• 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!

Single payer, higher wait times, more suffering. The Democrats want this for America.

Renae said:
Real free market healthcare without all the Govt BS. The free markets, with competition and unfettered from mandates from Bureaucrats in Washington would far better serve us than a system dictated by DC where their main goal is keeping YOu relying on THEM in power.
Click to expand...

America once used that system. When I, who currently is 81, would need a doctor say in the War years of WW2, my folks simply carted me to the doctor and never once were forced to overpay for my treatment. They did not have insurance. They simply paid the doctor who had rates affordable. Thanks to the changes, such as insurance plus Government meddling, doctors rates skyrocketed. This means the rates were due to the meddling.
 
Bullseye said:
Just a quick, unscientific anecdote. A few years ago my father-in-law and the partner of a cousin in Vancouver suffered severe cases of diverticulosis at almost the same time. Both were refered from the primary Dr to a specialist who then recommend surgery; my FIL saw the specialist, had the surgery and was out golfing with his buddies before my cousins partner met with the specialist - he then had to wait three months for the operation. Vancouver is a large metropolitan city; my FIL lived in a tiny jerkwater town in the Central Valley.
Click to expand...

I would like to see a price comparison. FIL's insurance premiums versus the tax paid for Canadian health care, and then look at FIL's premiums versus the available top tier gap policy costs to skip the Canadian single payer and see a private specialist, because IN Canada one still CAN pay a little extra to jump ahead, so I'd like to know if that "extra" is above what your FIL pays in insurance premiums and co-pays.

Bullseye said:
As far as the VA vs private providers - I'd guess that's situational; I dealt with the VA for a few years after retiring from the Navy and never had a problem getting treatment for knee and back problems. I have talked to Navy friends that had horror stories at the same hospital.
Click to expand...

When did you retire. With the VA, we're talking about VA improvements in the last fifteen years or so.
VA has been on track with improvements ever since the outbreak of Operation Enduring Freedom in Iraq.
And that is despite the massive influx of Iraq-Afghan disabled vets now flooding into the system.

And finally, nobody really expects that we're going to flip some switch that instantly shuts off the entire private sector health insurance business or private sector healthcare industry.
Sure, some people want that but you can't always get what you want, if you try sometimes, you get what you need and America probably needs a hybrid tiered system that includes a robust single payer system, like a public option, together with a private sector system that takes up slack and/or provides extra resources via a gap policy system.

So no matter how badly some want full 100% single payer, a compromise is probably likely.
 
Robertinfremont said:
Have you managed a company that is dependent on the Feds?

Doctors are treated different than are contractors. Have a frank chat with your doctor. Try actually asking him or her.
Click to expand...

No doubt you can also want to have a frank chat with those same doctors about dealing with insurance companies, yes?

Insurance authorization 2.jpg

It get's "even better" when it's a surgical procedure.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
I would like to see a price comparison. FIL's insurance premiums versus the tax paid for Canadian health care, and then look at FIL's premiums versus the available top tier gap policy costs to skip the Canadian single payer and see a private specialist, because IN Canada one still CAN pay a little extra to jump ahead, so I'd like to know if that "extra" is above what your FIL pays in insurance premiums and co-pays.
Click to expand...
Are you sure about that extra pay in Canada; I understood it was only for services not covered by the healthcare system. If it was broadly applicable wouldn't id defeat the system by allowing more affluence Canadians to enjoy preferential health care?


Checkerboard Strangler said:
When did you retire. With the VA, we're talking about VA improvements in the last fifteen years or so.
VA has been on track with improvements ever since the outbreak of Operation Enduring Freedom in Iraq.
And that is despite the massive influx of Iraq-Afghan disabled vets now flooding into the system.
Click to expand...
It's been a while since retirement, but that wasn't the point. VA has been swamped for years. I'm not really trying to change the topic to VA versus private care so that's all I'll say.

Checkerboard Stanger said:
And finally, nobody really expects that we're going to flip some switch that instantly shuts off the entire private sector health insurance business or private sector healthcare industry.
Sure, some people want that but you can't always get what you want, if you try sometimes, you get what you need and America probably needs a hybrid tiered system that includes a robust single payer system, like a public option, together with a private sector system that takes up slack and/or provides extra resources via a gap policy system.
Click to expand...
"Nobody"? Did you ask Elisabeth Warren? She was talking about a two year change over which, given the size and complexity of the system is analogous to "flipping a switch"
Checkerboard Strangler said:
So no matter how badly some want full 100% single payer, a compromise is probably likely.
Click to expand...
But we already have single payer - most of us only deal with one insurance company. :cool:
 
Robertinfremont said:
America once used that system. When I, who currently is 81, would need a doctor say in the War years of WW2, my folks simply carted me to the doctor and never once were forced to overpay for my treatment. They did not have insurance. They simply paid the doctor who had rates affordable. Thanks to the changes, such as insurance plus Government meddling, doctors rates skyrocketed. This means the rates were due to the meddling.
Click to expand...

Prior to 1973 The early prepaid group practice plans — the prototypes for HMOs — were all nonprofit.
But the 1973 HMO Act legislation unleashed the development of for-profit HMOs. Thus many of the old era nonprofits were subsequently bought by for-profit insurers.

So I seriously doubt "government meddling" was such a terrible proposition for the insurers, was it?
It wasn't meddling, it was the start of a deregulated gravy train for health insurers.
 
