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.
Which will be done via a single payer system, and not an NHS. The main reason is as follows: pragmatism and well, crap, we already have one in this country anyway, Medicare.
Is the current system a disaster? Yes. Will a single payer system be a disaster? Probably not, but it won't be a "good" system. Probably very average.
I came to this conclusion upon thinking about how much of a burden providing health insurance must be for businesses. Even pre-ACA, it's like a $5,000/year tab for a healthy employee. Also, I think compassion has entered the equation as well. And finally, people being bankrupt from medical bills essentially takes that person out of the economy for life.
I just don't see why we can't have it in this country.
THAT said, I have a message to the left: In this country, a public health care system WILL NOT work without having a ROBUST and THRIVING private health insurance and health care system with which millions of Americans with the means can be taken off the dole and not even use the public system. This will be vital. We do not have resources for 330 million unhealthy people to be on a public system.
So the left needs to do the following:
You need to completely and totally repeal the affordable care act in its entirety.
You need to roll back private health insurance regulation to the level of auto insurance.
We need to provide ample incentives for companies to provide private health insurance for their people as a benefit. If the bottom line just doesn't work, particularly for minimum wage workers at restaurants, then they just use Medicare.
The ultimate goal here is to prevent people from going into financial ruin due to circumstances they did not choose. We can also reduce the burden on businesses.
While I'm usually wary of government involvement, but simply put, I've concluded that healthcare exists outside of free market forces. It's one of those things that everyone will need at some point
Am I becoming a Democrat? Absolutely not. But I have a long road ahead of me to convince the right-wing in this country.
Last edited by VTHokieFan; 09-19-2014 at 04:39 PM..
Excellent post! Yes, they need to cut out the middle man and let doctors "manage" their own patients. Private managed care companies are only there to help cut costs to the plan only by adding on another layer of costs- themselves!
What can sometimes be even worse is when a company gets a government contract for "administrative services only" (i.e., ASO, or "Non-Risk.) They have no incentives to contain costs when someone else such as the employer or government is footing the bill.
Before the ACA, i worked at a private managed care organization (i.e., MCO or "Insurance Company".) I never saw our staunch Conservative CEO (who worked for Romney when he was Governor) more excited that when he spoke of the prospect of how the ACA would grow "our business" by the vast potential of government contracts.
Meanwhile . . . . this company fired at least 2 workers for having disabilities, became management top heavy while bottom employees worked through lunch, hired only "temp" staff in the call center so they did not have to provide benefits, cut the benefits of their other employees and often doubled their workloads.
Managed care organizations provide little positive contribution to the medical field or society.
You libertarianism isn't slipping, it is already flat on its a**. Their is nothing about a "single payer" system that any libertarian could agree with. You are condoning, extortion, racketeering, and theft, none of which falls under the heading of libertarianism. Don't worry, you can find a new label that suits you better.
Which will be done via a single payer system, and not an NHS. The main reason is as follows: pragmatism and well, crap, we already have one in this country anyway, Medicare.
I came to this conclusion upon thinking about how much of a burden providing health insurance must be for businesses.
While I'm usually wary of government involvement, but simply put, I've concluded that healthcare exists outside of free market forces. It's one of those things that everyone will need at some point and people in this country
Am I becoming a Democrat? Absolutely not. But I have a long road ahead of me to convince the right-wing in this country.
I belong to the Libertarian Party and I am for a single payer health care system too.
I don't think I'm slipping and neither are you. We are the party of do no harm. And the present
system we have harms a lot of people. It harms the folks that don't have it, it harms the folks
that have to pay extra to pay for the folks that don't have it, and it harms the employer that
has to pay for it and then compete globally with the companies that don't have that expense.
Libertarians are also fiscally conservative. For basic health care and catastrophic care a
Medicare for all with no copay paid for by a Medicare tax by everyone is so fiscally sound
it screams Libertarian
Here's to your libertarian mind and a healthy body
You libertarianism isn't slipping, it is already flat on its a**. Their is nothing about a "single payer" system that any libertarian could agree with. You are condoning, extortion, racketeering, and theft, none of which falls under the heading of libertarianism. Don't worry, you can find a new label that suits you better.
Totally disagree and I belong to the Libertarian Party.
If we are to have Medicare for the "general welfare" it can not be for a selective group.
It's either for all or none. Since its been determined to be constitutional,
I'm voting ALL. Medicare for all.
So your decision on single payer is to remove all regulations on payers, not eliminating them like a single payer, then if people cannot afford it they can go on Medicare...which only covers retirees and the disabled, so they cannot cover others. Regulations that make sure payers actually pay for covered treatment, cover treatments that actually have scientific basis to work, and laws that make sure their customers can be covered with pre-existing conditions.
This is a great example of people that have no idea of what's going on are the ones who are the most opinionated on making changes. These changes that range from not working to bizarrely wrong. By liking single payer you are proposing making the market less regulated and more fragmented while letting a public group make up the gap that can't be used for these new groups needed it.
1 thing some people NEED to accept is once we're past about 45 years old; getting "affordable" health coverage is about impossible. I'll be 50 in 2015 and it's scaring me because employers like their younger people and don't want our kind unless we're loaded with skills. But the wages still suck so us paying $300 or more a month a person is sick.
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.
Their is nothing about a "single payer" system that any libertarian could agree with. You are condoning, extortion, racketeering, and theft, none of which falls under the heading of libertarianism. Don't worry, you can find a new label that suits you better.
