• 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
Harry Guerrilla said:
Actually our 2 biggest budget problems are Medicare and Medicaid,
Click to expand...

and that's largely because of the uncontrolled cost of health care. That $6,000 per person (in 2007, who knows how much it is now) is bankrupting government as well as private entities.

$6,000 x300 million = $1,800,000,000,000, that's one trillion, eight hundred billion.
 
spud_meister said:
That's rather an unproveable point, as no two UHC systems are the same, and no two countries are the same, so comparing current existing systems is apples and oranges at the least, and frogs and Pluto at the most.
Click to expand...

That's been my point the whole time, but people still find the need to make faulty comparisons.
Instead of addressing systematic issues with out medical care system, people want to take the easy way out and convert to single payer/UHC, which doesn't address the systematic issues at all.
 
Dittohead not! said:
and that's largely because of the uncontrolled cost of health care. That $6,000 per person (in 2007, who knows how much it is now) is bankrupting government as well as private entities.

$6,000 x300 million = $1,800,000,000,000, that's one trillion, eight hundred billion.
Click to expand...

That primarily comes from elder care, in the form of "gold plated" Medicare and the gaming of Medicaid.

To have a nationalized system of medical care, you're going to have to reduce service options and/or establish price controls.
Why is it superior again?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
That's been my point the whole time, but people still find the need to make faulty comparisons.
Instead of addressing systematic issues with out medical care system, people want to take the easy way out and convert to single payer/UHC, which doesn't address the systematic issues at all.
Click to expand...

There are no perfect comparisons, but that does not mean that it is faulty to compare results with other countries, since health care is a factor in that result. Not the only factor, but definitely a factor. The problem is with drawing too large a conclusion from the comparison.
 
earthworm said:
An analogy I just thought of.....Our new health care bill is similar to the US postal service with its competition from United Parcel and FedX.All three of these are lean and competitive.
Our health care can be the same, private health care can be equally competitive, right now, its very wasteful.
Click to expand...

the USPS leaked a few billion last year

great analogy though
 
Redress said:
There are no perfect comparisons, but that does not mean that it is faulty to compare results with other countries, since health care is a factor in that result. Not the only factor, but definitely a factor. The problem is with drawing too large a conclusion from the comparison.
Click to expand...

Well, I'd like to hope that my arguments against the life expectancy comparison have proven it to be invalid.
Life expectancy is a simple statistic with a great many factors at play, besides medical care.

Cost is a fair comparison but there are other reasons why it does cost a lot, we expect the best disease curing results and we pay for them.
 
Last edited:
spud_meister said:
Single payer doesn't necessarily mean no private health care.
Click to expand...

Of course not. There's no way the Congressmen and Senators are going to subject themselves or their rich donors to the rigors of a true single payer system. No. The proposed system is intended to separate the middle class from their doctors, the rich the left disdains viscerally will continue on as they always have.

Since Mayor Snorkum wants to keep his doctor, he is opposed to this socialized medicine nonsense.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Price controls come with their own set of perils, reduced access to service because you've effectively created a "commons" with medical care.
It creates shortages.
Click to expand...

Really. There are price controls on phone and cable television. Are we having shortages?
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Really. There are price controls on phone and cable television. Are we having shortages?
Click to expand...

Are you ****ing serious, comparing phone and cable to healthcare? I don't think so, I think you're just being difficult.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Actually our 2 biggest budget problems are Medicare and Medicaid, our experiment with national medical care.
Click to expand...

There is nothing you can do about Medicare or Medicaid. As a society these costs get absorbed somehow. You can not just make them go away. We are the only 1st world country that ignores its healthcare. Medicare and medicaid are mere stop gaps. They are not the budget problem, because you can not make them go away and there isn't much you can realistically do to trim them.

The problem with our budget is much more on the revenue side than the expense side. This last recession allowed tax revenues to fall 20% from a base of $2.7T to $2.1T. Throw in another $ .1T from the extra burden of unemployment, and you can fix much of the annual deficit just by fixing the economy. At the very least, you will get much further in its remedy than you will ever get by cutting expenditures (which is counter productive, as expenditure cuts will also result in lost tax collections)

Harry Guerrilla said:
The first part is a lie, as for the rest, the U.S. has some of the best cancer survival rates in the world.
(We're in the top 3, a cute little statistic that some people like to forget)
That is were your money is going.

Don't try to play emotional games with me, it won't work.
Click to expand...

Its a lie? You are 'above' emotion? Sorry, but that is nothing but a very emotional response.

How is it a lie? Your best retort is that our cancer survivability rates are high? Maybe, but that is nothing but a data point, not a complete argument. The table I set forth graphs per capita medical costs vs. life expectancy. You will note the US flag way out in right field. Why? Because our medical costs per capita are the highest in the world. You will also note the US flag is in the middle of the list. Why? Because US longevity is pretty mediocre vis-a-vis other 1st world countries. Let's see, highest cost and mediocre results translates to inefficiency. Prehaps you can give me a less emotional rebuttal next time.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
That primarily comes from elder care, in the form of "gold plated" Medicare and the gaming of Medicaid.

To have a nationalized system of medical care, you're going to have to reduce service options and/or establish price controls.
Why is it superior again?
Click to expand...

Because every other nation on Earth has a universal care system, all of them pay much less per capita than we do, and the modern nations have better outcomes. That's why.
 
upsideguy said:
There is nothing you can do about Medicare or Medicaid. As a society these costs get absorbed somehow. You can not just make them go away. We are the only 1st world country that ignores its healthcare. Medicare and medicaid are mere stop gaps. They are not the budget problem, because you can not make them go away and there isn't much you can realistically do to trim them.
Click to expand...

Sure you can, you can stop treating 70+ year olds for diseases, when they're going to die soon anyway.
That's cost effective.

upsideguy said:
The problem with our budget is much more on the revenue side than the expense side. This last recession allowed tax revenues to fall 20% from a base of $2.7T to $2.1T. Throw in another $ .1T from the extra burden of unemployment, and you can fix much of the annual deficit just by fixing the economy. At the very least, you will get much further in its remedy than you will ever get by cutting expenditures (which is counter productive, as expenditure cuts will also result in lost tax collections)
Click to expand...

That's bull crap to.
We've had more and more money coming in, it just keeps getting spent on the least cost effective crap.

upsideguy said:
Its a lie? You are 'above' emotion? Sorry, but that is nothing but a very emotional response.

How is it a lie? Your best retort is that our cancer survivability rates are high? Maybe, but that is nothing but a data point, not a complete argument. The table I set forth graphs per capita medical costs vs. life expectancy. You will note the US flag way out in right field. Why? Because our medical costs per capita are the highest in the world. You will also note the US flag is in the middle of the list. Why? Because US longevity is pretty mediocre vis-a-vis other 1st world countries. Let's see, highest cost and mediocre results translates to inefficiency. Prehaps you can give me a less emotional rebuttal next time.
Click to expand...

You said,
upsideguy said:
As far as health insurance, it has to be an upgrade over one of the least efficient healthcare delivery systems in the free world.
Click to expand...

What you posted was not proof at all, it was life expectancy, a number that is not primarily determined by medical care.
Your comparison is invalid, because it is framing an argument based on fiction, a falsity or lie.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Because every other nation on Earth has a universal care system,
Click to expand...

False.
Not every nation has universal health care except us.

Dittohead not! said:
all of them pay much less per capita than we do,
Click to expand...

True.
Of those that do, they typically pay less.

Dittohead not! said:
and the modern nations have better outcomes. That's why.
Click to expand...

False.
The U.S. has some of the best cancer survival rates.
And for many other things, we are right there with the rest of those nations with UHC.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Sure you can, you can stop treating 70+ year olds for diseases, when they're going to die soon anyway.
That's cost effective.
Click to expand...

Surely you are not serious?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Have you not heard of cost effective treatment?

What i suggested goes a bit to far I'll admit, but that's (kind of) what will happen if we get a government paid system.
Click to expand...

A bit too far??? Yes, I've heard of cost effective treatment and it has nothing to do with denying medical care for those over 70.
 
Catawba said:
A bit too far??? Yes, I've heard of cost effective treatment and it has nothing to do with denying medical care for those over 70.
Click to expand...

If we adopt a UHC style system, elderly people will be forced to have significant reductions in services, that's a guarantee.

To drive the point home,
"The average health care expense in 2002 was $11,089 per year for elderly people but only $3,352 per year for working-age people (ages 19-64)."

The High Concentration of U.S. Health Care Expenditures

One of the major reasons we pay more, is because the elderly have near unlimited access to all the medical care they want.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
If we adopt a UHC style system, elderly people will be forced to have significant reductions in services, that's a guarantee.
Click to expand...

Only in your very vivid imagination. More people will have access to better care than they have now. That has been the result in most of the first world nations. We are the sole remaining laggard among first world nations not to provide UHC, and it is hurting us economically as well both in terms of healthcare cost and in creating a competitive disadvantage for American companies that have to pay part of the health care costs for employees that companies in other first world nations don't have to.

To drive the point home,
"The average health care expense in 2002 was $11,089 per year for elderly people but only $3,352 per year for working-age people (ages 19-64)."

The High Concentration of U.S. Health Care Expenditures
Click to expand...

What point would that be? That elderly medical care is more expensive than for a young healthy person? This a surprise to you?


One of the major reasons we pay more, is because the elderly have near unlimited access to all the medical care they want.
Click to expand...

How horrible!!!

artcaption_ASScrooge.jpg
 
Catawba said:
Only in your very vivid imagination. More people will have access to better care than they have now. That has been the result in most of the first world nations. We are the sole remaining laggard among first world nations not to provide UHC, and it is hurting us economically as well both in terms of healthcare cost and in creating a competitive disadvantage for American companies that have to pay part of the health care costs for employees that companies in other first world nations don't have to.
Click to expand...

Really, so is that why other nations with UHC does the exact same thing?
The elderly in nations with UHC would envy the services the Medicare provides.

Catawba said:
What point would that be? That elderly medical care is more expensive than for a young healthy person? This a surprise to you?
Click to expand...

Of course not, but its not cost effective to treat old people for things like cancer.
More cost effective to send them home with pain pills and let them pass.

Catawba said:
How horrible!!!

artcaption_ASScrooge.jpg
Click to expand...

You mock me now, but UHC or not, it won't last.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Really, so is that why other nations with UHC does the exact same thing?
The elderly in nations with UHC would envy the services the Medicare provides.
Click to expand...

You didn't address a single point I made. You say government run healthcare is a disaster in one breath and turn around in the next breath and say our government run healthcare is the best in the world. Which is it?


Of course not, but its not cost effective to treat old people for things like cancer.
More cost effective to send them home with pain pills and let them pass.
Click to expand...

Given the choice between your treatment of choice and UHC, I sure as hell am going with UHC. I prefer that to your ultimate solution.


You mock me now, but UHC or not, it won't last.
Click to expand...

I mock your posts because they deserve it. To suggest that we just need to let people die so we can keep subsidizing the wealthy is the most mock-worthy idea I have seen in awhile. Your idea wins hands down!
 
Catawba said:
You didn't address a single point I made. You say government run healthcare is a disaster in one breath and turn around in the next breath and say our government run healthcare is the best in the world. Which is it?
Click to expand...

I addressed your first point, as the rest was just bloviating from you, without anything to back it up, as usual.
It is a terrible system, it removes incentives from individuals to better manage their own care, with their own money.

I never said our government run system is the best in the world, I said the elderly in other countries would envy it, because you can currently use it as much as you want.

Catawba said:
Given the choice between your treatment of choice and UHC, I sure as hell am going with UHC. I prefer that to your ultimate solution.
Click to expand...

Of course you will, because you don't ever research anything, beyond the superficial talking points of political people you like.

Catawba said:
I mock your posts because they deserve it. To suggest that we just need to let people die so we can keep subsidizing the wealthy is the most mock-worthy idea I have seen in awhile. Your idea wins hands down!
Click to expand...

That's not what I said.
Two things you're very good at, putting words into the mouths of others and dishonesty.

Cost effective treatments often put a dollar value on each person, the government can not afford to treat all people with the best medicine.
It's not realistic, you live in a fantasy world.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom