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.
Medicare isn't a single payer system. I had to search and find the best deals from insurers (Anthem) for my Grandmother which cost over $600 mo after Part D was added in 2013.
Australia is also a single payer hybrid (I have family and friends who are citizens) where you get a very basic coverage but then pay for additional things in a secondary market. One of my friends who married into citizenship there while playing in their Pro BB leagues had gotten hurt in a pickup game. Blew his knee out and had to wait like 7 weeks to see a specialist and almost 3 months for the surgery. Now, for a knee that's not life threatening, but what if it were something (like cancer) that was?
I think people are so polarized at the moment that no matter what is done they will not be happy, especially on the left. They seem oblivious or selectively ignorant to the fact that ACA will leave EVERYONE uninsured if left in place. They will scream and whine that the Pubs aren't doing anything to fix it, or as we saw yesterday, sing and celebrate that they are trying with zero support from them.
The left has no ideas other than to slam the right for anything and everything. THAT is not momentum, it is insanity.
Single payer doesnt mean that 100% of all health care costs for everyone are covered with no co-pays. All single payer systems operate around 70%-85% of all health care costs being public.
No, they aren't. The UK does in fact deny national health care non-emergency medical treatments to smokers and/or the obese. 44% of US adults on Food Stamps are obese. The low-income are also far more likely to be smokers.
'Single Payer' healthcare may possibly be sustainable on an individual state level and some states already have crude forms of it but on a national level it would never be sustainable.
You have it exactly backwards. Single payer is more sustainable on a national level than on a local level. The larger the insurance pool the lower the costs. One national plan will be cheaper than 50 smaller plans. This is one of the main reasons healthcare is so expensive in the U.S., it's fragmented and broken up across too many providers and is disorganized.
The other advantage of a national plan is that the federal government has the option of using deficit spending to fund all or part of it. This is especially important during recessions. State governments cannot deficit spend (at least not for very long).
No, they aren't. The UK does in fact deny national health care non-emergency medical treatments to smokers and/or the obese. 44% of US adults on Food Stamps are obese. The low-income are also far more likely to be smokers.
You dont know the background for why (is it a purely medical issue? only a delay or permanent denial? defunding by the right wing government there?), for what type of procedures, when it started and which other single payer systems dont do this.
Its just meaningless anecdotes where you dont know really what you are saying but just find some stuff you think you can scare poor people with and run with it.
'Single Payer' healthcare may possibly be sustainable on an individual state level and some states already have crude forms of it but on a national level it would never be sustainable.
Explain how it would be.
it works, there are plenty of examples of various systems.
but we dont need the term single payer.
instead unversial healthcare funded by a payroll tax is the obvious choice. Most people would see an INCREASE in take home pay.
but with the Republicans so dead set against this system that would result in your employer giving you MORE dollars a week we will not get there until Americans one by one figure this out.
MOST of the talking heads on TV dont understand that it would save corps money, save employees money and cover everyone.
It is just math.
as to the size of the nation, well that of course makes it cheaper, the bigger the pool, the lager the scale the cheaper the service. everyone should know that already.
worth noting a universal healthcare system do NOT limit access from higher income folk, it just provides the solid floor. Your employer could either give you back money or offer to provide you more coverage and cover more optional stuff..
So is comparing the entire US to the city of Detroit.
Detroit is in the U.S. and is also a very good case study of the effects of hyper-progressive politics and the failure of a liberal democracy. Those are different countries and are irrelevant in the context of this thread. Your points are moot.
Last edited by Objective Detective; 05-05-2017 at 10:28 AM..
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.
