• 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!

What would be the best healthcare system?

What would be the best healthcare system?

  • market based healthcare

    Votes: 12 25.5%

  • the current system

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • single payer

    Votes: 23 48.9%

  • other

    Votes: 9 19.1%

  • not sure

    Votes: 3 6.4%
  • Total voters
    47
Dittohead not! said:
Medicare for everyone, except that instead of paying 80% as it does now, pay on a sliding scale from 0% to 100% as costs approach 10% of the individual's income.

Give everyone a Medicare credit card, only good for health care. The individual cardholder would be responsible for the charges until those charges started reaching the level at which the government would begin to pay.

Instead of the government collecting payments, a credit card company would do so, and would be allowed to charge interest and late fees to people who didn't pay right away, just like Visa and MasterCard do now.

No one would need insurance. No one would go bankrupt due to medical costs. Everyone would pay something. There would be no free ride for anyone, but the wealthy would pay more than the poor.

And no huge government bureaucracies would be needed.
Click to expand...

You do realize that people on Medicare have paid into the system their entire working career. Why should someone 20 something get the same benefit possibly without paying a cent? Oh right, the wealthy!

I always get a kick out people who think the wealthy should pay for everything from health care to free college and every thing in between....Do you know if you tax the wealthy 100% in this country and they give up all their wealth to the government .....the government could only run for about a week. And then what? Start with the middle class?
 
antiquity said:
You do realize that people on Medicare have paid into the system their entire working career. Why should someone 20 something get the same benefit possibly without paying a cent? Oh right, the wealthy!

I always get a kick out people who think the wealthy should pay for everything from health care to free college and every thing in between....Do you know if you tax the wealthy 100% in this country and they give up all their wealth to the government .....the government could only run for about a week. And then what? Start with the middle class?
Click to expand...
I dunno.. how on Earth could we ever afford a system that costs about half as much as the one we have now? It would surely bust the budget.
 
Comprehensive single payer with full coverage excepting perhaps the top 1% of earners (who will still benefit from the substantially reduced costs of such a system due to singlepayer's economy of scale, administrative minimization and bargaining power), with supplemental insurance for cosmetic procedures/non-essential care and drugs/foreign care/other perks.

The Best Healthcare Systems in The World | Fair Reporters
 
Dittohead not! said:
I dunno.. how on Earth could we ever afford a system that costs about half as much as the one we have now? It would surely bust the budget.
Click to expand...

And somehow you think that the ACA isn't doing that right now? The ACA supposedly covers about 20 million people...what do you think would happen if 325 million people were covered on a Universal government plan? See post #26. Liberals will tell you that the rest of the industrial world health care is free.....there is nothing in this world that is free....someone will have to foot the bill.

One: go back to the system we had before....you know before the ACA mandates told millions they couldn't keep there Health care because it was inferior whether they like it or not. Two: Pass Tort reform. Three: allow those that can afford it, saving health care accounts. Four: mandate insurance companies keep preexisting conditions in their policies. Five: Keep anyone under 26 on one policies. Six: Allow 'all' insurance companies to sell anywhere anytime across state lines. That would increase competition and drive down cost.
 
Surrealistik said:
Comprehensive single payer with full coverage excepting perhaps the top 1% of earners (who will still benefit from the substantially reduced costs of such a system due to singlepayer's economy of scale, administrative minimization and bargaining power), with supplemental insurance for cosmetic procedures/non-essential care and drugs/foreign care/other perks.

The Best Healthcare Systems in The World | Fair Reporters
Click to expand...

I have a feeling if the countries on that list had the population/drug abuse/crime/obesity problems that the United States had it would be a different story.....

I have been to Andorra and for the life of me I can't think what would make it so wealthy...all that it there is a skiing industry. Oh...and a tax haven banking system. I guess that would make it wealthy.
 
queenmandy85 said:
Universal government run healthcare. No premiums, no user fees.
Click to expand...

That sort of system seemingly works well in many countries.
Apparently, such a system is far too complex for our country to implement.
We're just not capable of doing what those smarty-pants Euros and Canucks have already accomplished.
 
antiquity said:
And somehow you think that the ACA isn't doing that right now? The ACA supposedly covers about 20 million people...what do you think would happen if 325 million people were covered on a Universal government plan? See post #26. Liberals will tell you that the rest of the industrial world health care is free.....there is nothing in this world that is free....someone will have to foot the bill.

One: go back to the system we had before....you know before the ACA mandates told millions they couldn't keep there Health care because it was inferior whether they like it or not. Two: Pass Tort reform. Three: allow those that can afford it, saving health care accounts. Four: mandate insurance companies keep preexisting conditions in their policies. Five: Keep anyone under 26 on one policies. Six: Allow 'all' insurance companies to sell anywhere anytime across state lines. That would increase competition and drive down cost.
Click to expand...
Health care costs were outstripping inflation for decades before anyone heard of the ACA.
The USA is the only country without a universal health care plan, and we pay more than anyone else.

You do realize that 4 and 5 are parts of the ACA?

or do you?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Health care costs were outstripping inflation for decades before anyone heard of the ACA.
Click to expand...

Mostly do to restrictions to the insurance companies not being allow to sell over state lines and refusal of the democrats to enact tort reform. There are other reasons but those two stand out. The cost of the ACA is more than just premiums (which the shared cost is passed on to the taxpayer), its co-pay and deductibles.

The USA is the only country without a universal health care plan, and we pay more than anyone else.
Click to expand...

Not true...not every country has a universal health care...32 out of 33 industrial countries do and way more of 3rd world countries don't. Even some of the industrial countries don't really have a singe payer system, some are called two tier and Mandatory like the US system.

You do realize that 4 and 5 are parts of the ACA?
Click to expand...

Of course and they should be retained in any plan that republicans put forth.

or do you?
Click to expand...

Do I what? Believe a replacement for the ACA can and will happen...of course.
 
I find it interesting that no one voted for the current ACA system.....
 
antiquity said:
And just where would the money to pay for that come from....the money fairy?
Click to expand...

You could start by taking $200 billion from the defence budget. The United States has enough nuclear weapons to destroy all life on earth several times.
Logistically, only Mexico and Canada are in a geographic position to invade the U.S. The Defence Department is not going to miss $200 billion.
We have universal government run health care in Saskatchewan and we pay no premiums or user fees.
 
queenmandy85 said:
You could start by taking $200 billion from the defence budget. The United States has enough nuclear weapons to destroy all life on earth several times.
Logistically, only Mexico and Canada are in a geographic position to invade the U.S. The Defence Department is not going to miss $200 billion.
We have universal government run health care in Saskatchewan and we pay no premiums or user fees.
Click to expand...

I agree we should cut $200 billion from our defense budget.....and all of it should be money we spend protecting Canada and other whiner nations. And if that happened and Canada had to pick up 100% of their defense spending, I think your government health care would either be scaled back or your taxes would even be higher than it is now in support of your both your military and government health care.
 
antiquity said:
I agree we should cut $200 billion from our defense budget.....and all of it should be money we spend protecting Canada and other whiner nations. And if that happened and Canada had to pick up 100% of their defense spending, I think your government health care would either be scaled back or your taxes would even be higher than it is now in support of your both your military and government health care.
Click to expand...

The only country in a position to invade Canada is the United States. The U.S. has already invaded Canada twice and we are still here.
However, the question is, what kind of health care do you prefer. I prefer government run universal health care. It isn't perfect but if you would prefer not to reduce defence spending, then use the money Americans already pay for health care. In an article from Ceramics Monthly, I read that many production potters have $250,000 deductibles on their health insurance (Pre-Obama Care). That came as a shock since we don't have deductibles
If I lived in B.C., my premiums would still only be $109 (CDN) a month for my wife and myself, which is a lot less than you are paying in the U.S. We do not have to worry about pre-existing conditions. Employers will save money. Workers will save money. You will not have people afraid to go to the doctor because of the cost, thereby not costing the system more money as their condition deteriorates.
 
Last edited:
antiquity said:
Mostly do to restrictions to the insurance companies not being allow to sell over state lines and refusal of the democrats to enact tort reform. There are other reasons but those two stand out. The cost of the ACA is more than just premiums (which the shared cost is passed on to the taxpayer), its co-pay and deductibles.



Not true...not every country has a universal health care...32 out of 33 industrial countries do and way more of 3rd world countries don't. Even some of the industrial countries don't really have a singe payer system, some are called two tier and Mandatory like the US system.



Of course and they should be retained in any plan that republicans put forth.



Do I what? Believe a replacement for the ACA can and will happen...of course.
Click to expand...


1. Insurance companies can sell across state lines now, but they do have to abide by the regulations imposed by the state in which they're selling. They can't set up shop in the state with the most lax regulations and sell to the nation under those regulations.

2. Of course countries like Haiti don't have universal health care, but all of the advanced nations on Earth with the exception of the USA do have it, and all of them pay less than we do.
 
Dittohead not! said:
1. Insurance companies can sell across state lines now, but they do have to abide by the regulations imposed by the state in which they're selling. They can't set up shop in the state with the most lax regulations and sell to the nation under those regulations.
Click to expand...

No they can't, not all insurance companies can sell in every state. The reason? The current insurance companies operating in the state influence both the state insurance commissioner and the to some degree the state legislation by good old fashion lobbying to influence that same commissioner to keep other insurance companies out for their own self interest.

2. Of course countries like Haiti don't have universal health care, but all of the advanced nations on Earth with the exception of the USA do have it, and all of them pay less than we do.
Click to expand...

Not even close....only 15 out of the top 33 industrial countries has a single payer health care system. Most are either two tier or a mandated system like the ACA. Make sure you read the below link to see the different.

https://truecostblog.com/2009/08/09/countries-with-universal-healthcare-by-date/
 
antiquity said:
No they can't, not all insurance companies can sell in every state. The reason? The current insurance companies operating in the state influence both the state insurance commissioner and the to some degree the state legislation by good old fashion lobbying to influence that same commissioner to keep other insurance companies out for their own self interest.



Not even close....only 15 out of the top 33 industrial countries has a single payer health care system. Most are either two tier or a mandated system like the ACA. Make sure you read the below link to see the different.

https://truecostblog.com/2009/08/09/countries-with-universal-healthcare-by-date/
Click to expand...

They have universal health care, but non necessarily a single payer system. I believe universal health care was the phrase I used. The USA is heading for universal health care, but hasn't achieved it and won't if the ACA is repealed without a practical replacement.

Why can't Americans buy health insurance across state lines today, if true?

In addition to the points already made, the economies of each state can vary widely. In California for example, someone earning $100K might be struggling to stay afloat since the cost of living is very high, whereas $100K in North Carolina could stretch much further. So, if we allowed inter-state policy purchases, people would game the system and buy coverage from whichever state has the lowest cost of living/cheapest insurance rates. The insurance companies would then end up losing since the cost of insurance would not be in proper proportion to the cost of benefits provided in all areas of the country.
Click to expand...
 
Masterhawk said:
Keep in mind that America's healthcare is more expensive than any other in the world.
Click to expand...

It also gives among the best healthcare in the world - we pay a lot, and get a lot.

Compare, for example, your chances of surviving with Cancer if you are diagnosed in the United States v if you are diagnosed in Great Britain. Cancer is expensive, aye. But here, we treat it more, and absorb the cost.
 
Dittohead not! said:
They have universal health care, but non necessarily a single payer system. I believe universal health care was the phrase I used. The USA is heading for universal health care, but hasn't achieved it and won't if the ACA is repealed without a practical replacement.

Why can't Americans buy health insurance across state lines today, if true?

In addition to the points already made, the economies of each state can vary widely. In California for example, someone earning $100K might be struggling to stay afloat since the cost of living is very high, whereas $100K in North Carolina could stretch much further. So, if we allowed inter-state policy purchases, people would game the system and buy coverage from whichever state has the lowest cost of living/cheapest insurance rates. The insurance companies would then end up losing since the cost of insurance would not be in proper proportion to the cost of benefits provided in all areas of the country.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

That's a hilarious complaint. "But, if you opened up the market to competition, people might get insurance for less!!!!!"


Say It Ain't So!!! :eek:



:lol:
 
antiquity said:
You do realize that people on Medicare have paid into the system their entire working career. Why should someone 20 something get the same benefit possibly without paying a cent? Oh right, the wealthy!

I always get a kick out people who think the wealthy should pay for everything from health care to free college and every thing in between....Do you know
if you tax the wealthy 100% in this country and they give up all their wealth to the government .....the government could only run for about a week. And then what? Start with the middle class?
Click to expand...
That's completely False/a platitude based on some other but smaller related claim.

As a matter of fact, Comrade Chaos (Trumpov) had a Tax Plan in the 2000 Election .. and it would Sti!! work.

Trump proposes Massive One-time Tax on the Rich
Phil Hirschkorn/CNN
Trump proposes massive one-time tax on the rich - November 9, 1999

Billionaire businessman Donald Trump has a plan to pay off the national debt, grant a middle class a tax cut, and keep Social Security afloat: tax rich people like himself.

Trump, a prospective candidate for the Reform Party presidential nomination, is proposing a one-time "Net worth tax" on individuals and trusts worth $10 million or more.

By Trump's calculations, his proposed 14.25% levy on such net worth would raise $5.7 trillion and Wipe out the Debt in One full swoop.
The U.S. national debt decreased by $9.7 billion in September but remains at $5.66 trillion, according to the latest U.S. Treasury figures.

The Net Worth Tax is the Cornerstone of Trump's economic plan released Tuesday morning..."​


Now it would raise probably 3x that ($17 Trillion), nearly 5 years of current Govt Spending, OR still near the total of the $19T debt.
 
Last edited:
SocialD said:
the cost of health insurance is a big deal. If I had the cheapest Obamacare plan it would cost me $4k a year in premiums, then I would have a $6.7k deductible and then it would cover around 80% of my costs. that's just for me. so spending almost 11k a year before I get any benefit out of it is just not a well functioning way to go.
the cost of insurance has skyrocketed for me since the ACA was passed. that's how I see government involvement. 7 years ago the bottom of the barrel plan for me was less than $40 a month on the open market now its $336
Click to expand...
IOW, you Cannot Afford Health Insurance without ACA or other Subsidy.
There is NO "$40" a month plan that is going to pay you BEANS when you need it.
Who the hell would sell a 40 a month policy that didn't have a 5K deductible and and 1K payout cap?
LOL
How is the Ins co supposed to make any money?
How does $40 a month cover any serious medical condition.. AND.. Ins co Profit?
Let's be clear... YOU would end up being a Ward of the taxpayers under any such meager policy.

4K a year is a very good rate.
And about what other OECD (30 Industrialized rich) countries spend per capita for their health care.
A so-called "market rate" plan in this country... Higher by at least 2K-4K. IOW, 6K-8K
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
That's a hilarious complaint. "But, if you opened up the market to competition, people might get insurance for less!!!!!"


Say It Ain't So!!! :eek:



:lol:
Click to expand...

Maybe.
But, not according to the insurance industry.
 
Incidentally, while it includes features that Westerners would probably have issues with, the Singaporean system is probably one of the best in the world.
 
cpwill said:
Kinda seems like making sure they can make a profit from premiums is their job, ain't it?
Click to expand...

Of course. Did you read the link? They don't think they could make a profit by selling across state lines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom