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.
The federal government will never give up any portion of power over the people, even back to the states. Not in their thought process.
That said, should this occur I would favor it under certain conditions.
1. Zero federal involvement at all. None, zilch, zero. With the feds proven track record if screwing up anything they involve themselves in why take the chance.
2. The feds rebate and then discontinue any taxes that they collect in the holy name of health care. If they are not spending it on what it was collected for they don't need it.
3. This single payer system is created without federal intrusion as to the form that it takes. Basic guidelines yes. Federal restrictions, no.
The biggest problem that I see with it is, would this coverage cross state lines?
Socialized medicine is the keystone in the arch of socialism.
Vladimir Lenin
So then using this line of reason follows that when you add shareholders skimming off the top into the equation all is fine? Humans are social animals, deal with it.
Hypothetically, if the single payer experiment in Vermont were to be a cost-cutting success...would the right accept a state managed single payer system? Meaning every state manage it's own universal healthcare system? Now, I know that Vermont is a unique example...it's fairly wealthy, has low unemployment, has a lot of progressive support, and most importantly is very small...but it's still an interesting endeavor.
The reason I'm posing this question is that when I hear members of the GOP discuss the merits of single-payer healthcare, a common objection is the poor management ability of the federal government and the difficulty in managing such a large sector of the economy. However, at the state level it would be considerably more concentrated and theoretically easier to manage. So...if the federal government were to simply say...by the end of 2020...every state must provide universal, single-payer healthcare. We don't care how you do it...which channel it goes through...as long as it is done...would the right ever support that?
I am a physician. I really do not care who pays me, as long as their rates are acceptable and do not drive us all into insolvency.
With "single payer" such as medicare, there seems to be the urge to continually cut reimbursement, such that access is defacto eliminated. I would offer that this would occur under any single payer system and patients would have to become used to limits in access.
After the Jan 1st medicare cuts to orthopedists, just wait for the howling when seniors find out they have to wait very long periods of time for total joint replacements, or even find a doctor at all.
Would the right ever accept universal healthcare? Nah no chance it might cost em a few bucks in taxes,and they'd always be thinking that some one might be scamming the system, The "why should i pay for your healthcare" is an attitude that will never get them on the map.
Perhaps a system of national healthcare could be implemented whereby you can sign on to it and pay higher taxes or be on your own and not have anything to do with it and pay lower taxes.Whatever happens status quo doesn't work for the 30-40 million who cant afford or dont qualify for the current healthcare system. ..
Hypothetically, if the single payer experiment in Vermont were to be a cost-cutting success...would the right accept a state managed single payer system? Meaning every state manage it's own universal healthcare system? Now, I know that Vermont is a unique example...it's fairly wealthy, has low unemployment, has a lot of progressive support, and most importantly is very small...but it's still an interesting endeavor.
The reason I'm posing this question is that when I hear members of the GOP discuss the merits of single-payer healthcare, a common objection is the poor management ability of the federal government and the difficulty in managing such a large sector of the economy. However, at the state level it would be considerably more concentrated and theoretically easier to manage. So...if the federal government were to simply say...by the end of 2020...every state must provide universal, single-payer healthcare. We don't care how you do it...which channel it goes through...as long as it is done...would the right ever support that?
I've heard some people argue that a single payer system would cause an influx from Latin America that would drain us. I am assuming most people on the right would say that the Federal government would get in the way of a good system and that a single payer hurts choice.
if a state chooses to go to single payer, that is their decision. if vermont is able to make their system work for their state, i think that is just fine. would it work in california or new york? i dont konw as their issues are different than those of vermont. but systems designed for small scale operations are not necessarily able to be scaled upwards to fit the federal level. and thats the problem with the federal obamacare program, it is a one size fits all deal that might work for some areas, but not others. remember that the one size fits all approach taken by the feds means that they have to make sure the program does fit all instances, which means heavy amounts of regulations that need to be put in place, and when that happens, the system gets gummed up badly and then doesnt work very well for anybody.
I'd oppose it in my state but, if other states want to do it, it's not my business.
Exactly, I have zero problem if Vermont wants to enact a state-wide single payer, as long as Texas is free to enact a more market-based system. We know that over 50% of health care costs are due to behavior (smoking, drinking, diet, etc) so it stands to reason that different states are going to have different challenges.
Would the right ever accept universal healthcare? Nah no chance it might cost em a few bucks in taxes,and they'd always be thinking that some one might be scamming the system, The "why should i pay for your healthcare" is an attitude that will never get them on the map.
Perhaps a system of national healthcare could be implemented whereby you can sign on to it and pay higher taxes or be on your own and not have anything to do with it and pay lower taxes.Whatever happens status quo doesn't work for the 30-40 million who cant afford or dont qualify for the current healthcare system. ..
And how many of those 30-40 million are you personally funding through writing of checks from your own account? None? I thought so...Typical liberal: A hypocrite.
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.
