• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are You in Favor of a Single Payer Health Care System?

Do You Support a Single Payer Health Care System?

  • Total voters
    63
Just 2 of several experiences with the current system:

1) To cover our family I needed to continue my retiree insurance and my wife had to pick up insurance at her work for the whole family; therefore, I was covered by two companies. Bad plan, but the only way to insure our son. I fell and hit my head. 11 staples, CT scan etc. Both claimed that the other insurance was primary. Neither was covered by state law in the state we were in. Both claimed that the other agreed that it was primary. I started keeping a record of the calls. I spent more than 40 hours getting the insurance companies to pay. Payment was so late that it was miss-recorded at one provider and they sold the account to a collection agency.
2) My son ended up in the ER and they attempted to take x-rays, i.e. they were ordered, but the equipment didn’t work and he was transported to another ER where the x-rays were done. The first ER billed for the x-rays that were not done. We could not correct the billing with the ER, no process at the hospital for that. So we informed our insurance that the x-ray billing was an error and to straighten it out with the ER. The insurance company simply didn’t pay, made no calls, took no action. Several months later the billing started from a collection company. Now, a decade later we owe thousands.

I’ve got more to report.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
We spend twice as much, per capita, as people in european countries with single payer systems.

Per Capita Health Expenditures by Country, 2007 — Infoplease.com
Click to expand...

That is going to be prevalent in any third party payment system where the price of services rendered is not met by the consumer directly.

Catz Part Deux said:
And yet, our life expectancy is less:

List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

For reasons completely unrelated to medical care, can't believe this myth is still running around.

Catz Part Deux said:
And, our infant mortality rates are worse:

List of countries by infant mortality rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Again, the primary driver of this is not related to our medical care system directly, as we already have UHC for pregnant women and children.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
That is going to be prevalent in any third party payment system where the price of services rendered is not met by the consumer directly.



For reasons completely unrelated to medical care, can't believe this myth is still running around.



Again, the primary driver of this is not related to our medical care system directly, as we already have UHC for pregnant women and children.
Click to expand...

Could you please dispel this myth then?
 
StillBallin75 said:
Could you please dispel this myth then?
Click to expand...

Absolutely.
Medical care is not related to our life expectancy issues, as we have a type of UHC already, for elderly people and we go to great lengths to keep them alive, that is one of the primary drivers of medical care cost inflation.

Not only that but our racial and immigration demographics are completely different from those of other nations, we have a significant presence of immigrants from 3rd world nations, that never received any medical care and most likely did not have adequate childhood nutrition in their early years.

Add in to that the cultural practices of all our varied subculture groups and we're bound to have a lesser life expectancy, UHC or not.

Medical care is but a tiny piece of that puzzle.
 
I checked "no." I meant "yes". Oops.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Absolutely.
Medical care is not related to our life expectancy issues, as we have a type of UHC already, for elderly people and we go to great lengths to keep them alive, that is one of the primary drivers of medical care cost inflation.

Not only that but our racial and immigration demographics are completely different from those of other nations, we have a significant presence of immigrants from 3rd world nations, that never received any medical care and most likely did not have adequate childhood nutrition in their early years.

Add in to that the cultural practices of all our varied subculture groups and we're bound to have a lesser life expectancy, UHC or not.

Medical care is but a tiny piece of that puzzle.
Click to expand...

gotta disagree with your point about medical not being a factor in life expectancy. just as wealth increases life expectancy, access to good medical care increases life expectancy. we have 40 million uninsured people that this very minute may have some disease that is not being diagnosed early enough becasue they don't see a doctor regularly.

The role of medical care in contributing to health improvements within societies
 
liblady said:
gotta disagree with your point about medical not being a factor in life expectancy. just as wealth increases life expectancy, access to good medical care increases life expectancy. we have 40 million uninsured people that this very minute may have some disease that is not being diagnosed early enough becasue they don't see a doctor regularly.

The role of medical care in contributing to health improvements within societies
Click to expand...

To be fair, I think Harry recognizes that general trend but points to the United States as an exception for the reasons he mentioned above.
 
StillBallin75 said:
To be fair, I think Harry recognizes that general trend but points to the United States as an exception for the reasons he mentioned above.
Click to expand...

thanks, but i don't think the u.s. is an exception.
 
liblady said:
gotta disagree with your point about medical not being a factor in life expectancy. just as wealth increases life expectancy, access to good medical care increases life expectancy. we have 40 million uninsured people that this very minute may have some disease that is not being diagnosed early enough becasue they don't see a doctor regularly.

The role of medical care in contributing to health improvements within societies
Click to expand...

I do understand that, but the largest contributing factor in increasing the life expectancy of the human race, was not medical care but rather was access to enough food, bar none.

Point is with have other factors effecting our population besides medical care, if it were UHC, that was the main driver in increased life expectancy, then why does Switzerland have higher life expectancy when they are an insurance based system?
 
X Factor said:
Recently, Rep. Conyers admitted that Obamacare was a platform to a single payer system (despite claims to the contrary during the debate).



Conyers Proclaims Love for Obamacare « Single Payer Action

In a search on the net, there are definitely people who advocate and support it in the US.

Would you like to see single payer health care in the US?
Click to expand...

I have issues with things as they're progressing becuase everyone's being misleading.

There are several problems and all need to be dealt with separately:
Cost, for one, has risen in teh last few decades exponentially because of the insurance companies being present in our healthcare. Before WWII healther insurance wasn't commonplace - after - it became more common through employers as they were competing for employees.

With health insurance and HMO's gaining popularity the cost went unchecked. Individuals weren't paying for everything - and so EVERYONE in the medical field felt less pressure to keep the costs *down* - and up the costs went.

Costs also have risen because of the degree of technology that has risen in average healthcare areas. MRI's, Catscans, laserscopy, sonographic imagery - all very commonplace now and that makes the collective pool of cost rise.

And we can go on - there are many reasons why cost has risen.

so - regardless of the cost rising, that leaves 15% or so uncovered - and not benefiting at all from all the technology that we have at our disposal. China, Japan, Russia, Canada - these four countries provide, at least, a basic level of care *for everyone* - Yep, even China. So I think it's ridiculous that they outpace us in the number of people we cover.

That is NOT saying that their systems are adequate, that the doctors who are employed by the government are paid enough or couldn't do a better job - but overall, it's important to them to provide something for everyone.

So - there are some real reasons to have serious issue with our healthcare system. Unfortunately - most of hte people forming the strongest opinions aren't one of the 15%
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I do understand that, but the largest contributing factor in increasing the life expectancy of the human race, was not medical care but rather was access to enough food, bar none.

Point is with have other factors effecting our population besides medical care, if it were UHC, that was the main driver in increased life expectancy, then why does Switzerland have higher life expectancy when they are an insurance based system?
Click to expand...

You are correct, except that you cannot eliminate access to quality health care as part of the equation. Yes, there are other significant factors, but health care is a significant factor as well.

UHC has proven to work, and effectively. Why I don't support such a system for the US is not because I don't like UHC, but that I think the disruption in the short term of switching over to such a system would outweigh the benefits, and that we can continue with a private insurance model and get where we need to go(full coverage in the US, controlled costs). While I don't think the health care reform bill actually succeeded much in this area, I do think it was better than nothing. I would have done it much differently, but something did in fact need to be done. Don at one point made a BN thread on health care cost increases which was downright scary, but I can't find the thread any more. Will look again in a couple minutes.

Oh, and IIRC, the reason the Swiss have a higher life expectancy is that they have a significantly lower child mortality rate. Don't hold me to that though, that is working from my admittedly somewhat suspect memory.
 
Found it. Don threads should almost be required reading:

donsutherland1 said:
Today, CNN revealed:



AMA launches ads slamming senators for not passing 'doc fix' - Jun. 3, 2010

The Medicare payments argument is greatly inconsistent with the larger picture associated with Medicare expenditures. If one examines Medicare enrollment and Medicare expenditures data, one finds Medicare expenditures per Medicare enrollee came to:

2001: $6,181
2008: $10,357
Change: +67.6%

Moreover, in its latest Article IV consultation with the U.S., the International Monetary Fund explained:

Per capita health spending in the United States is the highest in the OECD, and is still rising. U.S. health spending represents over 15percentof GDP, compared to less than 10 percent in the G-6 group, and grew by about 5 percent a year in real terms over 2000-06 compared with 3 ½ percent in G-6. Without major reform, the Council of Economic Adviser project that health care’s share of GDP will continue to rise rapidly, reaching around 28 percent of GDP in 2030 and 34 percent in 2040 (15 percent of GDP accounted by Medicare and Medicaid). Despite the large spending, health outcomes in the United States are less favorable than in many OECD countries.

In my opinion, the issue over Medicare reimbursements is an early litmus test as to whether the special interest appetite for taxpayer financing will take precedence over fiscal discipline. If Congress appeases the AMA, it will send a dramatic signal that the very modest cost-savings measures in the recent health care law are not credible. Moreover, it will send a worrisome signal that Congress is not capable of making the even tougher decisions that will be necessary for the U.S. to return to a fiscally sustainable path. In the long-term, fiscal sustainability will depend on far-reaching health care reform that addresses that industry’s chronic excessive cost growth issue.

Although I had supported easing the transition on Medicare payments, but only if it were fully funded by offsetting spending reductions and/or tax hikes, this salvo fired by the AMA leads me to believe that in the larger interest of moving toward credible fiscal consolidation, the far better approach would be for Congress to draw the line and reject any changes to Medicare payments. Such payments per patient have exploded by more than 67% since 2001.

In the long-run, Congress will need to spend less than it would otherwise under base law. Transferring spending from one sector to another is a much weaker approach, as it indicates that Congress lacks the ability to actually rein in spending.

Unfortunately, as government has typically demonstrated a bias toward accommodation, my guess is that Congress will cave in to the AMA’s pressure. That development will likely embolden other special interest groups to seek increased taxpayer payments, even as the nation’s debt continues to climb and its long-term fiscal imbalances remain yet to be addressed.
Click to expand...
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I do understand that, but the largest contributing factor in increasing the life expectancy of the human race, was not medical care but rather was access to enough food, bar none.

Point is with have other factors effecting our population besides medical care, if it were UHC, that was the main driver in increased life expectancy, then why does Switzerland have higher life expectancy when they are an insurance based system?
Click to expand...

i'm confused. my argument is that access to healthcare increases life expectancy. the swiss have a higher life expectancy because they ALL have access to healthcare.
 
Redress said:
Found it. Don threads should almost be required reading:
Click to expand...

I guess that alludes to my first point, doesn't really matter that we can or can't do it, that's really the easy part.
The hard part is our politicians controlling it in a fair and just manner, they won't, they'll cave to special interest pressures.
 
liblady said:
i'm confused. my argument is that access to healthcare increases life expectancy. the swiss have a higher life expectancy because they ALL have access to healthcare.
Click to expand...

I understand that having access can increase life expectancy, but the point is that UHC doesn't automatically increase life expectancy when there are other factors in play.

Medical care isn't as large an influence as you may believe it to be.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
I understand that having access can increase life expectancy, but the point is that UHC doesn't automatically increase life expectancy when there are other factors in play.

Medical care is as large an influence as you may believe it to be.
Click to expand...

i didn't say it automatically did.....but the fact that other nations with access to healthcare have greater life expectancies is something to consider.
 
liblady said:
i didn't say it automatically did.....but the fact that other nations with access to healthcare have greater life expectancies is something to consider.
Click to expand...

You could squarely lay that on their racial homogeneity, cultural practices and rate of immigration from 3rd world nations.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
You could squarely lay that on their racial homogeneity, cultural practices and rate of immigration from 3rd world nations.
Click to expand...

you could, but germany, england and france have large immigrant populations. and even cuba is ahead of us.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
You could squarely lay that on their racial homogeneity, cultural practices and rate of immigration from 3rd world nations.
Click to expand...

Well - statistically speaking. In the US those with access to adequate healthcare (via insurance) or who are affluent enough to afford the overall healthy lifestyle have a longer life-span than someone born into poverty - those born into poverty, even if they move out of 'poverty' are still negatively effected and their life spans cut short.

Also - what's interesting these days is that the poor are often more likely to be obese. Obesity, however, 200 years ago use to be more common among the affluent. You had to be rich to afford the foods that made you plump - the poor had a leaner diet, albeit not necessarily healthier if it lacked certain things. Now, however, processed foods and cheap unhealthy foods have tipped that scale dramatically. It costs more to eat a natural or healthy diet, and costs less to consume empty calories.
 
Last edited:
Government administered or managed healthcare is essential for moving ahead into the future. If you control people's health, you control their lives. It is an indispensable tool in social engineering and population revisions. Even those against it will see the benefit when everything is in full swing. I don't think Mr. Obama's plan is ill-conceived and mostly unworkable but it is a tiny step in the right direction.
 
With all due respect, you are quite wrong....have you read it?



Redress said:
Holy ****, did you not understand what he said, or are you intentionally being misleading. Conyers and Kucinich discussed opposing the bill to fight for single payer, which they(and the website you link to) support, but decided to support the bill, largely for getting rid of pre-existing conditions as a reason to deny coverage.

They(meaning Conyers and Kucinich) will attempt to use the bill as a platform to work towards single payer, but that is not what the bill was designed as. It is also not a direct step towards single payer, and in fact, as he comments, grows the private insurance industry(the opposite of single payer). He is plotting the strategy for his goal moving forward, not saying that the bill was planned as a stepping stone.
Click to expand...
 
X Factor said:
Recently, Rep. Conyers admitted that Obamacare was a platform to a single payer system (despite claims to the contrary during the debate).



Conyers Proclaims Love for Obamacare « Single Payer Action

In a search on the net, there are definitely people who advocate and support it in the US.

Would you like to see single payer health care in the US?
Click to expand...

It's the only way we're ever going to control medical costs and lift the burden of providing health care from the employers. It's way past time for the US to join the civilized world and provide universal medical care to every citizen of this great country.
 
You should read it again, it contains the very "platform" they speak of ;)

The Bill will make it impossible for "Private" insurers to exist...it's all right there to see in the Bill :)

Redress said:
Yes, that is how I know what is being said.
Click to expand...
 
Amazed said:
You should read it again, it contains the very "platform" they speak of ;)

The Bill will make it impossible for "Private" insurers to exist...it's all right there to see in the Bill :)
Click to expand...

The "platform" of which he speaks is his strategy going forward, not what the bill was intended as.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom