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.
Really? The states going to give me a free PS4? OMG how awesome! AND pay for me to go out to the movies?
Lets be real. The vast majority of developed countries do single payer because it makes sense, and removes the middleman of insurance companies. They're getting similar results for half the cost.
How can we not afford to might be the better question.
That middleman is a drop in the ocean compared to the billings of providers and substance and device manufacterers, and is what keeps the lid on even more abuses after Ted popularized "maintenance" in 1973.
How you don't control costs is by making everybody buy insurance against product that neurotic progressives use for every hypochondria and marketed so-called disease they hear about.
With a guaranteed revenue stream in place now courtesy of the Democrats, what's the providers' incentive not to feather their nests? How is it different if you have one insurer demanding that same revenue for them at the muzzle of state firepower in order to cover provider and pharma and hospital corporation costs?
Either way the Parisians and the Brixtoners and the East New Yorkers and East Oaklanders--and increasingly the American middle class--are out of work because their job services are rendered unaffordable.
Really? The states going to give me a free PS4? OMG how awesome! AND pay for me to go out to the movies?
Lets be real. The vast majority of developed countries do single payer because it makes sense, and removes the middleman of insurance companies. They're getting similar results for half the cost.
How can we not afford to might be the better question.
The majority of other nations do it because they are for a government controlled economy. I personally would rather not have to wait months for treatment in a line with everyone else.
The one thing that is guaranteed is the government runs things poorly. I would prefer our healthcare system not turn into the VA.
I believe you will still have a two tier medical system if we went single payer. Many doctors, especially the the specialists, will decide not to join the system, due to the reduced payments schedules. Think VA.
The wealthy will have concierge medicine with all its benefits. IMO.
The majority of other nations do it because they are for a government controlled economy. I personally would rather not have to wait months for treatment in a line with everyone else.
The one thing that is guaranteed is the government runs things poorly. I would prefer our healthcare system not turn into the VA.
It wouldn't. A single payer system entails the socialization of the payment mechanism, not the entire medical industry.
The majority of other nations do it because they are for a government controlled economy. I personally would rather not have to wait months for treatment in a line with everyone else.
The one thing that is guaranteed is the government runs things poorly. I would prefer our healthcare system not turn into the VA.
For the most part people are very happy with their healthcare overseas.
As for waiting months for treatment.....The last time I needed to see a specialist there was a two month waiting period on my insurance in 2012. If I want to see my current Dr through my current insurance it can take weeks to get an appointment. All to often I know another Dr that takes cash, and I just pay him to be seen within 24 hours outside of my working hours.
It wouldn't. A single payer system entails the socialization of the payment mechanism, not the entire medical industry.
Right, a payment bellow market rate, reducing the amount of doctors that will accept said payment. Leading to a shortage of services and wait lines for common medical procedures. This become even worse as it discourages people from entering the medical field even further reducing the services available.
For the most part people are very happy with their healthcare overseas.
As for waiting months for treatment.....The last time I needed to see a specialist there was a two month waiting period on my insurance in 2012. If I want to see my current Dr through my current insurance it can take weeks to get an appointment. All to often I know another Dr that takes cash, and I just pay him to be seen within 24 hours outside of my working hours.
The people with means overseas come here for medical treatment because of the higher level of care. I have no problem paying for a higher level of care, I do not care for average when it comes to my health care and I have made my life choices around that preference.
We currently have a single-payer system for the elderly: I believe all people aged 65 and older are eligible. I believe Medicare/Medicaid spends around $900 billion a year, if I am not mistaken, for 45 million people (elderly and disabled). Curious how much the number balloons when 300 million people are thrown on it.
1. medicare is NOT singlepayer....singlepayer means just that ONLY one payer...medicare is a (approx.) 80/20 insurance with the elderly getting hit with not only co-pays, but having to buy a supplemental insurance
2. Medicaid is ''closer'' to a singlepayer...its actually a dualpayer...paid by the federal government AND the state governments
to cover 320 million people would cost between 3 trillion to 6 trillion per year...why the vast difference....that would be determined by the level of coverage... a true single payer 100% coverage (minus cosmetic) would be the more expensive 6 trillion... something more like medicare (80/20 plus copays) would be closer to the 3 trillion
we already spend about a trillion on medicare/medicad...so the NEW cost would be 2-5 trillion
since it would all fall on the taxpayers back...and there are only about 75 million taxpayers (IRS stats say nearly 150 million filers with 47% having a zero or negative tax liability)
so the cost to the taxpayers would be...26k to 66k per taxpayer (averaged)
now you want a way to pay for it.....
eliminate the tax system we currently have (income, corporate, estate, excises ) and replace it with a consumption tax
since a good portion of income is never reported, and we spend a lot in general, the government would collect a lot more in revenue based on a spending tax compared to the current faulty income tax
estimates are that we could collect about 5 trillion in revenue compared to the under 3 trillion (currently at 2.7 trillion) if done with the fairtax(consumption tax)
Sorry but there are models of effectiveness that are much cheaper than our system. We spend the most per person by far in the world and we don't get the best results. It's time we took a close look at our system and overhauled it. Obamacare never addressed the primary problem of cost. Spain and France have very effective systems and even our northern neighbor has a more effective system.
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.