Bullseye said:
Are you sure about that extra pay in Canada; I understood it was only for services not covered by the healthcare system. If it was broadly applicable wouldn't id defeat the system by allowing more affluence Canadians to enjoy preferential health care?


It's been a while since retirement, but that wasn't the point. VA has been swamped for years. I'm not really trying to change the topic to VA versus private care so that's all I'll say.

"Nobody"? Did you ask Elisabeth Warren? She was talking about a two year change over which, given the size and complexity of the system is analogous to "flipping a switch"
But we already have single payer - most of us only deal with one insurance company. :cool:
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, are you sure that you understand what the term "single payer" means?
Warren and everyone else can talk and talk and talk about what they want, but in the end, they are only the POTUS, so they still have to sell their idea to Congress.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
No doubt you can also want to have a frank chat with those same doctors about dealing with insurance companies, yes?

View attachment 67270318

It get's "even better" when it's a surgical procedure.
Click to expand...

I bounce off the walls over two major health issues. Goverment meddling and also Insurance firms meddling. But were the Feds out of it, it would not signal to the Insurance firms they are okay to also meddle. Government could definitely cause some Insurance company executives to pee in their pants. Insurance firms do not have that power over the Feds.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Prior to 1973 The early prepaid group practice plans — the prototypes for HMOs — were all nonprofit.
But the 1973 HMO Act legislation unleashed the development of for-profit HMOs. Thus many of the old era nonprofits were subsequently bought by for-profit insurers.

So I seriously doubt "government meddling" was such a terrible proposition for the insurers, was it?
It wasn't meddling, it was the start of a deregulated gravy train for health insurers.
Click to expand...

You had to go back to when the Feds nor insurance firms meddled. I speak of long ahead of 1973. Frankly for most of us old timers, we were not harmed by doctors bills as some say they currently are. And the meddling by the Feds as to Medicare is a good reason for the rest of the citizens to be forced to pay higher costs.
 
Bullseye said:
Are you sure about that extra pay in Canada; I understood it was only for services not covered by the healthcare system. If it was broadly applicable wouldn't id defeat the system by allowing more affluence Canadians to enjoy preferential health care?
Click to expand...

Canadian private sector
 
Robertinfremont said:
You had to go back to when the Feds nor insurance firms meddled. I speak of long ahead of 1973. Frankly for most of us old timers, we were not harmed by doctors bills as some say they currently are. And the meddling by the Feds as to Medicare is a good reason for the rest of the citizens to be forced to pay higher costs.
Click to expand...

And "long before 1973" or as you put it, "long ahead of 1973" a lot of illnesses successfully treated today were a death sentence or a life as an invalid. We can go back to the old country doctor, long as you don't mind giving up today's innovation and modern treatment options.
 
Robertinfremont said:
I bounce off the walls over two major health issues. Goverment meddling and also Insurance firms meddling. But were the Feds out of it, it would not signal to the Insurance firms they are okay to also meddle. Government could definitely cause some Insurance company executives to pee in their pants. Insurance firms do not have that power over the Feds.
Click to expand...

I quoted historical facts.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Canadian private sector
Click to expand...

Yep:
About 27.6% of Canadians' healthcare is paid for through the private sector. This mostly goes towards services not covered or partially covered by Medicare, such as prescription drugs, dentistry and optometry. Some 75% of Canadians have some form of supplementary private health insurance; many of them receive it through their employers.[70]
Click to expand...

Thanks.
 
Bullseye said:
Yep:

Thanks.
Click to expand...

This is why I am saying that we will most likely just wind up with some supercharged robust public option together with a tiered and regulated private sector system. Jack Sprat could eat no fat...you know the rest...together they cleaned the plate.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
This is why I am saying that we will most likely just wind up with some supercharged robust public option together with a tiered and regulated private sector system. Jack Sprat could eat no fat...you know the rest...together they cleaned the plate.
Click to expand...
Or, we could just keep what we have for those that have and figure out how to help those that don't have AND WANT. Emphasis on WANT. Nor forcing, no gold, silver, bronze options. Free market. Provisions for existing conditions.
 
Bullseye said:
Or, we could just keep what we have for those that have and figure out how to help those that don't have AND WANT. Emphasis on WANT. Nor forcing, no gold, silver, bronze options. Free market. Provisions for existing conditions.
Click to expand...

Tell the gop. Their plan is do nothing
 
Bullseye said:
Or, we could just keep what we have for those that have and figure out how to help those that don't have AND WANT. Emphasis on WANT. Nor forcing, no gold, silver, bronze options. Free market. Provisions for existing conditions.
Click to expand...

Insurance co's want a large risk pool so in the end it will boil down to having to deal with how to keep the risk pool feasible.
Keep what we have is part of the problem right now.
It needs to be fixed at MINIMUM.
It was flawed when it was passed. Better than what we had before but still flawed.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Insurance co's want a large risk pool so in the end it will boil down to having to deal with how to keep the risk pool feasible.
Click to expand...
Define "reasonable". Fair price for a fair product?

Checkerboard Strangler said:
Keep what we have is part of the problem right now.
Click to expand...
not for the millions that like it. That's my point. Keep what works and what people want.
Checkerboard Strangler said:
It needs to be fixed at MINIMUM.
Click to expand...
fixed at a MINIMUM what?
Checkerboard Strangler said:
It was flawed when it was passed. Better than what we had before but still flawed.
Click to expand...
Better how? Forced millions to give up plans they were happy with, Huge premium growth and huge deductibles that keep people from seeking help. ONLY worked by forcing people to buy something. Total FUBAR IMHO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom