court to for instance ask/demand a different judge when possible personal bias or prejudice is inferred. Google says: US Judicial Code, Title 28, sections 144 and 455.

I forgot to comment on this. A "recusal" is when a judge or official takes themselves off a case because of bias or a conflict of interest, on their own volition. This code is when a judge is removed by force, because they refuse to recuse. Hey that rhymes... "I refuse to recuse!".

 

 .

Section 455 specifically speaks about the judge or others to get THEMSELFES out of the process when they consider there inmpartialilty to be questionable. Section 144 is the act in which anyone else to "force" such recusal.

.

 

All that and you guys didn't even mention the cost of malpractice insurance. I'm glad I'm not a doctor.

 

Well you did agree that americans like to sue

I did some digging into this ACA ruling and I now believe it will be overturned on appeal. The individual mandate tax is not severable from the law, so it was not "repealed"... the tax was merely set to zero, and can, at any time, be raised back to life. Congress has the power to tax, and Congress also has the power to not tax. So really, nothing about the ACA is much different from the last time it landed at the Supreme Court, and all 5 justices that allowed it to stand, are still there to allow it to stand once again. So I really don't think it will get that far, and I got my hopes up once again, for nothing. Congrats again to Democrats.

Here is a related development... Congrats to Republicans, and the newly appointed Senator from Arizona, Martha McSally.

 

Representative McSally was the very first woman combat pilot, and lost to Progressive Kyrsten Sinema in the recent election. She will take over the seat held by RINO John McCain for the next 2 years. RINO Jeff Flake is leaving after refusing to run for reelection, which he would have lost in the primary anyway. So we cashed in 2 fake Republicans for 1 real one.

 

Ironic that McSally will be the Senior Senator, and will be Arizona's first woman Senator, because she will be sworn in immediately. This is related because John McCain was the killing vote to the repeal of the ACA, and he's the reason it's still alive. Well, that's the end of him.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rep-martha-mcsally-appointed-to-open-arizona-senate-seat

All that and you guys didn't even mention the cost of malpractice insurance. I'm glad I'm not a doctor.

 

Highest average I can find is 40k a year for an anesthesiologists. The one higher is brain surgeon but that isn't a common enough field that it should be included.

 

Edit: Apparently OB/GYN actually have a lot higher paying between 85k to 200k per year

 

2nd Edit: looks like the first site I went to was wrong and I double confirmed it on 2 other sites both saying that depending on practice it is 100k-200k per year. So um whoops I was wrong