Kentucky health law repeal: Not so fast

Matt Bevin won the Kentucky governorship on a vow to dismantle Obamacare, but the obstacles he faces rolling back a law that covers nearly one in 10 Kentuckians offers a preview of the struggles that a Republican president would face living up to a “repeal and replace” pledge in 2017.

Even before the votes were cast, Bevin had started hedging his repeal bet, saying he would not take coverage away from people who have it. He can give the health law in his state a more conservative veneer. But he can’t scrap it completely.

Click to expand...

Oops, he campaigned on repealing Obamacare in Kentucky, but as it turns out, he lied in order to win the election. Give him a break, folks. They ALL lie, Republican and Democrat alike. What counts is not what they run on, but how they act AFTER they are elected.

Bevin might not be bad for Kentucky after all. A fiscal Conservative who won't touch health care? I'll go with that. Still, the best way to go is going to be single payer, and it is eventually going to happen. Then the US will be in company with the rest of the civilized world, where the costs of health care are magnitudes of order lower than ours. As a matter of fact, for a fiscal Conservative, single payer would be an excellent issue to run on. Would save the government tons of money.

Article is here.

danarhea said:

Oops, he campaigned on repealing Obamacare in Kentucky, but as it turns out, he lied in order to win the election. Give him a break, folks. They ALL lie, Republican and Democrat alike. What counts is not what they run on, but how they act AFTER they are elected.

Bevin might not be bad for Kentucky after all. A fiscal Conservative who won't touch health care? I'll go with that. Still, the best way to go is going to be single payer, and it is eventually going to happen. Then the US will be in company with the rest of the civilized world, where the costs of health care are magnitudes of order lower than ours. As a matter of fact, for a fiscal Conservative, single payer would be an excellent issue to run on. Would save the government tons of money.

Article is here.

Click to expand...

Ahh yes, the magic of single payer, less money for you, less access to quality healthcare and rationing. But hey, we'd all have "Healthcare!"

No thanks, you want universal, move to Canada. Oh wait...

This winter, the NHS is actually calling on the Red Cross to “stave off an NHS winter crisis as waiting lists reach a record high,” as British newspaper The Telegraph put it. More than 3 million people are on waiting lists for treatment — the most since January 2008. In June, more than 32,000 patients had waited at least 18 weeks for treatment. If Britain’s health-care system has to be rescued by the same folks who deliver emergency care in war zones, perhaps it’s a sign that single payer doesn’t work. Confidence in single-payer health care is also eroding in Canada. An August poll commissioned by the Canadian Medical Association found that 78 percent of Canadians over 45 are worried that they won’t be able to access care when they need it. Eighty-one percent of older Canadians say they are worried about the quality of care they will receive. Countries without single-payer systems are doing their best to keep things that way. Last month, Swiss voters rejected a plan to scrap their private insurance system for single payer. Nearly two-thirds of the country opposed the measure — significantly more than polls conducted before the vote predicted.

Read more at: The Many Failures of Single Payer | National Review Online

Click to expand...

Renae said:

Ahh yes, the magic of single payer, less money for you, less access to quality healthcare and rationing. But hey, we'd all have "Healthcare!"

No thanks, you want universal, move to Canada. Oh wait...

Click to expand...

Got to love the hacks at NRO. Wonder why they don't use Israel as an example of single payer, or France, or many others?

And this part is just outright false:

Countries without single-payer systems are doing their best to keep things that way. Last month, Swiss voters rejected a plan to scrap their private insurance system for single payer

Click to expand...

First of all, the entire industrialized world has some kind of universal healthcare system/single payer, and there is no evidence any of them are 'doing their best' to adopt some kind of 'market' model. Switzerland is no different - they already had and still have a single payer, compulsory, universal healthcare system that operated a lot like our single payer system for seniors we call Medicare - public system with private insurers secondary. And the idea that "private insurance" is incompatible with "single payer" is just dishonest. But of course Sally Pipes (the author of the story) is a well known hack/propagandist and NRO gladly gives her a platform.

If you work in healthcare and routinely have to deal with Medicare or Medicaid you won't want them running the whole system. Single payer is expensive, and high taxes fun that. It also removed personal choice and freedom in how you manage your healthcare since the "benevolent" government will do it for you. I'm not saying our current system is great, and i used to be strong for single payer, but the more I see the less I think it would benefit Americans, especially given our unhealthy, overweight, physically lazy culture that has a different demographic from the rest of the world.

well it's just like he campaigned on 'kim davis' but has no power to do anything in that regard either

stupid **** voters deserve the government they get

Renae said:

Ahh yes, the magic of single payer, less money for you, less access to quality healthcare and rationing. But hey, we'd all have "Healthcare!"

No thanks, you want universal, move to Canada. Oh wait...

Click to expand...

I find it interesting that folks like yourself only bring up Canada or the UK when it comes to universal healthcare's waiting times.

digsbe said:

Single payer is expensiv.

Click to expand...

Literally every single payer system on the planet is cheaper than what we have in the US by a huge margin.

digsbe said:

If you work in healthcare and routinely have to deal with Medicare or Medicaid you won't want them running the whole system. Single payer is expensive, and high taxes fun that. It also removed personal choice and freedom in how you manage your healthcare since the "benevolent" government will do it for you. I'm not saying our current system is great, and i used to be strong for single payer, but the more I see the less I think it would benefit Americans, especially given our unhealthy, overweight, physically lazy culture that has a different demographic from the rest of the world.

Click to expand...

Freedom means having your life run for you didnt you know?

Deuce said:

Literally every single payer system on the planet is cheaper than what we have in the US by a huge margin.

Click to expand...

You know why? Their populations are usually healthier, they don't have rates of obesity, COPD, diabetes, cancer, heart disease and other more preventable diseases like we do here. That's also another major reason people live longer in other countries despite us having the most educated healthcare professionals and cutting edge research.

Many of those countries also have higher taxes and do not have to spend nearly what we do on defense spending. All I know, is actually dealing with government insurance, I don't know if they are the best to run the system for all Americans.

Having lived in both Canada and America for many years, I really do not think most Americans will like single payer. It is expensive and VERY limiting. My experience has been that Americans crave freedom a bit more then Canadians.

The Canadian system is based on emergencies and GP's. If you have a REAL emergency OR you need to see a GP (General Practitioner)...the Canadian system is pretty good, imo. If you can stumble into an Emergency room in Canada...you will probably get very good treatment. And if you just want to see a GP within 24 hours, (depending where you live) that should not be too much trouble either.
Where it falls down is most things in between. Waiting times for anything non-life threatening can be EXTREMELY long. And you have almost no choices. Plus, long stays in hospitals can really make you feel like just a number that is stuck in a system that you cannot get off. And they have notable shortages.
If you are generally healthy or are having a heart attack..the Canadian system is very good. But if you have an ongoing, non-life threatening condition...it can be EXTREMELY frustrating as the system is just not designed for that type of person. And as the population ages, more and more people are falling into that crack...that is probably why you hear about Canadian wait times as they seem to be getting longer and longer.


In America, were I rich or had a 'Cadillac' health plan, I would FAR rather get sick in America. Middle class or average health care insurance - it is a toss up. If I was generally healthy, I would take Canada. If I was sick often, America. And if I were poor, well it is no contest...Canada by a long shot.
If you are dirt poor in Canada, you get generally very good healthcare with free medication and it does not cost you a dime. You need a triple bypass and you have ZERO money in Canada? No problem - they will fix you up for free including every cost of the hospital stay (if you want a TV - that is extra though)...but your wait time might be LONG. I had a friend who was in a Canadian hospital for over a month just waiting for such an operation. And they would not let him leave or he would go to the bottom of the waiting list...so he was kind of trapped. The sad thing is when they finally operated on him, he had LOTS of complications, lost his leg and eventually died...having never left the hospital (and he HATED being in a hospital). A sad death.


The American system is STAGGERINGLY expensive as it is the worst of both worlds...bureaucracy and private sector. Imo, there has to be solid government health care for EVERYONE who cannot afford it and then for everyone else the government should stay COMPLETELY out of it and let free enterprise do what it does best...providing good services at low cost.

digsbe said:

You know why? Their populations are usually healthier, they don't have rates of obesity, COPD, diabetes, cancer, heart disease and other more preventable diseases like we do here. That's also another major reason people live longer in other countries despite us having the most educated healthcare professionals and cutting edge research.

Many of those countries also have higher taxes and do not have to spend nearly what we do on defense spending. All I know, is actually dealing with government insurance, I don't know if they are the best to run the system for all Americans.

Click to expand...

The rates of obesity simply don't account for the massive price gulf.

Tax rates and defense spending are irrelevant. UHC costs what it costs regardless of how many fighter jets you buy.

Deuce said:

The rates of obesity simply don't account for the massive price gulf.

Tax rates and defense spending are irrelevant. UHC costs what it costs regardless of how many fighter jets you buy.

Click to expand...

Yes, but it impacts how much the gov needs to tax overall. If we add UHC on top of defense spending, social spending, and everything else our taxes will need to skyrocket.

A for-profit insurance model doesn't help, but UHC isn't this magical thing either in my opinion.

I rotated at a hospital where it seemed 20-30% of the patient population was COPD exacerbation, DKA, diabetic complications, and heart attacks. Much of that can be prevented with healthy lifestyle changes and proper adherence to medications. We do spend a lot on preventable disease.

digsbe said:

Yes, but it impacts how much the gov needs to tax overall. If we add UHC on top of defense spending, social spending, and everything else our taxes will need to skyrocket.

Click to expand...

Actually we spend more tax dollars per capita than those nations also. That's the big mind**** with UHC. Canada covers everybody with fewer tax dollars than we use to cover the elderly, government employees, medicaid, etc.

A for-profit insurance model doesn't help, but UHC isn't this magical thing either in my opinion.

Click to expand...

No, it's not magic. Magic isn't real.

I rotated at a hospital where it seemed 20-30% of the patient population was COPD exacerbation, DKA, diabetic complications, and heart attacks. Much of that can be prevented with healthy lifestyle changes and proper adherence to medications. We do spend a lot on preventable disease.

Click to expand...

And not enough on prevention. The cost of going to a doctor is so high that most people wait until something is catastrophic before they go in. If the walk-in cost of seeing a physician is negligible, more of this stuff will get caught earlier.

Deuce said:

Actually we spend more tax dollars per capita than those nations also. That's the big mind**** with UHC. Canada covers everybody with fewer tax dollars than we use to cover the elderly, government employees, medicaid, etc.


No, it's not magic. Magic isn't real.



And not enough on prevention. The cost of going to a doctor is so high that most people wait until something is catastrophic before they go in. If the walk-in cost of seeing a physician is negligible, more of this stuff will get caught earlier.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying for-profit health insurance is the best model. But giving it all over to the US gov would also be a catastrophe. Also consider that the US is significantly larger than Canada (who also has their provinces running their systems, not one big federal one). They are 10% our population and it's run by the provinces mainly, they set taxes and premiums for their provincial coverage and manage it more small scale. I think 1 gov entity managing 330 million people isn't going to go over well. I could also see a state system where each state runs a form of UHC similar to how Canada operates, but I do not want the Federal gov managing it, I think that would be a massive error in judgement.

If it was up to me, we'd have all non-profit heavily regulated insurance companies and enhanced fines/punishment for those that chose to live unhealthy. Cut down on admin costs, reduce healthcare utilization via a healthier populace and remove profit from the "payer" equation.

digsbe said:

If it was up to me, we'd have all non-profit heavily regulated insurance companies and enhanced fines/punishment for those that chose to live unhealthy. Cut down on admin costs, reduce healthcare utilization via a healthier populace and remove profit from the "payer" equation.

Click to expand...

You don't trust the government to run health insurance so you're saying they should regulate what we eat and how much we exercise...

Deuce said:

You don't trust the government to run health insurance so you're saying they should regulate what we eat and how much we exercise...

Click to expand...

No, I'm saying let people eat and exercise as little as they want, but make them carry the full weight of their choices via their healthcare premiums and spending more so than now.

digsbe said:

No, I'm saying let people eat and exercise as little as they want, but make them carry the full weight of their choices via their healthcare premiums and spending more so than now.

Click to expand...

How?.

Renae said:

Freedom means having your life run for you didnt you know?

Click to expand...

It means that or getting sick, losing your job, then your healthcare because you can't afford the premiums to treat the illness that prevents you from working. That's what I call freedom.

Renae said:

Freedom means having your life run for you didnt you know?

Click to expand...

It's weird to me that people think publicly-run services mean our life is "run for us." Do you feel this way about roads?

JasperL said:

It means that or getting sick, losing your job, then your healthcare because you can't afford the premiums to treat the illness that prevents you from working. That's what I call freedom.

Click to expand...

Hey, that's like the same freedom a child has, a good parent looking out for them. Sure they don't get to make choices, and are "protected"...

Oh, and if you don't want it, too bad. Don't want to pay for all that, so sad, too bad you don't get to decide. THAT is freedom!

Renae said:

Hey, that's like the same freedom a child has, a good parent looking out for them. Sure they don't get to make choices, and are "protected"...

Oh, and if you don't want it, too bad. Don't want to pay for all that, so sad, too bad you don't get to decide. THAT is freedom!

Click to expand...

I don't even know what that means...:roll:

JasperL said:

I don't even know what that means...:roll:

Click to expand...

It's me mocking your belief that losing wealth (taxes) and Liberty in exchange for the Government making sure you had "healthcare" was a wonderful trade off that you are quite happy to force on free people because you think it's good for us.

Renae said:

It's me mocking your belief that losing wealth (taxes) and Liberty in exchange for the Government making sure you had "healthcare" was a wonderful trade off that you are quite happy to force on free people because you think it's good for us.

Click to expand...

Replace healthcare with roads. Do you still make this statement?

Renae said:

It's me mocking your belief that losing wealth (taxes) and Liberty in exchange for the Government making sure you had "healthcare" was a wonderful trade off that you are quite happy to force on free people because you think it's good for us.

Click to expand...

Apparently the entire rest of the industrialized world thinks it's a wonderful trade-off because it's cheaper, covers everyone, gets excellent results. So do seniors here in this free country. So it's not all that radical a position.

What's kind of interesting is we talk about "choice" in healthcare but for the vast majority of it that choice is dictated to whatever plan our employer happens to select for us. And in UHC/single payer, lots of countries have all kinds of 'choice' about insurers, mostly private insurers.