Taxes going up for this?

[SKYDOG]

Just can’t believe the crap going on anymore.

AMA paper plots move on taxpayer-funded uterus transplants for biological men - Washington Examiner

The American Medical Association floated a trial balloon for uterus transplants for biological men who identify as transgender, pushing the next phase of "Frankenstein tech" for cross-sex procedures. An ethical analysis of uterus transplants for males published in the AMA's Journal of Ethics in...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

 

[Boiler Buck]

Just can’t believe the crap going on anymore.

AMA paper plots move on taxpayer-funded uterus transplants for biological men - Washington Examiner

The American Medical Association floated a trial balloon for uterus transplants for biological men who identify as transgender, pushing the next phase of "Frankenstein tech" for cross-sex procedures. An ethical analysis of uterus transplants for males published in the AMA's Journal of Ethics in...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Not only taxes but our medical plan costs go up for woke insurance companies that include this crazy stuff in their overall umbrella for their insured population. Crazy times.

This is an example of tyranny of the minority Ramaswamy talks about.

 

[TeddyValentineDidNothingWrong]

Not only taxes but our medical plan costs go up for woke insurance companies that include this crazy stuff in their overall umbrella for their insured population. Crazy times.

This is an example of tyranny of the minority Ramaswamy talks about.

Medicare for All would fix this, just fyi

 

[Boilermaker03]

Medicare for All would fix this, just fyi

No it wouldn't. It would make everything cost 10 times more. OR we'd get a drastic drop off in quality care because the good doctors would retire.

 

[Boiler Buck]

Medicare for All would fix this, just fyi

Sounds expensive.....from an inefficient, wasteful Govt that does nothing well & already taxes it's populous too much.

 

[herrli]

Medicare for All would fix this, just fyi

Just an FYI for all of us, which drive thru window do you man at midnight?

 

[TheGunner]

Medicare for All would fix this, just fyi

Please tell us how.

Government pays for the everyone to become doctors so they can come up with “new jobs”? Is this part of Joezo’s job creation plan?

What’s another $2T amongst friends.

 

[bonefish1]

Just can’t believe the crap going on anymore.

AMA paper plots move on taxpayer-funded uterus transplants for biological men - Washington Examiner

The American Medical Association floated a trial balloon for uterus transplants for biological men who identify as transgender, pushing the next phase of "Frankenstein tech" for cross-sex procedures. An ethical analysis of uterus transplants for males published in the AMA's Journal of Ethics in...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Example #439 that proves liberalism is a mental health disorder.

 

[TeddyValentineDidNothingWrong]

No it wouldn't. It would make everything cost 10 times more. OR we'd get a drastic drop off in quality care because the good doctors would retire.

Neither of those is true.

Please tell us how.

Government pays for the everyone to become doctors so they can come up with “new jobs”? Is this part of Joezo’s job creation plan?

What’s another $2T amongst friends.

You can just say you don't know what MFA is, you don't have to illustrate it.

Sounds expensive.....from an inefficient, wasteful Govt that does nothing well & already taxes it's populous too much.

Medicare for All would be much more efficient than our current private healthcare system, and save us $450 billion every year.

 

[Boiler Buck]

Medicare for All would be much more efficient than our current private healthcare system, and save us $450 billion every year.

There is absolutely NOTHING the Govt does that is either efficient, well run or even a great use of tax dollars save perhaps roads.....and even that is questionable.

Where do you possibly come up with such nonsense that the Government is ever going to save you money?? LOL

What you are talking about is way worse health care than I have now for more money.

 

[TeddyValentineDidNothingWrong]

There is absolutely NOTHING the Govt does that is either efficient, well run or even a great use of tax dollars save perhaps roads.....and even that is questionable.

Where do you possibly come up with such nonsense that the Government is ever going to save you money?? LOL

What you are talking about is way worse health care than I have now for more money.

Just say you don't know what MFA is. It would take you less time to type.

 

[bonefish1]

Neither of those is true.


You can just say you don't know what MFA is, you don't have to illustrate it.


Medicare for All would be much more efficient than our current private healthcare system, and save us $450 billion every year.

Just so I'm clear, are you in favor of men getting transplanted uteruses

 

[Boiler Buck]

Just say you don't know what MFA is. It would take you less time to type.

Just say you're a moocher with your hand out. The Dem party owns you.

 

[TeddyValentineDidNothingWrong]

Just say you're a moocher with your hand out. The Dem party owns you.

I pay more in taxes than you, bro.

 

[Boiler Buck]

I pay more in taxes than you, bro.

Good to know. Lol.
Govt job then?
Just wondering how it is they own you?

 

[Boilermaker03]

Neither of those is true.

Actually, I know for a fact that Dr's would retire and leave the profession. I have many Dr friends. My dad also used to have a lot of medical problems before he passed and needed very specialized Dr's. Almost all of them have said that if medicine went social they'd quit. Sure, there'd be some that wouldn't, but for the most part, the quality of Dr's would go drastically down.

 

[TeddyValentineDidNothingWrong]

Good to know. Lol.
Govt job then?
Just wondering how it is they own you?

Way off. Nice try though!

Actually, I know for a fact that Dr's would retire and leave the profession. I have many Dr friends. My dad also used to have a lot of medical problems before he passed and needed very specialized Dr's. Almost all of them have said that if medicine went social they'd quit. Sure, there'd be some that wouldn't, but for the most part, the quality of Dr's would go drastically down.

Your dad and friends don't understand M4A then. Sorry to hear that.

 

[Boiler Buck]

Way off. Nice try though!

That's ok. I like mysteries. Just wondering how you became a Dem slave, since they own you?

 

[TeddyValentineDidNothingWrong]

That's ok. I like mysteries. Just wondering how you became a Dem slave, since they own you?

You can keep posting and being wrong if that's your thing. I won't judge.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Way off. Nice try though!


Your dad and friends don't understand M4A then. Sorry to hear that.

So you're saying the Doctors don't understand. Good lord. I'm sure you understand better than they do. FFS, that's hilarious!

 

[TeddyValentineDidNothingWrong]

So you're saying the Doctors don't understand. Good lord. I'm sure you understand better than they do. FFS, that's hilarious!

If that's what they think of M4A, they in fact do not understand it. Happy to help!

 

[Boilermaker03]

If that's what they think of M4A, they in fact do not understand it. Happy to help!

Sure man, sure.

 

[TheGunner]

Neither of those is true.


You can just say you don't know what MFA is, you don't have to illustrate it.


Medicare for All would be much more efficient than our current private healthcare system, and save us $450 billion every year.

My comment about Joezo paying for Drs, was related the expected increase in medical usage…thus the need for more doctors. We can barely find enough qualified today and that’s not expected to improve in the coming years with the Democrat-led lower educational standards.

On the flip side, here are some potential issues associated with Medicare for All:

• Savings might not be as advertised: Some analysts are concerned that the government may not be able to use its bargaining power to drive down costs as steeply and as quickly as Sanders predicts. Thorpe argues that Sanders is overly optimistic on this aspect of the bill.
• Increase in medical usage: Other analysts are concerned that insulating people from costs of care will drive up the usage of medical care. Drew Altman, who heads the Kaiser Family Foundation, pointed out that “no other developed nation has zero out-of-pocket costs.”
• Less careful population: People may not be as careful with their health if they do not have a financial incentive to do so.
• Less incentive for doctors: Governments have to limit healthcare spending to keep costs down. Doctors might have less incentive to provide quality care if they aren’t well paid. They may spend less time per patient in order to keep costs down. They also have less funding for new life-saving technologies.
• Longer wait times: Since the government focuses on providing basic and emergency healthcare, most universal healthcare systems report long wait times for elective procedures. The government may also limit services with a low probability of success and may not cover drugs for rare conditions.

 

[Boiler Buck]

My comment about Joezo paying for Drs, was related the expected increase in medical usage…thus the need for more doctors. We can barely find enough qualified today and that’s not expected to improve in the coming years with the Democrat-led lower educational standards.

On the flip side, here are some potential issues associated with Medicare for All:

• Savings might not be as advertised: Some analysts are concerned that the government may not be able to use its bargaining power to drive down costs as steeply and as quickly as Sanders predicts. Thorpe argues that Sanders is overly optimistic on this aspect of the bill.
• Increase in medical usage: Other analysts are concerned that insulating people from costs of care will drive up the usage of medical care. Drew Altman, who heads the Kaiser Family Foundation, pointed out that “no other developed nation has zero out-of-pocket costs.”
• Less careful population: People may not be as careful with their health if they do not have a financial incentive to do so.
• Less incentive for doctors: Governments have to limit healthcare spending to keep costs down. Doctors might have less incentive to provide quality care if they aren’t well paid. They may spend less time per patient in order to keep costs down. They also have less funding for new life-saving technologies.
• Longer wait times: Since the government focuses on providing basic and emergency healthcare, most universal healthcare systems report long wait times for elective procedures. The government may also limit services with a low probability of success and may not cover drugs for rare conditions.

Exactly. M4A (or MFA as he first referenced it, lol). has several serious problems the lib articles about it do not tell these extremely gullible libs like Teddy.

 

[tjreese]

My comment about Joezo paying for Drs, was related the expected increase in medical usage…thus the need for more doctors. We can barely find enough qualified today and that’s not expected to improve in the coming years with the Democrat-led lower educational standards.

On the flip side, here are some potential issues associated with Medicare for All:

• Savings might not be as advertised: Some analysts are concerned that the government may not be able to use its bargaining power to drive down costs as steeply and as quickly as Sanders predicts. Thorpe argues that Sanders is overly optimistic on this aspect of the bill.
• Increase in medical usage: Other analysts are concerned that insulating people from costs of care will drive up the usage of medical care. Drew Altman, who heads the Kaiser Family Foundation, pointed out that “no other developed nation has zero out-of-pocket costs.”
• Less careful population: People may not be as careful with their health if they do not have a financial incentive to do so.
• Less incentive for doctors: Governments have to limit healthcare spending to keep costs down. Doctors might have less incentive to provide quality care if they aren’t well paid. They may spend less time per patient in order to keep costs down. They also have less funding for new life-saving technologies.
• Longer wait times: Since the government focuses on providing basic and emergency healthcare, most universal healthcare systems report long wait times for elective procedures. The government may also limit services with a low probability of success and may not cover drugs for rare conditions.

But Biden's approach is bringing help on the way..

State University Ensures Your Cancer Doctor Will Be Trained by Whoever Is Wokest

redstate.com

 

[TheGunner]

But Biden's approach is bringing help on the way..

State University Ensures Your Cancer Doctor Will Be Trained by Whoever Is Wokest

redstate.com

Coming to a hospital near you.

Standards, shmandards.

 

[Boilermaker03]

My comment about Joezo paying for Drs, was related the expected increase in medical usage…thus the need for more doctors. We can barely find enough qualified today and that’s not expected to improve in the coming years with the Democrat-led lower educational standards.

On the flip side, here are some potential issues associated with Medicare for All:

• Savings might not be as advertised: Some analysts are concerned that the government may not be able to use its bargaining power to drive down costs as steeply and as quickly as Sanders predicts. Thorpe argues that Sanders is overly optimistic on this aspect of the bill.
• Increase in medical usage: Other analysts are concerned that insulating people from costs of care will drive up the usage of medical care. Drew Altman, who heads the Kaiser Family Foundation, pointed out that “no other developed nation has zero out-of-pocket costs.”
• Less careful population: People may not be as careful with their health if they do not have a financial incentive to do so.
• Less incentive for doctors: Governments have to limit healthcare spending to keep costs down. Doctors might have less incentive to provide quality care if they aren’t well paid. They may spend less time per patient in order to keep costs down. They also have less funding for new life-saving technologies.
• Longer wait times: Since the government focuses on providing basic and emergency healthcare, most universal healthcare systems report long wait times for elective procedures. The government may also limit services with a low probability of success and may not cover drugs for rare conditions.

And this is exactly why the experts in their fields will retire. We will be left with general practitioners mostly, thus reducing our quality of care.

 

[Boiler Buck]

And this is exactly why the experts in their fields will retire. We will be left with general practitioners mostly, thus reducing our quality of care.

True. M4A works possibly ok for general practice? Specialities will be a slower deliverable with longer wait times. The quality of care will be lower & maybe not there when you need something right now. A step down with M4A imo.

 

[tjreese]

Coming to a hospital near you.

Standards, shmandards.

It is the same standards for many we see today

 

[TeddyValentineDidNothingWrong]

On the flip side, here are some potential issues associated with Medicare for All:

• Savings might not be as advertised: Some analysts are concerned that the government may not be able to use its bargaining power to drive down costs as steeply and as quickly as Sanders predicts. Thorpe argues that Sanders is overly optimistic on this aspect of the bill.

Sure man, that's why pharma companies constantly lobby against bills that aim to do just that, because government may not be able to bargain. That's

• Increase in medical usage: Other analysts are concerned that insulating people from costs of care will drive up the usage of medical care. Drew Altman, who heads the Kaiser Family Foundation, pointed out that “no other developed nation has zero out-of-pocket costs.”

Wow, the guy who works for the giant healthcare corporation's PR arm thinks that the thing that would end his slimy career is bad? I see no issues with this.

• Less careful population: People may not be as careful with their health if they do not have a financial incentive to do so.

This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Is there no incentive to be healthy, like I don't know, staying alive? And beyond that, there's plenty of financial incentive now to be careful with your health in America, and that market force has done absolutely nothing in terms of the overall health of our country.

• Less incentive for doctors: Governments have to limit healthcare spending to keep costs down. Doctors might have less incentive to provide quality care if they aren’t well paid. They may spend less time per patient in order to keep costs down. They also have less funding for new life-saving technologies.

Doctor's wouldn't be seeing less financial incentives. That would be the pharma bureaucrats, lobbyists, bloated insurance company administrations, the thousands of sales reps who bilk money from the system, etc.

• Longer wait times: Since the government focuses on providing basic and emergency healthcare, most universal healthcare systems report long wait times for elective procedures. The government may also limit services with a low probability of success and may not cover drugs for rare conditions.

The US's private system already has longer wait times than many countries with universal coverage.

Good try though, copy and pasting the first article that came up when you googled "medicare for all bad"