One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Health Care: A Single-Payer System Won't Work- Period
Page <prev 2 of 5 next> last>>
Jul 26, 2017 12:05:08   #
S. Maturin
 
roy wrote:
Tell that to the people making 7.75 an hour they couldnt buy apolicy with their whole weeks pay.


Let them serve as an example- Maybe as a kid one should work at getting an education? (Mean me, speaking) Kids have to learn that they will enjoy the fruits of their labors, not yours, not mine... THEIRS.

HOWEVER--
There has to be a safety net for those who fall into the nasty clutches of really bad disease or accident.. Those can and do happen to the best and that level of health care is enormously expensive. Think MRSA, here.

Reply
Jul 26, 2017 12:17:34   #
roy
 
S. Maturin wrote:
Let them serve as an example- Maybe as a kid one should work at getting an education? (Mean me, speaking) Kids have to learn that they will enjoy the fruits of their labors, not yours, not mine... THEIRS.

HOWEVER--
There has to be a safety net for those who fall into the nasty clutches of really bad disease or accident.. Those can and do happen to the best and that level of health care is enormously expensive. Think MRSA, here.


Do you relize that many people with that education is working for min wage and they are not kids.

Reply
Jul 26, 2017 13:06:55   #
S. Maturin
 
roy wrote:
Do you relize that many people with that education is working for min wage and they are not kids.


What education.. be specific, will you?

Are they like my over-indulged dentist's girl who got a very expensive doctoral degree in Middle Ages Poetry?

Besides, 'getting an education' is not all that necessary. It just seems to correlate well with success.

As for working 'min. wage jobs'... well eight years of Obama did major harm to every characteristic of the nation and the economy was one of the worst hit. Obama's and Hillary's big Wall Street friends/donors gathered more wealth in those eight years than they did in the previous quarter century. The rich got richer, the poor got poorer.. ever hear that one?

Reply
 
 
Jul 26, 2017 13:23:45   #
roy
 
S. Maturin wrote:
What education.. be specific, will you?

Are they like my over-indulged dentist's girl who got a very expensive doctoral degree in Middle Ages Poetry?

Besides, 'getting an education' is not all that necessary. It just seems to correlate well with success.

As for working 'min. wage jobs'... well eight years of Obama did major harm to every characteristic of the nation and the economy was one of the worst hit. Obama's and Hillary's big Wall Street friends/donors gathered more wealth in those eight years than they did in the previous quarter century. The rich got richer, the poor got poorer.. ever hear that one?
What education.. be specific, will you? br br Ar... (show quote)


And you still got people with education working for min.wage with trump.and the rich are getting richer just like trump,and the wealth the bankters,healthcare,and all the rest wil gain more wealth than ever.we will see after 4 years of trump how much his and his buddys and family wealth has increased,compared to the rest of us,but then it will still be obamas fault.

Reply
Jul 26, 2017 13:36:45   #
S. Maturin
 
roy wrote:
And you still got people with education working for min.wage with trump.and the rich are getting richer just like trump,and the wealth the bankters,healthcare,and all the rest wil gain more wealth than ever.we will see after 4 years of trump how much his and his buddys and family wealth has increased,compared to the rest of us,but then it will still be obamas fault.


Well, well, well... another infant with a streak of impatience... maybe you and all those barking, ankle-biting Chihuahuas should let him enjoy the freedom to work as Obama had... and let that run for, say, 7.5 more years? Then let's talk.

I'll bet that if you ever held a job, it took you- with mentoring and guidance- more than six months to actually earn your keep. Trump has never been president before, and he now is trying to work as president all while the democrats are throwing rocks and turds at him day and night.

Meanwhile, the stock market and all business indicators are in the green and setting records while record number of jobs are being filled.. IN JUST SEVEN MONTHS! Go figure, eh?

Reply
Jul 26, 2017 14:26:22   #
roy
 
S. Maturin wrote:
Well, well, well... another infant with a streak of impatience... maybe you and all those barking, ankle-biting Chihuahuas should let him enjoy the freedom to work as Obama had... and let that run for, say, 7.5 more years? Then let's talk.

I'll bet that if you ever held a job, it took you- with mentoring and guidance- more than six months to actually earn your keep. Trump has never been president before, and he now is trying to work as president all while the democrats are throwing rocks and turds at him day and night.

Meanwhile, the stock market and all business indicators are in the green and setting records while record number of jobs are being filled.. IN JUST SEVEN MONTHS! Go figure, eh?
Well, well, well... another infant with a streak o... (show quote)


Yea im your dam infant that held my job for 42 years,,and when i stated i had 60 days to show i could earn my keep,and i did if i had throwed hissy fits i would have been let go.trump would have never made it.As for the way the economy is going now trump will have get credit,because he is president ,but he will get the credit when the stock market ,and the economy goes south and it will ,then will you blame obama.

Reply
Jul 26, 2017 16:55:54   #
buffalo Loc: Texas
 
ACP45 wrote:
Comments please!

By Larry Alton
Every few years, the media gets low on ammo and decides they’re going to make a collective push to talk about bringing a single-payer healthcare system to the United States. And every few years, people who understand economics and business have to point out to them that it won’t work. This is one of those times.

What is Single-Payer Healthcare, Anyway?

When a term gets used so frequently for so long, it’s easy for there to be some misunderstanding. While the idea of single-payer healthcare gets thrown around a lot, would you be surprised that many people don’t even understand what it is? This results in confusion, misguided statements, and clouded judgment. So let’s clear this little issue up before systematically pulverizing the idea into a million pieces.

Single-payer national healthcare -- or “Medicare for all,” as Senator Bernie Sanders calls it -- is a system in which a single public organization or government entity finances healthcare for the entire population of a country, while the delivery of the care remains in private hands.

Quickly pause for a second and just think about that. Under a single-payer system, the government -- a convoluted, bureaucratic, slow-as-molasses, doesn’t-understand-how-to-spend-money organization of bickering career-politicians -- is tasked with financing healthcare for all. Okay… moving on.

Under a single-payer system, every American would have all “medically necessary” services and costs covered. This would include doctor visits, hospital stays, emergency room visits, preventative care, cancer treatment, dental, vision, and prescription drugs.

The money to support medical expenses of American citizens would be funded by implementing what proponents call a modest tax on the public. There would be no deductibles or premiums and almost every household would save money.

Proponents are also quick to point out that patients would be able to retain their doctors and choose which medical facilities to use. (If you’re scratching your head and thinking you remember a former president telling you the same thing, you aren’t crazy.)

Single-payer healthcare is not the same as Obamacare, which many on the left seem to be confused about. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) expanded coverage by requiring people to buy private insurance policies that were partially subsidized by government payments and an expansion of Medicaid. However, there are still millions of uninsured people, tens of millions of underinsured people, and millions more paying steep premiums, deductibles, and out of pocket expenses.

If you thought ObamaCare was a radical move, a single-payer model would flip the entire healthcare system on its head and change everything.

Here’s Why a Single-Payer System Could Never Work

The left tries to play emotional politics when it comes to healthcare. They tell you that you’re hateful if you don’t believe in the morality of a single-payer system where everyone’s health problems are covered. But what they won’t admit is that we live in a world of constraints, where things like money and resources are very tangible and finite.

Would it be great if everyone’s healthcare needs were automatically fulfilled without a penny ever changing hands? Absolutely! It would also be nice if money grew on trees and Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory was a place you could take the kids on a rainy Saturday afternoon.

Here’s why a single-payer system will never work.

1. Enormous Tax Burden

Let’s start by debunking the idea that a single-payer system could be funded by a modest tax on the one percent. According to Urban Institute, a nonpartisan group that looked at Senator Sanders’ proposed health plan, a single-payer system would raise government spending by $32 trillion over a decade. As the Washington Post recently pointed out, this number was so massive that even a socialist like Sanders couldn’t reasonably begin to talk about the plan with concrete numbers.

Even for California, where a single-payer initiative recently passed the State Senate, the cost would be $400 billion annually. It doesn’t matter how you slice it, a modest tax wouldn’t begin to make a dent into the total cost.

2. Lack of Motivation in Medical profession

Motivation is what keeps businesses growing. It’s why innovation is a natural byproduct of capitalism. When the sky is the limit and your earning potential is unlimited, you’re much more likely to work hard. The issue with a single-payer system is that it would destroy motivation in the medical profession. This is something we’ve already had a taste of thanks to ObamaCare.

“As a frame of reference, for every dollar that a private plan would pay, Medicare typically pays 80 cents and an ACA plan will pay 60 cents,” Boost Health Insurance notes. “To add fuel to the fire, many patients with a new plan through the marketplace tend to be sicker and they take up more time from the physician. Not only are they making less money on the new patient population, but they are spending more time with them during the consult.”

As a result, the ACA has caused many doctors to turn patients away and only accept those who allow them to keep the lights on. Can you imagine what a radical single-payer system would do? Every ounce of energy and motivation that remains in the industry would be zapped up.

3. Long Wait Times

Proponents like to point to Canada when discussing why a single-payer system would work here in the U.S. And while, yes, the system technically functions, it’s a total mess. The biggest problem is the wait time.

According to a survey by the Fraser Institute, the median wait time for “medically necessary” treatments and procedures was 20 weeks in 2016. That’s five months! In New Brunswick, the wait time is just shy of 39 weeks. Can you imagine? No wonder so many Canadians come across the border for healthcare.

While medical services aren’t exactly on-demand in the U.S. right now, they’re certainly much faster than a single-payer system.

4. Government Control

Finally, the biggest strike against a single-payer system is that it would give the government full and total control. While the claim from the left is that doctors would still retain autonomy, that’s not entirely true. The government would have a say over what’s considered a “medically necessary” service, meaning they could choose to fund or not fund certain types of procedures, medication, etc. And that’s an incredibly sobering thought.

Stop Fantasizing and Be Realistic

The problem with politics these days is that it’s all sensational. Politicians like Bernie Sanders throw out these whacky ideas, get millions of people to rally around them, and then fail to mention that they’re impractical. A single-payer system may sound great when blasted from a stage with music playing in the background, but it’s nothing more than interesting banter. (For the record, President Trump and politicians on the right are equally guilty of grandstanding and playing to the emotions of the crowd.)

It’s time to stop fantasizing about some sort of single-payer healthcare system. Could it technically be implemented? Sure, anything is possible. But when you look at the negatives and drawbacks, it’s crystal clear that a single-payer system would fundamentally destroy this country in more ways than one.

Can we finally stop with this talk of a single-payer system?
Comments please! br br By Larry Alton br Every fe... (show quote)


I wonder which private, for profit health INSURANCE corporation or lobby for the health INSURANCE industry is paying Alton. He is using the same old misleading and tired $32 TRILLION by every opponent of a single payer Medicare for All system. He, like everybody else, conveniently omits the fact that, even as federal expenditures for health CARE would obviously rise under a single-payer system, the expenditures by individuals and companies would still be lower because they would no longer pay much higher -- ridiculously higher -- premiums for a private ripoff policy. It would be a huge net savings for the individual consumer even after raising taxes to pay for such a medicare for All system. He also neglects to reveal that even without going to a Medicare for All system the government will still spend TRILLIONS on medical CARE and subsidies. In 2016 the government (taxpayers) subsidized premiums to private, for profit health INSURANCE $300 BILLION. http://www.cbo.gov/topics/health-care

Even though taxes would increase for most taxpayers to fund a Medicare for All system, 95% of taxpayers and businesses would save money by not having to pay ridiculously high premiums to private, for profit health INSURANCE corporations whose profits enable them to spend BILLIONS on administrative costs of 20-25%, BILLIONS on propaganda...er...advertising, BILLIONS on executive compensation, and still have BILLIONS left to pay out in stock dividends. A $100 investment in United Health stock the year the ACA went into affect is now worth over $580.00.

#2 doesn't even make any sense. 5% of the population generates 50% of the costs of medical CARE, the elderly and the poor. 50% of the population generates just 3% of the costs of medical CARE. Why do they taxpayers subsidize private, for profit health INSURANCE $300 BILLION annually?

#3. Truth be known, wait times in the US can be longer than those in Canada. They can even be forever because of the inability to pay the high cost of medical CARE even with private health INSURANCE because of high deductibles. Medicare for All would eliminate co-pays and deductibles.

#4. Medicare for All is simply the government funding the costs of medical CARE the same as they do with Medicare now for the elderly and disabled.
The government would have less control over "what’s considered a “medically necessary” service, meaning they could choose to fund or not fund certain types of procedures, medication, etc" than private for profit health INSURANCE corporations have now. And they DO limit coverage, deny claims, and funding for many procedures and medications. So that argument is BULLSHIT!

If single payer systems are so bad, then why does every industrialized nation have some form of it and none are talking about abolishing it and going to a complicated and expensive profit extracting system like the US and the US has the highest per capita medical cost of any country in the world? Go on all you want but the issue here is whether single payer has lower costs than the current US system and the answer is yes. If you can find a peer reviewed study that shows otherwise it would be a first.

Reply
 
 
Jul 26, 2017 17:15:04   #
buffalo Loc: Texas
 
S. Maturin wrote:
Well, well, well... another infant with a streak of impatience... maybe you and all those barking, ankle-biting Chihuahuas should let him enjoy the freedom to work as Obama had... and let that run for, say, 7.5 more years? Then let's talk.

I'll bet that if you ever held a job, it took you- with mentoring and guidance- more than six months to actually earn your keep. Trump has never been president before, and he now is trying to work as president all while the democrats are throwing rocks and turds at him day and night.

Meanwhile, the stock market and all business indicators are in the green and setting records while record number of jobs are being filled.. IN JUST SEVEN MONTHS! Go figure, eh?
Well, well, well... another infant with a streak o... (show quote)


The stock market is a rigged game for the rich to get richer at the expense of the bottom 90%, with few exceptions. It has nothing to do with how the actual economy is functioning.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/10/22/how-quantitative-easing-contributed-to-the-nations-inequality-problem/

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-newman/2012/09/12/why-wall-street-loves-quantitative-easing

Under obammy 95% of the income gains went to the top 1%. And I'll bet under Trump that trend continues while the bottom 50% suffer economically. Stagnant and/or falling wages, a minimum wage that is unlivable...etc

Reply
Jul 26, 2017 17:18:58   #
S. Maturin
 
buffalo wrote:
The stock market is a rigged game for the rich to get richer at the expense of the bottom 90%, with few exceptions. It has nothing to do with how the actual economy is functioning.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/10/22/how-quantitative-easing-contributed-to-the-nations-inequality-problem/

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-newman/2012/09/12/why-wall-street-loves-quantitative-easing

Under obammy 95% of the income gains went to the top 1%. And I'll bet under Trump that trend continues while the bottom 50% suffer economically. Stagnant and/or falling wages, a minimum wage that is unlivable...etc
The stock market is a rigged game for the rich to ... (show quote)


The stock market determines the values of almost 100% of the retirement portfolios in this country.

Dependent folks have no idea... not a hint.

Reply
Jul 26, 2017 17:26:59   #
buffalo Loc: Texas
 
S. Maturin wrote:
The stock market determines the values of almost 100% of the retirement portfolios in this country.

Dependent folks have no idea... not a hint.


Good luck! The stock market is a rigged game.

http://www.businessinsider.com/michael-lewis-the-stock-market-is-rigged-2014-3

Reply
Jul 27, 2017 09:03:32   #
reh1946
 
I quest you have a better plan or are you just on the insurance pay roll.The republicans have a plan to get rid it all together with no plan.The problem is there is nobody who fights for it,there's road blocks everywhere in life.and the number one is the people who run the government.Slavery isn't over,just a different form.

Reply
 
 
Jul 27, 2017 09:04:37   #
reh1946
 
The whole system is rigged and you know who is winning

Reply
Jul 27, 2017 09:06:35   #
kenvrla Loc: East Tx Piney Woods
 
Still have not seen a study that gives.a # on how much each person would have to pay. Till then, it is generalities, something the gov. thrives on.

Reply
Jul 27, 2017 09:50:44   #
buffalo Loc: Texas
 
kenvrla wrote:
Still have not seen a study that gives.a # on how much each person would have to pay. Till then, it is generalities, something the gov. thrives on.


It would be a lot less than the high...ridiculously high... premiums charged by the private, for profit health INSURANCE corporations for their ripoff policies with high their restrictive high deductibles. Probably in the 4-5% range of incomes that are now taxed at 2.9%. Here is an example:

If the Medicare payroll tax increases from the current 1.45% to 5%, then here is the total amount of employee payroll taxes for health care:
$41.67/month = the health care payroll cost for every $10,000/yr of earned income
Example: $208/month for $50,000/yr of earned income.

Of course unearned incomes of annual stock price increases, interest and dividend income and capital gains would be taxed.

Yes the wealthy would pay more in taxes, but 95% of taxpayers and businesses would save money by eliminating having to pay health INSURANCE premiums.

Reply
Jul 27, 2017 11:28:34   #
S. Maturin
 
reh1946 wrote:
I quest you have a better plan or are you just on the insurance pay roll.The republicans have a plan to get rid it all together with no plan.The problem is there is nobody who fights for it,there's road blocks everywhere in life.and the number one is the people who run the government.Slavery isn't over,just a different form.


"...or..."- you felt that necessary, did you?

Well, my portfolio has increased in value considerably. Make of that what you will.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 5 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.