• 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
If we are to remain a First world nation, we will eventually have to go to single payer system like most of the rest of the first world nations. A country is only as strong as its people. Not to mention it puts our corporations at a disadvantage since they have to help provide health care where most other competitive corporations in other countries do not.
 
We view the health care reform bill as a platform on which we are now able to move forward.”


No, sorry.


Now, you are aware that the Bill itself is the mechanism by which they hope to achieve their aims?

Redress said:
The "platform" of which he speaks is his strategy going forward, not what the bill was intended as.
Click to expand...
 
Let me get this straight. Voting no means the lawyers get their cut out of every case, and you don't find a problem with this, or maybe you're voting no because you think it will hurt Obama in some way, or maybe you think medical prices will automatically stabilize with no regulations or control...

ricksfolly
 
First off, I think people need to understand the difference between single-payer health care and universal health care.

Now, the problem with both systems is the same: the U.S. Government. For some reason, most Americans don't trust their government, a concept I truly find...laughable...because our government is US. WE control it by electing people who WE believe are trustworthy to enact laws that wisely and efficiently manage all facets of OUR society. That's the problem I see with every American citizen who continues to argue against either a single-payer health care system or universal health care. If you truly don't believe government can be trusted to run either system effectively and efficiently, then WE have but one answer to resolve this problem: ELECT THE RIGHT PEOPLE TO CONGRESS WHO WILL DO RIGHT BY THE PEOPLE!

It really is that simple. It's why I've been saying for over a year now that the ONLY way America will ever support a single-payer or universal health care system is when WE decide it's in OUR best interest to do so. WE would all pay into it via something akin to Social Security...a health care tax, for example. We treat retirement in much the same way. That is what Social Security is, a retirement fund. (BTW, as stupid as this may sound to some, the whole reason people mistrust the government is because it started dipping into Social Security years ago and paying out benefits to those who never paid into the system. In contrast, this issue of private companies being pension piggy banks for their employees due to unions and public employees receiving costly health care and pension benefits would all go away if we'd ALL agree to pay alittle more into Social Security and insist that our Congressmen and Senators LEAVE SOCIAL SECURITY ALONE!!!! But I digress...)

Neither system - single-payer nor UHC - need be formed in either a Canadian or Eureopean fashion. This, too, scares many people. Neither system has to run that way. For example, the government doesn't build all its own warships, airframes, tanks or weapons. It contracts that work out to private companies like Boeing, Lockhead/Martin or Jeep (who I believe built the Humvee.)

Problem: The government contract system has been blown so out of wake, it also has earned a high level of distrust...$500 for a hammer anyone?

Still, a public-private partnership with either a single-payer or universal health care system that IS uniquely American can be implemented. WE just have to be brave enough to support it. Because frankly, it IS far cheaper than what we currently have. And if we're truly serious about paying down our national debt, a system bywhich EVERY AMERICAN pays into the system that is run by a private company on behalf of the U.S. Government could bring such a system into reality. OR...

You charge the Department of Health and Human Services to run it in partnership with the IRS...just streamline both (which is the path the Obama Administration is going towards using those government entities that are already in place).

Either way, people need to stop being affraid of government. Afterall, YOU voted these people into office. If you really want to rein in spending and make government more efficient, perhaps it's time people really started holding their elected officials to task.

(I know...that last part will probably make a few of you gasp. I am a Moderate-Democrat. I do understand the importance of being responsible for one's self. I also understand that our government doesn't always do things effeciently or on the cheap. But if we're truly honest about our current economic situation, we'd admit that it wasn't this President's fault and his predecessor made that clear prior to leaving office. Regardless, government does need to do a better job of spending on worthwhile programs, but it also has a responsibility to provide avenues that care for the welfare of its people, particularly those who can't take care of themselves. A UHC or single-payer system would do that cheaper than the private health care system we have now.)
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
Are you saying large corporations are waste free? Any large undertaking has waste, fraud and abuse. Pointing to that as a reason we cannot do it us patently false. I am willing to bet that most to all insurance companies have an equivalent percentage of waste.
Click to expand...

At least with private business, there's a limit to which they can be stupid, they only have a certain amount of capital to work with, if they make too many mistakes, they go under. With the government, that's not true, they can either raise taxes or simply print money and spend whatever they want. I don't want anyone who can pick my pocket and force me to give them money no matter what I do in charge of anything.
 
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 absolutely would like to see a single-payer health care system in the US.

Opponents say that they don't trust the government with health care. But there are people who don't trust private corporations with health care either.

Also, a single-payer health care system isn't designed to reduce medical costs. Rather, it's designed to reduce administrative costs. Which means there will be more money for medical care.

And a single-payer system wouldn't get rid of private health insurance. Those companies would just move to other things, such as catastrophic health insurance. So there will still be medical innovation and so forth.

So, yeah, I'm all for single-payer.
 
Even with universal healthcare provision in the UK, people can still opt for medical insurance, which offers private care, usually elective surgery, based on the patient's convenience, rather than clinical need, and delivered in plush surroundings with better quality hotel services.
 
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).





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...

There is more than one solution to the health care standards decline with sky rocketing cost inflation of healthcare in the past thirty years. Single payer is one very real solution with a not for profit single payer. This is not socialized medicine and under single payer for our country ... healthcare providers would remain private providers.

Almost 25% of our healthcare dollar goes to payers ... under single payer not for profit it would most likely be less than 5%.

I think big business would embrace it as many leave taking jobs with them ... to foreign soil as health insurance is so costly. Besides losing jobs, costing tax payor $ for the uninsured and being the leading cause of bankruptcy ... transitioning to a single payor is the most most financially conservative option. Not the the only option of course!

People that want extreme care at any age ... transplants, long term life support etc could purchase additional private coverage when they want to extend their life beyond what any private payer will support at this given time ... (private payors have a cap on what they will pay).

sent from iphone
 
Last edited:
Single payer is one very real solution with a not for profit single payer.This is not socialized medicine and under single payer for our country healthcare providers would remain private.

There are no private insurers if there can be no "profit".
 
Dion said:
There is more than one solution to the health care standards decline with sky rocketing cost inflation of healthcare in the past thirty years. Single payer is one very real solution with a not for profit single payer. This is not socialized medicine and under single payer for our country ... healthcare providers would remain private providers.

Almost 25% of our healthcare dollar goes to payers ... under single payer not for profit it would most likely be less than 5%.

I think big business would embrace it as many leave taking jobs with them ... to foreign soil as health insurance is so costly. Besides losing jobs, costing tax payor $ for the uninsured and being the leading cause of bankruptcy ... transitioning to a single payor is the most most financially conservative option. Not the the only option of course!

People that want extreme care at any age ... transplants, long term life support etc could purchase additional private coverage when they want to extend their life beyond what any private payer will support at this given time ... (private payors have a cap on what they will pay).

sent from iphone
Click to expand...

Amazed said:
Single payer is one very real solution with a not for profit single payer.This is not socialized medicine and under single payer for our country healthcare providers would remain private.

There are no private insurers if there can be no "profit".
Click to expand...

My very point is that the single payor would not be for profit ... a single payor system that is non profit was one solution. It was healthcare providers that would remain private in my op ... I think you might have misread.

Ideal solution offered in this editorial and one embraced by the majority of health care providers and embraced by business ... except of course the for profit payors.

Single-payer health care is the only way to rein in costs | OregonLive.com
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
Ummm...if we had single payer, then your health care would be payed by your taxes just as your use of roads is now. You can't have it both ways.

If you have health insurance, you are paying for another person's hysterectomy or dialysis, just as other people will be paying for yours when your turn comes along.

You keep repeating these jingoistic soundbites that don't have any real content or basis in reality.
Click to expand...

not a proper analogy In a private system, I pay my share based on risks as do others

In a single payer many people don't contribute their share
 
My point is that there would be no market for private carriers....especially in light of the current HCR Bill..it is designed to squeeze them out.

Dion said:
My very point is that the single payor would not be for profit ... a single payor system that is non profit was one solution. It was healthcare providers that would remain private in my op ... I think you might have misread.

Ideal solution offered in this editorial and one embraced by the majority of health care providers and embraced by business ... except of course the for profit payors.

Single-payer health care is the only way to rein in costs | OregonLive.com
Click to expand...
 
TurtleDude said:
not a proper analogy In a private system, I pay my share based on risks as do others

In a single payer many people don't contribute their share
Click to expand...

:lol: Those damn poor people again, hey Turtle.

Would you support a single payer system if it was paid for by a flat tax?
 
Here's the thing, look around...this stuff NEVER works....demand ALWAYS out strips supply....ALWAYS.

SSI, Medicare, Medicaid....every stupid entitlement program is BROKE people.


spud_meister said:
:lol: Those damn poor people again, hey Turtle.

Would you support a single payer system if it was paid for by a flat tax?
Click to expand...
 
spud_meister said:
:lol: Those damn poor people again, hey Turtle.

Would you support a single payer system if it was paid for by a flat tax?
Click to expand...

no because the federal government doesn't have the proper constitutional power to do such a thing
 
Amazed said:
Here's the thing, look around...this stuff NEVER works....demand ALWAYS out strips supply....ALWAYS.

SSI, Medicare, Medicaid....every stupid entitlement program is BROKE people.
Click to expand...

It does work, just not the way the American government is doing it.
 
Health care cost per capita is over $6,000 in the US, far higher than any other nation, and that figure is from 2007. It is certain to be a lot higher now.

The bottom line is that the US can no longer afford the health care system it now has. It is bankrupting not only business, which pays for employee coverage, but the government as well. It is a negative force in the creation of jobs, and a big part of the current deficit.

Not only do we have the most expensive health care system on Earth, but we don't get what we pay for. People here are no healthier than they are in other modern nations, and may be less so.

There is no question about it: We need to have a real national health care system and soon.
 
Amazed said:
My point is that there would be no market for private carriers....especially in light of the current HCR Bill..it is designed to squeeze them out.
Click to expand...

Exactly. that was my op ... non profit single payor with no private payors except for people that wanted elective etc. private health care providers. We can not afford to support they with our billions any longer ... billions that do not improve healthcare ... just administrative fat.
 
liblady said:
you could, but germany, england and france have large immigrant populations. and even cuba is ahead of us.
Click to expand...

Germany and the United Kingdom have a 90+% white (non Hispanic) majority.
It's forbidden in France to keep racial statistics, so I can't answer for them.

Cuba is behind us in many things.

The U.S. has a 79% white majority (Hispanic included, which make up 15% of our population, although not all are immigrant but a great many are) with a 12% Black population and nearly 5% Asian.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2075.html

When comparing all 3 countries rate of immigration, we lead.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
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.
Click to expand...

I believe that has more to do with lifestyle than anything else.
Children in the U.S. have nearly free (some forms of Medicaid charge a nominal fee for service, usually around a $1) access to medical care, from birth.

Aunt Spiker said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think people are getting to hung up on what "processed" food is.
Any food item that has had something done to it, after picking or killing, is processed.
Canned vegetables are processed but no less healthy than fresh.
(Yes you can buy salt free canned veggies.)

Typically these people are brought up as children eating junk (fried, salty, cholesterol filled) and they will eat it for the rest of their lives.
 
Amazed said:
Let's see...300 million people vs a little over 21 million...comparatively you have a micro economy.....look around at the larger nations..it ain't woikin....;)
Click to expand...

Regardless, you made an absolute statement, you said it never works, which is obviously false.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom