Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Still ignoring the enormous amounts of money people would no longer have to deduct from their paycheck to cover health insurance, I see.
Care to address this little oversight of yours, or will you continue to post this half-argument over and over on multiple threads?
Still ignoring reality, I see.
Explain how introducing an incredibly thick layer of bureaucracy, controlled by one of the most inefficient bodies in history, is going to lower the cost of anything, much less something as expensive as providing cradle to grave health care for everything from the sniffles to heart transplants.
Your snarky little one liners might make you feel good, but the reality is that the federal government wasn't designed to be efficient, and it's proven over and over and over and over that it's not.
If states want to do it, more power to 'em. They're infinitely better qualified to manage their money than the feds, and they understand their citizenry better than the feds. But the feds have neither the authority to do it nor the ability to do it efficiently.
It's estimated that Medicare loses at least $60,000,000,000 per year to fraud and waste. That's sixty billion taxpayer dollars gone with absolutely nothing to show for it. And that's covering only those age 65+. Imagine what that figure would be if they were covering everyone. The government funded health care system would be far and away the biggest target for scammers and thieves.
The economics are reason enough to forget about the idea. I don't even need to touch on quality (and quantity) of care. And if you're STILL going to cheerlead for it, you must certainly realize that the people of this country don't want it. If they did, then it would have been very easy for Obama and the Democrats to push that through instead of the disaster that they actually did pass.
I am self employed and a conservative but i keep going back and forth on single payer.
I dont trust the federal government regardless what party is in charge to run it.
I think the final answer to this is a modified single payer system.
All preventative, generic drugs and any tests done outside of a hospital should be single payer.
All the rest ( expensive stuff) should be insurance based with low caps. All overage of cap is covered by feds to keep cost down.
What this would do is make it 2 markets.
1. Basic care and for poor done as single payer
2. A tiered payed by insurance for the better more experienced doctors and high end care for those who buy insurance. But by lowering caps made affordable for any working person to afford.
Could be true, using the procedures I outlined in the OP:
....since our current system is horribly bloated by govt-mandated paperwork and unnecessary CYA procedures.
Wrong, Our current system is bloated specifically and explicitly by private Insurance Companies which make money off the friction in the system. It is the multiple parallel systems which are designed deliberately to raise switching costs that account for at least 16 cents on every healthcare dollar we spend.
The 16-25% savings comes regardless of who the "single payer" eventually ends up being. In many countries with a single payer system, the systems are run by a private company, not the government.
This does not account for the additional savings that could be obtained via elimination of "defensive medicine" allowed by the single system combined with the unique opportunity it presents for tort reform.
I worked for a big multinational.
When I started back in the 80's the cost of insurance was 100% employer covered.
I only paid extra for maternity coverage. It was your typical BCBS 80/20.
It was mid to late 90's when they started deducting premiums but the employer still heavily subsidized it.
I chose to look for employment with a big corporation because of those types of benefits.
I was lucky and still am and I know that.
Current new employees to this same company don't have it as good and are paying pretty big monthly premiums.
I used to work for a multinational that was about as big as you can get (Reed Elsevier). I still paid a big chunk of change for my health insurance. And when someone in Amsterdam decided to delete a column on a spreadsheet, poof! No job, no healthcare, nothing until I found another job 18 months later.
I am profoundly grateful to be able to pay that chunk of change, but I'd still rather get it back and have no deductibles under a single-payer program, and also to not have had to skip meds and experience excruciating pain during those 18 months because I couldn't afford insurance.
Explain how introducing an incredibly thick layer of bureaucracy, controlled by one of the most inefficient bodies in history, is going to lower the cost of anything, much less something as expensive as providing cradle to grave health care for everything from the sniffles to heart transplants.
Your snarky little one liners might make you feel good, but the reality is that the federal government wasn't designed to be efficient, and it's proven over and over and over and over that it's not.
If states want to do it, more power to 'em. They're infinitely better qualified to manage their money than the feds, and they understand their citizenry better than the feds. But the feds have neither the authority to do it nor the ability to do it efficiently.
It's estimated that Medicare loses at least $60,000,000,000 per year to fraud and waste. That's sixty billion taxpayer dollars gone with absolutely nothing to show for it. And that's covering only those age 65+. Imagine what that figure would be if they were covering everyone. The government funded health care system would be far and away the biggest target for scammers and thieves.
The economics are reason enough to forget about the idea. I don't even need to touch on quality (and quantity) of care. And if you're STILL going to cheerlead for it, you must certainly realize that the people of this country don't want it. If they did, then it would have been very easy for Obama and the Democrats to push that through instead of the disaster that they actually did pass.
State-run single payer is fine with me too.
I was discussing the disingenuous comments made that ignored the money most of us would NOT have to pay under single payer.
I don't have the time right now to debate all the other stuff that I wasn't talking about, on which you just posted. I work for a living (contrary to Petch's fond belief that I'm a leech because I support things like single-payer! )
Explain how introducing an incredibly thick layer of bureaucracy, controlled by one of the most inefficient bodies in history, is going to lower the cost of anything, much less something as expensive as providing cradle to grave health care for everything from the sniffles to heart transplants.
Your snarky little one liners might make you feel good, but the reality is that the federal government wasn't designed to be efficient, and it's proven over and over and over and over that it's not.
If states want to do it, more power to 'em. They're infinitely better qualified to manage their money than the feds, and they understand their citizenry better than the feds. But the feds have neither the authority to do it nor the ability to do it efficiently.
It's estimated that Medicare loses at least $60,000,000,000 per year to fraud and waste. That's sixty billion taxpayer dollars gone with absolutely nothing to show for it. And that's covering only those age 65+. Imagine what that figure would be if they were covering everyone. The government funded health care system would be far and away the biggest target for scammers and thieves.
The economics are reason enough to forget about the idea. I don't even need to touch on quality (and quantity) of care. And if you're STILL going to cheerlead for it, you must certainly realize that the people of this country don't want it. If they did, then it would have been very easy for Obama and the Democrats to push that through instead of the disaster that they actually did pass.
So we are 50% single payer already, measured by the proportion of outlays from single payer to total outlays: Medicare. Medicare is a giant piñata and the providers know just where to hit it to get the candy out. Medicare pays $2200 for $400 wheelchairs. Medicare puts new hips into 80 years olds pulled out of hospice care, just to be buried two weeks later. Medicare would be our ruination, except death panels (Dem plan) or vouchers (Rep plan) will save it.
But it needs fixing before we start talking about single payer, or medicare for all.
of course it has. Where have you been?
Barney Frank said it before he voted for Obama Care that it was the end goal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn
Once Obamacare has thoroughly crashed, the government will come sailing in like a knight on a white horse, ready to save the day and pick up the pieces by imposing Single Payer on the country. As planned.
Single Payer is the complete government takeover of the medical industry. It starts by their becoming the ONLY source of payments for medical procedures. Once people are used to them being in charge of that, they will start tightening the screws on hospital payments, doctors' salaries, pharmaceutical research, medical device research, everything that costs money.
At the same time, they will start to favor less expensive procedures over more expensive ones. And in time, this will happen even for expensive procedures that are more safe than less expensive ones.
And eventually, they will start making decisions based on the idea that hugely expensive procedures that will extend a person's life by only a few months, might not be a good idea when that huge amount of money could have bbeen spent on many other patients for procedures that would extend their lives by much longer periods. The people making these decisions will get, and eventually deserve, the title of "Death Panels".
As Government Single Payer continues to lose money, they will gradually choke off research, then services, then care etc., until everything is being done by high school dropout level personnel, with payments to match, and appointments will take a month or three to get.
Incompetence this bad can't possibly be accidental.
How many countries with single payer systems look at the U.S. with envy?
None. And the US is the number one nation for sending "medical tourists" to get healthcare overseas. We send about 750,000 a year to spend their healthcare dollars in places like Brazil, Costa Rica, Hungary, India and Malaysia. Only about 60,000 come to the US... and only for the very rare pocedures that are done nowhere else.
I am self employed and a conservative but i keep going back and forth on single payer.
I dont trust the federal government regardless what party is in charge to run it.
I think the final answer to this is a modified single payer system.
Keep in mind too, that Federal involvement in medical care is explicitly forbidden by the U.S Constitution.
Needless to say, that part of the Constitution is the single most violated section in the document.
The only exception might be medical care for injuries sustained by members of the (constitutionally assigned to the Fed) Armed Services during the performance of their duties.
All other involvement in medical care is prohibited to the Fed govt.
It's allowed to the states and lower governments if they want to participate. And, of course, to the people.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
