Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
My wife and I are dealing/have dealt with four sick parents in the last few years and Medicare is so much better than I understood prior to that. We have to be over $1MM in treatment at market prices and their out of pocket expenses have been almost zero. (All involved have supplemental, but Medicare has done almost all of the heavy lifting -- it's incredible.)
It’s just so disingenuous. Every family member I have who is on Medicare regards it as the best insurance he or she has ever had. That includes lawyers, teachers, and insurance executives.
In America we can do anything we put our minds to!
The Dutch have one of the best healthcare systems in the world and 100% private insurance. It’s not exactly a “free market” system—they achieve such high coverage rates through strict price controls and an individual mandate—but it’s definitely an example of what a more conservative version of universal healthcare could look like: www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2020/1/17/21046874/netherlands-universal-health-insurance-private
Including this one. As pointed out, Medicare beneficiaries report very high levels of satisfaction. Google Medicare CAHPS, the annual survey assessing Medicare satisfaction among beneficiaries.
I think part of the discussion is semantics. When people hear, "government run healthcare" the fear is that their doctor doing the bypass surgery is going to be a federal employee, which, honestly, no one wants. I think it would be less confusing if the discussion were focused on "insurance" not "health care." The debate isn't about the delivery of health care services, its about how we pay for it. The two are intertwined to a large degree, but I think it would help understanding if the focus was on the "insurance" part rather than the "healthcare" part.
I have no idea, but I thought I'd read somewhere that the first voting takes place even before the next debate.
I think NV allows you to mail in a ballot with 5 columns so you can realign. You are required to punch the first 3 columns or the ballot is thrown out.
Changed which part? I have no previous knowledge of the NV caucus, just some candidates i follow on my Twitter feed have posted that people need to make sure to punch the second and third column or their ballot is thrown out even if it wouldn't have needed a realignment.
That’s correct, and if everything goes smoothly it should be the same this year. The caucuses start at 12 pm Pacific time.
Def his first major test since he jumped in. Was bound to get the knives, all part of the game. We’ll see what he can do now. Some pretty gross stuff getting thrown at him.
I believe Bloomberg can still qualify if he gets one more national poll over 10%. Having a delegate is one way to get into the debate but not the only way.
You have to spin a giant wheel. Sure the odds are terrible but if you hit :boatloads:
Interesting. But I'll be surprised if Bernie doesn't win. Found this one interesting yesterday:So...We have a new Nevada poll.
Sample size is tiny (256) and the pollster doesn't even have a grade on 538, but since reputable pollsters seem totally uninterested in Nevada, this is all we have:
Steyer 19%
Klobuchar 16%
Biden 14%
Sanders 13%
Buttigieg 13%
Warren 7%
The age breakdown is wild - 76.5% of respondents were over the age of 50. I can't see if the results were re-weighted by age because the pollster's website has crashed. This primary is amazing.
Did a double take looking at 538 (I'm stalking the poll sites hoping Bloomberg qualifies)
Can you help me out here? What does Bloomberg need to qualify? I thought it was one delegate.
1+ delegates OR 4 polls @ 10%+. He has three, but no polls have been released for a few days and the deadline is tomorrow night.tonydead said:
Hmmmmm.... I'm thinking it may be ok since NPR isn't listed paired, but not sure.
Seems kind of hypocritical for the party that worships at the altar of diversity.
Considering how well he’s done for weeks with basically saying nothing he may want to consider just skipping the debate.
If you're going to talk about hypocrisy within the party as it pertains to diversity, it's probably wise to look at the entire party and not pick one specific position in the party to generalize the rest
(not sarcasm. only way this works)