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.
Mr. Greenfield says that he is sure the administration wouldn't be glad if what he proposes here would have worked and they took the wrong direction to get Obama's signature law into effect. I see his point and am certainly glad the Congress failed to get this all done. You all know I am against single payer and maybe you can look at the ages he includes to see part of all that.
As to the question it absolutely would have made a huge difference. It wouldn't be in the courts. Single payer would have been immediately ruled Constitutional just like S.S.
But then that would have shut down the insurance industry and there is no way they would have allowed it to pass.
As to the question it absolutely would have made a huge difference. It wouldn't be in the courts. Single payer would have been immediately ruled Constitutional just like S.S.
But then that would have shut down the insurance industry and there is no way they would have allowed it to pass.
It does not shut down the insurance industry, what happens is this means those who donate the most money to winning politicians, get the contracts to process payments, and the rest of the nation suffers.
I find it odd that those people who wine the most about big businesses buying influence, call for the very same thing which entices big businesses to buy influence, and then we all act shocked at the results..
As to the question it absolutely would have made a huge difference. It wouldn't be in the courts. Single payer would have been immediately ruled Constitutional just like S.S.
But then that would have shut down the insurance industry and there is no way they would have allowed it to pass.
I don't think it would have shut down the insurance industry like it hasn't in most countries who have single payer systems. The health insurance industry would be strictly regulated as supplemental providers whose rates would finally be regulated with some sanity.
As to the question it absolutely would have made a huge difference. It wouldn't be in the courts. Single payer would have been immediately ruled Constitutional just like S.S.
But then that would have shut down the insurance industry and there is no way they would have allowed it to pass.
Well, if not for the insurance industry and their power to lobby against health care reform, we would actually see insurance companies exist for what should be their purpose: insurance. I have not visited a single country with single payer system, or some form of universal system, where health insurance companies don't exist.
It does not shut down the insurance industry, what happens is this means those who donate the most money to winning politicians, get the contracts to process payments, and the rest of the nation suffers.
Nobody processes S.S. This is the conundrum. No way it passes with private companies adding middleman costs and no way it passes with them fighting against it.
Quote:
I find it odd that those people who wine the most about big businesses buying influence, call for the very same thing which entices big businesses to buy influence, and then we all act shocked at the results..
Indeed it would increase that by leaps and bounds. The only way it works is in theory like S.S. works. Problem is, theory never considers imbecile politicians being involved.
I don't think it would have shut down the insurance industry like it hasn't in most countries who have single payer systems. The health insurance industry would be strictly regulated as supplemental providers whose rates would finally be regulated with some sanity.
Well yes, I suppose they could stick around as supplemental but I'm not sure if they would be O.K. with this. It would be a huge loss for them.
I don't think it would have shut down the insurance industry like it hasn't in most countries who have single payer systems. The health insurance industry would be strictly regulated as supplemental providers whose rates would finally be regulated with some sanity.
but the problem has never been with insurance rates...as the rates are based on the COST of CARE
a singlepayer (total government program) would cost at least 3 trillion to as much as 6-8 trillion EVERY YEAR and wouold CONSTANTLY increase with inflation
that money would be paid for by the taxpayers....currently there are about 120 million FILERS...of those 120 million filers, nearly 49% pay NOTHING....bu=t we will use 120 million just for arguement sake......3 trillion divided by 120 million...is 25,000...so the 6 trillion is 50,000
thats a 25,000-50,000 dollar tax bill to EACH TAXPAYER.....can you afford that?????
but the problem has never been with insurance rates...as the rates are based on the COST of CARE
a singlepayer (total government program) would cost at least 3 trillion to as much as 6-8 trillion EVERY YEAR and wouold CONSTANTLY increase with inflation
that money would be paid for by the taxpayers....currently there are about 120 million FILERS...of those 120 million filers, nearly 49% pay NOTHING....bu=t we will use 120 million just for arguement sake......3 trillion divided by 120 million...is 25,000...so the 6 trillion is 50,000
thats a 25,000-50,000 dollar tax bill to EACH TAXPAYER.....can you afford that?????
Who and what is the 49% not paying?
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.
