• 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!

Would you vote for a candidate who supports single payer health care?

I

independentusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
14,607
Reaction score
9,303
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The Koch Brothers, not exactly a couple of left wingers, paid for a study concerning single payer health care costs versus our present program. Surprisingly the study showed that over a ten year period the single payer system would not only cover all Americans, it would save 2 trillion dollars. Knowing this, would you vote for a candidate who supported single payer health care?
 
Would you vote for a candidate who supports single payer health care?
Click to expand...

yes.

....
 
independentusa said:
The Koch Brothers, not exactly a couple of left wingers, paid for a study concerning single payer health care costs versus our present program. Surprisingly the study showed that over a ten year period the single payer system would not only cover all Americans, it would save 2 trillion dollars. Knowing this, would you vote for a candidate who supported single payer health care?
Click to expand...

Yep.....
 
Of course.
 
Unless they're ****ing insane, yes of course. Single payer is the way to go.

I haven't heard one sane argument from anyone, and perhaps not any argument, as to why our system is better in light of the fact that we provide worse care for far more money than any other comparable nation. All it really is is the sentiment "I don't want to pay for other people to receive medical care" dressed up in partisan squawking and factual misrepresentation.

Somehow, cutting out a middleman who adds nothing to the actual quality of care - INSURERS - is supposed to be bad because Teh Socialism (even though single-payer =/= the government ownership of the means of production). Allow that and the next thing you know, your subway will work properly.
 
independentusa said:
The Koch Brothers, not exactly a couple of left wingers, paid for a study concerning single payer health care costs versus our present program. Surprisingly the study showed that over a ten year period the single payer system would not only cover all Americans, it would save 2 trillion dollars. Knowing this, would you vote for a candidate who supported single payer health care?
Click to expand...

On a state level? Maybe, it depends on the program details.

On a federal level? Hell no. If the Constitution was amended to allow for that and only that on a federal level, then maybe - see the reason above.
 
Sure - but why stop at just medical care? Let's have (federal?) single payer homes, college, trade school, vehicles, clothing, utilities and food to save 'everyone' even more money. Everyone gets what they need at a predetermined percentage of their income - "the poor" (perhaps veterans, the elderly and the disabled as well?), of course, would get everything that they need free and "the rich" will pick up the tab.
 
independentusa said:
The Koch Brothers, not exactly a couple of left wingers, paid for a study concerning single payer health care costs versus our present program. Surprisingly the study showed that over a ten year period the single payer system would not only cover all Americans, it would save 2 trillion dollars. Knowing this, would you vote for a candidate who supported single payer health care?
Click to expand...

"Save 2 trillion dollars?" Supposedly, lack of a single payer healthcare system will cost the US 34 trillion dollars but a government mandated single payer system will only cost 32 trillion dollars. What we have here is a lot of speculation about massive unaffordable expenses backed by mountains of unachievable dollars with absolutely no sense.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Sure - but why stop at just medical care? Let's have (federal?) single payer homes, college, trade school, vehicles, clothing, utilities and food to save 'everyone' even more money. Everyone gets what they need at a predetermined percentage of their income - "the poor" (perhaps veterans, the elderly and the disabled as well?), of course, would get everything that they need free and "the rich" will pick up the tab.
Click to expand...

Or we could just do healthcare
 
Yes if done with care and after looking at what works and does not work in other industrialized countries. But we will have to increase taxes. I don't have a problem with that either.

I do believe EVERYONE should pay taxes even if you're poor and it's a piddly amount.
 
independentusa said:
The Koch Brothers, not exactly a couple of left wingers, paid for a study concerning single payer health care costs versus our present program. Surprisingly the study showed that over a ten year period the single payer system would not only cover all Americans, it would save 2 trillion dollars. Knowing this, would you vote for a candidate who supported single payer health care?
Click to expand...

Would you vote for a candidate who supports single payer health care?

Yes I could but it would depending on their stance of other issues
 
independentusa said:
the koch brothers, not exactly a couple of left wingers, paid for a study concerning single payer health care costs versus our present program. Surprisingly the study showed that over a ten year period the single payer system would not only cover all americans, it would save 2 trillion dollars. Knowing this, would you vote for a candidate who supported single payer health care?
Click to expand...

***yes***
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Why not go a bit further to save lots more money? After all, we keep hearing how "the rich" will be the only one's paying more for it.
Click to expand...

You are free to support anything you like. I will support single payer
 
marke said:
"Save 2 trillion dollars?" Supposedly, lack of a single payer healthcare system will cost the US 34 trillion dollars but a government mandated single payer system will only cost 32 trillion dollars. What we have here is a lot of speculation about massive unaffordable expenses backed by mountains of unachievable dollars with absolutely no sense.
Click to expand...

I would suspect that if the study was done by a conservative group supported by the Koch Brothers, they probably overestimated the single payer and underestimated the present program rather than the other way around, wouldn't you?.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Why not go a bit further to save lots more money? After all, we keep hearing how "the rich" will be the only one's paying more for it.
Click to expand...

Already a get percentage of our health care is "single payer" in nature. I am talking about Medicare and Medicaid. That is unlike any of the other things you are talking about, soo it seems like you are trolling us with your suggestion rather than being serious.
 
independentusa said:
Already a get percentage of our health care is "single payer" in nature. I am talking about Medicare and Medicaid. That is unlike any of the other things you are talking about, soo it seems like you are trolling us with your suggestion rather than being serious.
Click to expand...

OK, let's expand Medicaid into UHC, since it has no premiums, no deductibles and no co-pays it is very affordable to all, the only thing left to discuss is how to pay for it. Can you tell us how that would work?
 
If individuals will live responsibly, free UHC with higher taxes from ALL to pay for it. And tax weed and cigarettes at 5000% to kick start the funding.
 
independentusa said:
The Koch Brothers, not exactly a couple of left wingers, paid for a study concerning single payer health care costs versus our present program. Surprisingly the study showed that over a ten year period the single payer system would not only cover all Americans, it would save 2 trillion dollars. Knowing this, would you vote for a candidate who supported single payer health care?
Click to expand...

Any study funded by the Koch brothers Brothers is naturally going to be supporting their agenda. I completely doubt the methodology and veracity of it, particularly when we have evidence of 50 Western Nations who have some version of universal healthcare and their per capita healthcare costs are roughly half that of the United States.

As for whom I would vote I will only vote for candidates who do support some version of universal healthcare preferably medicare-for-all.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Sure - but why stop at just medical care? Let's have (federal?) single payer homes, college, trade school, vehicles, clothing, utilities and food to save 'everyone' even more money. Everyone gets what they need at a predetermined percentage of their income - "the poor" (perhaps veterans, the elderly and the disabled as well?), of course, would get everything that they need free and "the rich" will pick up the tab.
Click to expand...

Here come the strawmen, on Parade!
 
OscarLevant said:
Any study funded by the Koch brothers Brothers is naturally going to be supporting their agenda. I completely doubt the methodology and veracity of it, particularly when we have evidence of 50 Western Nations who have some version of universal healthcare and their per capita healthcare costs are roughly half that of the United States.

As for whom I would vote I will only vote for candidates who do support some version of universal healthcare preferably medicare-for-all.
Click to expand...
I believe a left leaning study essentially duplicated the Mercatus report. Also, a similar study here in California looking at single payor came out basically the same - the cost almost doubled the current budget of the state

Here's what the Center and the author say about that $2 trillion "savings

ndeed, just a few days after the study was released, Dr. Blahous wrote in The Wall Street Journal that “Some have seized on a scenario in my estimates showing a slight decline in projected total public and private health expenditures under Medicare for All. But that decline, relative to current projections, relies on an assumption that (M4A) would immediately and dramatically cut provider payment rates by roughly 40 percent.”
In other words, as noted in both The Washington Post’s fact check and Dr. Blahous’s op-ed, the savings estimates only reflect a particular aspect of the methodology of the study. Dr. Blahous adopted the most generous cost-saving assumptions made by M4A in order to more fairly analyze the specific proposal, but he also notes in several places throughout the paper that those assumptions may be unreasonable.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom