• 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!

Study finds that single-payer saves money

Dans La Lune said:
This is a Herculean study. Lots of data; the homework is definitely shown. It’s not some skewed analysis from a Heritage Foundation or AEI flunkie.

Projected costs of single-payer healthcare financing in the United States: A systematic review of economic analyses
Click to expand...

Never has. Never will. Government-run anything is always more expensive. For one simple reason. Government's incentive is to ALWAYS increase spending, not decrease it. it all has to do with allocation. If on the budget you don't ask for more money, you won't get it. So where is the incentive to economize? Contrast that with private business where someone's ass is on the line to control costs.
 
VanceMack said:
Horse****. People are paying huge premiums and ridiculous deductible for insurance plans before their benefits even kick in. The ACA is a failure...it was BUILT to be a failure.
Click to expand...

Remember when your party nominated the architect of it fir President? You remember him, Mitt Romney.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
I think whether or not we have public education is a matter of mere prudential judgement. I am not a fan of public education as public education is merely a means of fostering loyalty to a central government.

I think education should be a parental responsibility.

Education is not a right morally speaking. You can claim it’s a write written by people on some piece of paper somewhere, but it’s not a real right.
Click to expand...

That’s how all rights are.

In the jungle, naturally, you have no rights whatsoever, not even to life. If you are strong enough, you eat everyone else. And if you ever find yourself in a position of weakness or vulnerability, you won’t even get the right to breathe.

You want “natural rights”? That’s about it.
 
VanceMack said:
Is that study from the same people that said Obamacare would save money?
Click to expand...

They were right. All those people who wasted money on useless insurance due to preexisting conditions saved a bundle under Obamacare. And it isn't even what Obama wanted, it was a compromise for Insurance companies to keep Conservatives happy.
 
Last edited:
swing_voter said:
Well, if the study is correct and free healthcare saves us money, that's great.

My guess is that it will be more expensive for voters and it will be horribly mismanaged.

To bad we can't do an experiment, like implement free healthcare for five years in California and see what happens.
Click to expand...

Your guess is hilarious, because 100% of instances of universal healthcare cost less than our current system.
 
ataraxia said:
That’s how all rights are.

In the jungle, naturally, you have no rights whatsoever, not even to life. If you are strong enough, you eat everyone else. And if you ever find yourself in a position of weakness or vulnerability, you won’t even get the right to breathe.

You want “natural rights”? That’s about it.
Click to expand...

Well that’s not how judeo-Christian ethic based societies operate. But societies based on leftist positive rights ideology have committed the worst genocides in history
 
JustHanging said:
LOL. Exactly.

Top ten countries by per capita cost, 2016:

United States 9,892
Switzerland 7,919
Luxembourg 7,463
Norway 6,647
Germany 5,551
Ireland 5,528
Sweden 5,488
Netherlands 5,385
Austria 5,227
Denmark 5,205
Click to expand...

What? You mean after six years of 0bummeracare, spending was higher than every other country? I thought 0bummercare was going to make health care cheaper. I guess 0bummer lied.
 
Dans La Lune said:
No, Obamacare was a Republican-based free market alternative to single-payer. And again, this study shows their homework. If you have a problem with the data, challenge them on the data.
Click to expand...

No, Obamacare was a Republican-based free market alternative to single-payer.
Click to expand...

You mean Obama and the DEMs would be on board to a REPUBLICAN based program?(LOL)
 
Last edited:
Luther said:
Must the rich who can afford to pay for their own HC now be forced in to pay this socialized medicine?

Liberal Ideas: " Idea's so good they have to be mandatory"
Click to expand...

You also have to pay for roads, fire departments, police — oh, and the military. Deal with it.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Well that’s not how judeo-Christian ethic based societies operate. But societies based on leftist positive rights ideology have committed the worst genocides in history
Click to expand...

So how are you going to protect those rights, without enforceable laws?

Either you have a society based on laws of Judeo- Christian ethics, or you have the jungle. I don’t know how the same God made both, but apparently he did. So it seems to be up to us to make the distinction. Are you going to do that?
 
Dans La Lune said:
You also have to pay for roads, fire departments, police — oh, and the military. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

Beautiful deflection! I commend you!(LOL)

But for some, not HC or very little$$$ towards HC because it's paid for by their evil corporations(LOL)
 
Luther said:
Beautiful deflection! I commend you!(LOL)
Click to expand...

It’s not a deflection. Americans have to pay for the oil protection racket that is the US military, even if they disagree with it. They have to pay for roads, fire departments, police, etc., even if they don’t need them or don’t use them. Because they MIGHT need them and if the fire department only puts out the fires of paying customers, that would be pretty ****ing sick.
 
Dans La Lune said:
It’s not a deflection. Americans have to pay for the oil protection racket that is the US military, even if they disagree with it. They have to pay for roads, fire departments, police, etc., even if they don’t need them or don’t use them. Because they MIGHT need them and if the fire department only puts out the fires of paying customers, that would be pretty ****ing sick.
Click to expand...

It’s not a deflection. Americans have to pay for the oil protection racket that is the US military
Click to expand...

Except the 44% of Americans who pay no Fed income tax?
 
Luther said:
Except the 44% of Americans who pay no Fed income tax?
Click to expand...

Yawn.

Remember The 47 Percent Who Pay No Income Taxes? They Are Not Who You Think.

The likelihood of not paying federal income tax is closely correlated to age: If you are very young or (especially) very old, you are far less likely to pay income tax than if you are working age. Only 11 percent of those age 25-55 do not pay federal income tax while more than 80 percent of those age 75 or older are non-payers.
Click to expand...

Statistically the speaking, Trumpers are less likely to pay their taxes while receiving government hand-outs. Way to sabotage your own point. Wheeee!

And also:

Relatively few people are persistent non-payers. Among those of prime working age who do not pay federal income tax in any given year, nearly one-third will do so for only one year. Almost 6 in 10 will be paying income tax within three years, and just one-in-eight are non-payers for a decade or more.
Click to expand...
 
Ikari said:
One some level, no duh. Neigh every other advanced, industrialized country has some form of universal healthcare, and all of those pay less and have more access to healthcare than we do in America.
Click to expand...

In universal health care, all have access to health care but not all have access to quality health care or health care when they want or need it.
That's how universal health care is cheaper. People are regularly denied health care.
 
Dans La Lune said:
Are you incapable of reading?
Click to expand...


Evidently, you're not

44% of Americans do not pay a Fed income tax

It's like that every year and will fluctuate
 
cabse5 said:
In universal health care, all have access to health care but not all have access to quality health care or health care when they want or need it.
That's how universal health care is cheaper. People are regularly denied health care.
Click to expand...

No, the numbers are explained very clearly. But you have to have the intellectual curiosity to read the study:

Net cost or savings in the first year of single-payer operation varies from an increase of 7.2% of system costs to a reduction of 15.5% (Fig 2). The median finding was a net savings of 3.5% of system costs, and analyses of 19 of 22 plans found net savings. Net costs reflect the balance of added costs due to higher utilization (by eliminating uninsurance and in some studies also capturing the increase due to ending underinsurance) and savings (via payment simplification, lower drug prices, and other factors). Higher utilization increases costs by 2.0% to 19.3% (median 9.3%). Total savings range from 3.3% to 26.5% (median 12.1%).
Click to expand...

...

Administrative savings vary from 1.2% to 16.4% (median 8.8%) of healthcare spending. Savings from lowered prices for medications and durable medical equipment are included in 12 models and range from 0.2% to 7.9%. Savings from reduced fraud and waste are included in 10 models and range from 0.4% to 5.0%. Savings due to a shift to Medicare payment rates are included in 8 models and range from 1.4% to 10.0%. Over time, utilization increases are stable and projected savings grow, leading to larger estimates for potential savings.
Click to expand...

...

The largest savings were predicted to come from simplified billing and lower drug costs
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom