"A recent Urban Institute study suggests that a single-payer health care system could cost $32 trillion over the next ten years. McCaskill admitted that she would remain open to a single-payer health care system if Democrats were able to keep costs down through comparison shopping. …In late July McCaskill voted “present” on a vote that would establish a “Medicare for All” health care bill similar to the one proposed by Bernie Sanders. Recently the Washington Post admitted that single-payer health care would be “astonishingly” expensive. The Urban Institute estimated that the proposed socialized medicine scheme would cost $32 trillion over ten years." –Source
First and foremost, how many students of prophecy saw this coming? I can imagine a sea of hands raised high up on that one. As I have been proving for years on my Vatican Socialist Agenda page, a cashless as well as socialistic format in America is a must if they are ever to be able to enforce the mark. And her Bernie Sanders (a card carrying Socialist) inspired single-pay healthcare system is nothing new. Well, ok, it is new for America, but it's nothing new in the world. Take Canada for example where they have a socialist healthcare system. Ask anyone in that country what the average time is to see a doctor and you will be shocked. But that's not the issue here. McCaskill, like Sanders, are tooting the old worn out horn that Socialism doesn't necessarily have to be the stepping stone to Communism. But as every Communist nation has seen come to fruition in their past, we are now seeing with our own eyes since September 11th; whenever you give up a few freedoms here and there to the Government, they usually go for more and never stop there. After all, once in power any politician will admit gaining more power is always a staggering temptation.
Case in point, big government thrives on cultivating power over the people. And they always lie through their teeth to get there. Take a look at the picture on the bottom of this post. That's the bottom section of the front of my Social Security card from back when I was 12 years old. Notice how it says "NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION" on that card? That was back in the 1960's. But today, that exact same Social Security number is REQUIRED in order to get a bank account, a credit card, a loan, a diploma, an apartment to live in or even a job just to name a few! Once the people go along with the powers that be and their power crazed agendas, (as we saw with the 501c3 as well) after a few decades of making sure everyone's in the same boat, they always drop the anchor and you're not going anywhere without their permission!
So when McCaskil or Sanders say a single payer Socialist form of healthcare won't lead to more control over the American people, I wouldn't believe them anymore than I did Obama when he said Obamacare would allow you to keep your old doctors and the prices would not go up. No wonder they call it Obamacare, calling it by its real name, "the Affordable Care Act" sounds ludicrous.
Now for my two cents:
When it comes to lowering healthcare costs, all you have to do is get patients to sign off on suing the doctor’s they trust. When they do that the only way the doctor can be sued will be if he was drunk or some other extenuating circumstance occurred that was way out of character causing a death or crippling event for their patient. Basic reality is, many people trust the family doctor and would never have a problem signing off knowing that if something went wrong it would not be the doctor's fault as they trust he or she did their best to prevent it. This would then allow the doctor’s malpractice insurance premiums to plummet, which would then cause all healthcare prices to drop as well. Basic reality is, all hospitals charge massive prices for their services to offset gargantuan insurance premiums. But I don’t think they could calculate a risk factor per patient to make it cost effective day one. And so they would have to stipulate the insurance premium discount is only available after a majority (51%) of the doctor’s patients signed off on it. The only problem I can see that could surface is that a new doctor would take time to get to the 51% in any major hospital and so he or she may not be able to take on new patients on their own until after a high enough percentile was secured to make it feasible for them to take on the new patient who may not sign off. Again.. just my two cents.
Additional Articles Confirming we are in the Last Days:
Hungarian PM: 'Soros empire' plans to de-Christianize Europe * Now Western media face wrath of Islamic blasphemy laws * U.S. Town bans residents from criticizing Mosque * Notorious Italian Abortionist Invited to Give Talk on Immigration at Catholic Parish * Venezuela Teeters on Edge of Famine and Civil War Following Sham Election * Prof begs someone to 'just shoot' Trump * Saving face: Facebook wants access without limits * Fashion world now pushing Witchcraft * Go ahead: Spy on your Neighbors * America now 'literally at economic war' with 3 nations * Many Americans are too drugged-out to work * VIDEO: Officials: HIV positive former Md. coach indicted on 119 counts; 24 victims reported * Australia Weather Bureau Caught Tampering With Climate Numbers * McCaskill: There Are ‘Lots of Problems With Obamacare’ – Single-Party Health Legislation ‘Becomes a Gotcha Exercise’ * Government critics now 'taken from homes' in Venezuela * VIDEO: Insurers seeking huge premium hikes on ObamaCare plans * VIDEO: New Plastic Garbage Patch Found In The South Pacific Could Be ‘1.5 Times Larger Than Texas’ * FYI: VIDEO: No call or text is worth your life * Arizona Places 2 Year Old Child in Foster Pornographic Pedophile Ring – Foster Mom Burns 80% of Her Body * VIDEO: Group of Bikers Escort Bullied Sixth Grader to First Day of School * Two dead in natural gas explosion at US school * VIDEO: GRAPHIC: Gang of Teens Beat Man after Asking to Not Smoke Pot on Train * Report: Al Gore’s Home Burns 34 Times More Electricity Than Average U.S. Household * Half of Detroit’s 8 mayoral candidates are felons