Republicans for a single-payers healthcare system (employment, salaries, enemy, health care system)

[wnewberry22]

**sorry about the type error in the subject.

I used to be onboard for a way to reform our system to a more market centered approach, but the proposals I keep hearing won't address the primary issues. We need a long term answer to health reform and I believe that a single-payer (medicare type) system is the way to address this. I believe that the GOP needs to get on board with this. Conservatives in Canada and Europe acknowledge this system has broard positive results and the GOP needs to do the same.

The Australian system seems to be one of the most effective. Listed below is some information from their system.
Life Expectancy: 81.4
Infant Mortality: 4.2
Physicians per 1000 people: 2.8
Per capita expenditure per person: 3353
Healthcare cost as a % of GDP: 8.5
% of government revenue spent on healthcare: 17.7

And now...the same categoties for the United States:
Life Expectancy: 78.1
Infant Mortality: 6.8
Physicians per 1000 people: 2.4
Per capita expenditure per person: 7437
Healthcare cost as a % of GDP: 16
% of government revenue spent on healthcare: 18.5

As you can see...the numbers are certainly skewed in the Aussies favor. At this time I see no viable way that is being advocated by the GOP to resolve this issue. All the answers still result in a convoluted public/private amalgamation that has proven itself to be remarkably inefficient.

Are there other moderates, or center right folk that support a single payer system or am I the only one?

[pch1013]

Originally Posted by wnewberry22

Are there other moderates, or center right folk that support a single payer system or am I the only one?

I think you've just answered your own question... unfortunately.

Anything that might enable someone "undeserving" to obtain any sort of benefit is automatically branded as "socialism" by today's right wing, and is thus a complete non-starter. Just look at how fiercely they fought against the ACA, which is just a nationwide, scaled-up version of a healthcare plan once advocated by the Heritage Foundation and actually implemented in Mitt Romney's Massachusetts.

No, the free-market fundamentalists insist, and will always insist, that the only politically correct way to run health care is to remove government from the picture entirely. No regulation, no mandates, no Medicare, no Medicaid. Make enough money to pay for your own family's care, or die. It's the American way.

[wnewberry22]

The ACA is crap law, IMO. It doesn't manage the real problem which is the distance between the group paying for healthcare(employer) and the recipient (you/me)...it just forces more people into the problem which I think will exacerbate it. We have no regard for the cost of the treatment and this relationship has distorted the economics of healthcare because there really is not "market." The most efficient way I see to cut costs at this point is to nationalize the entire thing because altering the entire tax structure to remove the employer incentive in lieu of tax credits won't remedy the issue of uninsured peoples seeking treatment or the sheer number of uninsured people in general...especially when we could do it more efficiently by spreadings costs and having a central negotiating body to deal with device and pharma companies.

[artisan4]

Originally Posted by wnewberry22

**sorry about the type error in the subject.

I used to be onboard for a way to reform our system to a more market centered approach, but the proposals I keep hearing won't address the primary issues. We need a long term answer to health reform and I believe that a single-payer (medicare type) system is the way to address this. I believe that the GOP needs to get on board with this. Conservatives in Canada and Europe acknowledge this system has broard positive results and the GOP needs to do the same.

The Australian system seems to be one of the most effective. Listed below is some information from their system.
Life Expectancy: 81.4
Infant Mortality: 4.2
Physicians per 1000 people: 2.8
Per capita expenditure per person: 3353
Healthcare cost as a % of GDP: 8.5
% of government revenue spent on healthcare: 17.7

And now...the same categoties for the United States:
Life Expectancy: 78.1
Infant Mortality: 6.8
Physicians per 1000 people: 2.4
Per capita expenditure per person: 7437
Healthcare cost as a % of GDP: 16
% of government revenue spent on healthcare: 18.5

As you can see...the numbers are certainly skewed in the Aussies favor. At this time I see no viable way that is being advocated by the GOP to resolve this issue. All the answers still result in a convoluted public/private amalgamation that has proven itself to be remarkably inefficient.

Are there other moderates, or center right folk that support a single payer system or am I the only one?

When we have full control of the House, we won't need Republicon support (which doesn't exist anyway) to prevent further financial rape of the working and middle classes by our greed-based health care system and we will get single-payer.

[workingclasshero]

Originally Posted by wnewberry22

**sorry about the type error in the subject.

I used to be onboard for a way to reform our system to a more market centered approach, but the proposals I keep hearing won't address the primary issues. We need a long term answer to health reform and I believe that a single-payer (medicare type) system is the way to address this. I believe that the GOP needs to get on board with this. Conservatives in Canada and Europe acknowledge this system has broard positive results and the GOP needs to do the same.

The Australian system seems to be one of the most effective. Listed below is some information from their system.
Life Expectancy: 81.4
Infant Mortality: 4.2
Physicians per 1000 people: 2.8
Per capita expenditure per person: 3353
Healthcare cost as a % of GDP: 8.5
% of government revenue spent on healthcare: 17.7

And now...the same categoties for the United States:
Life Expectancy: 78.1
Infant Mortality: 6.8
Physicians per 1000 people: 2.4
Per capita expenditure per person: 7437
Healthcare cost as a % of GDP: 16
% of government revenue spent on healthcare: 18.5

As you can see...the numbers are certainly skewed in the Aussies favor. At this time I see no viable way that is being advocated by the GOP to resolve this issue. All the answers still result in a convoluted public/private amalgamation that has proven itself to be remarkably inefficient.

Are there other moderates, or center right folk that support a single payer system or am I the only one?

1. life expectancy:
yours and the who's lifespan (life expectancy) has been debunked a dozen times

life expectance is more about genetics and life style, than health care

we have a longer life expectancy than them as a whole

the number one place for life expectancy of asian women....USA


not to mention that life expectancy is more about genetics and LIFE STYLES (ie hamhocks, fried twinkies, and fried chicken, mcdonalds, fatbacks certainly dont help)

most other places..they walk/bike
most other places dont have 4 tv's to a house


posting about life expectancy..means actually very little to medicine

difference between us and the highest is....3.3 years ...is that realivily low (79yrs-82yrs)

and the reason...

is not health care


its....


LIFE STYLE (especially EATING, and EXERCISE), and democraphics (ethnics)
demographics, to include eating habits, GENES, TEEN PREGNANCIES, traffic, cancer, etc..ALL effect those numbers


yes I said traffic accidents....you think that the 2x amount of traffic accidents (of the world) is NOT going to lower the top level???



btw

asians have the HIGHEST life span...and FEMALE ASIAN AMERICANS have the highest life expectancy IN THE WORLD

its demographics


if you compared country "A" to country "B"...and said "A" has an average age of 38..and "B" has an average age of 51...which country do you think would be more PRODUCTIVE and HEALTHY

its the demographics


its like the life expectancy list

the USa has an AVERAGE life expectacny of 78.9 (number 30 something on the list)

but if you break it down further

in the USA, the asian american female has a life expectancy of 86(the HIGHEST in the WORLD)(((higher than the 82 in the actual country of japan)))
..whites are around 83...hispanics around 76...and blacks have a LOW LIFE expectacy around 66m/68f....giving us the AVERAGE of 78.9.....if you took the (12-15% population) of blacks of that list..we would have one of the top three life expectancies in the world....

demographic plays BIG ROLES

funny japan is higher than any of the european countries...in life expectancy..and the 3rd lowest in infant mortality....connected...hmmmmm....certainly genetic


we also have the HIGHEST teen pregnancy ...which leads to low baby weight, and high infant mortality.....and the hightest DEMOGRAPHIC with teen pregancies...the african americans (especially southern AA)

2. COST:

we (the taxpayer) cant afford it

look at the cost of the LOWPAYING medicare/medicaid.....900 billion just to PARTIALLY cover less than 70 million people ......900 billion to cover 1/5 of the population

singlepayer would cost between 3 trillion and 6 trillion EVERY YEAR (we already spend 1 trillion so the NEW added cost would be 2-5 trillion)

we have 140 million tax FILERS, (of which nealy 50% dont pay anything)

3 trillion divided by 140 million is what.......$20,000
6 trillion divided by 150 million is what......$40,000

thats between 20k to 40k PER TAXPAYER.....CAN YOU AFFORD THAT.... ?????

even if we we SOMEHOW able to get the costs down to lets say 5k per capita...thats still over 1.5 trillion a year...and the only way to keep costs down is the standard medicare/medicaid DENIALS (ie DENY CARE because of cost)

and let's not forget: Obesity rates among OECD nations increased in recent years, with the highest rate in the U.S. at 34.3% -- which means one in 3 Americans is by definition obese.

number of americans getting cancer (new cases) per year 1.8 million for a total of 19 million people being treated (fighting) each year...each year at least 570,000 die from cancer

number of americans with heart desease: 26.2 million and of those
((Number of visits with heart disease as primary diagnosis: 16 million ))
((Number of discharges with heart disease as first-listed diagnosis: 4.2 million))
number of americans in nursing homes: 2 million
More than 25 million Americans have significant vision loss.
(((hmmm more than 25 million americans are blind or going blind.....that's more than norway,finland, denmark,switzerland,and austria COMBINED TOTAL population....)))

number of americans with diabetes: 26 million
mumber of americans with asthma: 20 million....Each day 11 Americans die from asthma.


while some of those may overlap...look at those numbers 19,26,25,26,20...that's 116 million with MAJOR health problem,,costly problems......we will ALWAYS be the largest spender in the world...we have the 3rd hightest population in the world (next to china and india) and we have more people (total, not a percentage) with major problems than any other country in europe.....I just showed you at least 116 million people with cancer,heart,blindness, diabetes, asthma.......that's more than france and great britian COMBINED for their total populations.


singlepayer will not control these costs

how are you going to control the cost of medical equipment(mri or xray machines, etc)??????most xray machine are made in denmark

how are you going to control the cost of the rising electric bills the doctors/hospitals are facing????

how are you going to control the rising property tax/rent/mortgage that doctors face?????

how are you going to control the cost of supplies(gauze, plaster, silk, rubber, polystirene( a oil product)?????especially some supplies that arent even american

how are you going to control the cost of people salaries???? a maximum wage???

how they are going to control the employment costs for Doctors, nurses, technicians, hospital food operators, hospital linnon cleaning service, custodial services, medical transcribers........are you going to 'nationalize' every profession that is even remotely connected to medicine????

how are they going to control malpractice INSURANCE COSTS?????

dont you get it... medicine (like anyother SERVICE) costs money,,(,money that our government doesnt have)


I ask a simple question.....HOW are you going to control costs OF MEDICINE, not INSURANCE..........because you CANT...and it will get worse and worse as inflation devalues our dollar

[workingclasshero]

Originally Posted by artisan4

When we have full control of the House, we won't need Republicon support (which doesn't exist anyway) to prevent further financial rape of the working and middle classes by our greed-based health care system and we will get single-payer.

and rape the taxpayer (middleclass)

you cant afford single payer (taxpayer)

[MTAtech]

Originally Posted by wnewberry22

The ACA is crap law, IMO. It doesn't manage the real problem which is the distance between the group paying for healthcare(employer) and the recipient (you/me)...it just forces more people into the problem which I think will exacerbate it. We have no regard for the cost of the treatment and this relationship has distorted the economics of healthcare because there really is not "market." The most efficient way I see to cut costs at this point is to nationalize the entire thing because altering the entire tax structure to remove the employer incentive in lieu of tax credits won't remedy the issue of uninsured peoples seeking treatment or the sheer number of uninsured people in general...especially when we could do it more efficiently by spreadings costs and having a central negotiating body to deal with device and pharma companies.

Agreed, but it was the best that could have emerged from a Senate whose Republican members wanted to stick it to Obama and some Democratic conservatives who were ideologically like Republicans.

The perfect is the enemy of the good. The ACA is better than what we had but not perfect.

[MTAtech]

Originally Posted by workingclasshero

and rape the taxpayer (middleclass)

you cant afford single payer (taxpayer)

Since universal single payer has proven in many countries to not only cost half, with better outcomes, it not only saves the taxpayers money but suffering too.

[wnewberry22]

Originally Posted by artisan4

When we have full control of the House, we won't need Republicon support (which doesn't exist anyway) to prevent further financial rape of the working and middle classes by our greed-based health care system and we will get single-payer.

The system isn't greed based it's set up ineffectively, managed poorly, and laden with tax incentives that bolster inefficiency. Tax incentives instituted at the federal level don't allow for a real "market" to exist which adversely affects cost. Market forces can't impact healthcare because no real "market" exists. Costs are stagnant in this situation because the recipients aren't the one's purchasing their system...moreover the largest spender of healthcare costs in the US pays the doctors on amount, not quality of treatment which again alters the baseline economics of healthcare..... And btw... "Greed" is this stupid catchall word used by the economically illiterate to justify thier poor comprehension of whatever their whining about.....it's not greed...it's the system itself...it's riddled with problems...far more than some healthcare executive sitting in his castle on a mountain wringing his hands together with the poor and downtrodden. That image just doesn't exist despite what your philosophy professor might lead you to believe.

A full single payer system will get rid of these tax incentives and the employer based care which screws with healthcare econ. It isn't popular with most of the GOP, but it's the only way that costs will ultimately drive themselves down IMO which ALL fiscal conservatives should embrace if they truly are looking for ways for the government to spend less.

[Winter_Sucks]

Single payer makes sense. I hope eventually we move toward a Medicare for all system. It would save a lot of money, help businesses, and most importantly cover everyone.

I consider myself a moderate.