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.
Has your side really made it clear to the people you're trying to persuade that the government will be taking some of their money?
All I ever hear is that by eliminating private insurance, your side believes there will be more than enough money to provide free health care to all, no one has to give up their iPhone and unlimited text messaging services, no one has to choose between a Britney Spears concert and going to a doctor.
What if shutting down the private insurance companies doesn't bring in enough? Where do you expect to find the money to fund all this free health care?
Paragraph 1: I'm not sure what you're getting at. The thread titile is single payer, though that is not what is being proposed, AS YOU KNOW. I capitlized that b/c so many neo-cons et al are trying to say it is being proposed. It's not clear what the tax implications will be. I think most all thinking people know that single payer means taxation to pay for health care. Does your side tell people that, in the event any SP plan ever comes out of Congress, their private health insurance premium will drop to 0? I'm not one of the ones who thinks there will be humongous savings from any type of UHC; I personally think whatever savings there are will be modest.
Par. 2: I'm tired of hearing from you and a few others on "your side" that people are uninsured b/c they don't want to give up their luxuries.
Par. 3: A SP plan will eliminate the private companies. I repeat, none is being proposed. That's not what's in Congress now. I don't have a crystal ball. Neither do you. No one with at least half a brain is talking about "free" health care. "Everyone" knows it has to be paid for.
I'm sure the government is counting on people with some money to continue paying for their own private doctor while at the same time paying taxes for universal health care for others, just like in education. Some people are paying big bucks for their kids to go to private schools while also paying high property taxes for public schools. After this money is not enough, look for our defense budget to be severely cut as politicians look for more money, just like Europe has done.
I have no problem with people acknowledging America's healthcare shortcomings. I'am just seeing the solutions that people like John Stossel promotes as being more realistic as far as dealing with those shortcomings.
Stossel's "solution" seems to be to get rid of insurance altogether. That will certainly reduce premiums, but it will also fly in the face of the reason people buy insurance to begin with -- to dilute and diminish risk. From a societal point of view, insurance can also promote the sort of wellness care and early detection and treatment of diseases that keep overall health care costs down. Maybe I could muster up a little more support for Stossel's ideas if I were a bankruptcy lawyer, but I don't think much of them as is...
Last edited by saganista; 06-22-2009 at 04:56 PM..
How can you say that ageing of boomers is not relevant to the US? President Obama himself has repeatedly referred to increasing burden of Medicare on the nation's economy.
What I said was that any mounting debt of Britain's NHS was not relevant to the health care issues that confront the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fopt65
It appears that no matter which road a nation takes to provide healthcare, private or universal, the common denominator is that ageing beneficiaries, more expensive treatments, and the poor global economy are putting financial stress on all of the systems.
None of this is news. The question is how should we be dealing with such conditions in light of the fact that the way we have been dealing with them is working very poorly, and that they will only work more and more poorly as time goes by.
How do you propose avoiding these situations if America adopted a single payer system? Australia has a single payer system. There example should indicate single payer's potential problems for us.
"The Health Consumers Council is angry the Government has admitted it can no longer contain elective surgery waiting lists."
Elective surgery waiting list.
Meanwhile, in this country 27,000 Americans DIE every year because they are on NO waiting list.
The problem you have (and what a problem it is!) is that EVERY copuntery with single payer is more content with their system than we are with ours.
Meanwhile, in this country 27,000 Americans DIE every year because they are on NO waiting list.
What is your source for that? I ask because I've never heard a democratic politician or the mainstream news media point this out.
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.
