• 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!

I want a National Single-Payer Healthcare Plan, Do You?

Do you want a Federal Single-Payer Healthcare Plan?


  • Total voters
    163
I don't like the current ACA, but I don't want it replaced with a version which gives the AMA, Big Pharma, and the Insurance Industry even more money and control over healthcare.

IMO a national single payer program modeled after the best practices of other Western single payer plans, while addressing and correcting the ills of such plans is the best medicine for the people of the United States.

That is what we should ALL be demanding of our representatives in Congress and the White House.

We could start with simply reorganizing Medicare, Medicaid and whatever other programs we have at the Federal level into universal healthcare deducted from our payroll then build on it.

If you DO agree, please explain what YOU would like to see.

If you DO NOT agree, please explain why.
I want a Single-payer system too. You pay for your healthcare and i will pay for mine.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
No. The government is big enough and my taxes are high enough. I do not want the government to have more influence over healthcare and I do not want to pay more for other peoples healthcare.
Dont fall for their orwellean tactics. They are not single payer advocates. Tjey are grou pay advocates with a progressive scale base.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Hi Polgara *hug*

I agree that it's too early. A lot of Conservatives are complaining about the current proposal. And that's funny about your chihuahua! :lol: We got the winds too, and it flung my door open a few times as well and ripped the flagpole off of my house. A friend of mine had a bunch of shingles ripped off of his roof! :shock: I think it's dying down now.

You guys got the demon winds too? It was terrible in MI. So many downed trees and power disruptions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I'm cool with a basic UHC funded by tax dollars, with the option to purchase supplemental, that covers the elastic things.
Ideally, I want a tax funded HDHP.
There are a few other things I think need serious reform like SSI, but that's largely a pet issue and there is no lobby for that.

What you said is very similar.

They also have the option to have the state funded portion deposited into a health savings account but not many do that to my understanding.
 
I'm curious how Canada and many European countries manage to provide universal health care to their citizens. Pardon my ignorance but it must be because either their medical costs are much lower or their taxes are through the roof.

Well single-payer healthcare generally has lower costs overall and we do have higher taxes but also better public services in other things as well. You would also have to consider opportunity cost.
 
Well "dude," I was merely using him as an example of how the impossible can become possible despite naysayers to the contrary.

I was not tooting HIS horn...only showing YOU that very little is truly impossible if people really want it to happen.

If you can't see that from a current and relevant example...that's on you. :shrug:

If there is any chance at all of ever getting single payer, then you would have to elect a very liberal congress, a very liberal president, and have a majority liberal Supreme Court. It's not going to happen. On top of that you would need a solid majority of states with very liberal governors and with very liberal legislators. Otherwise, the states would not cooperate and the program would fail. Moreover, even if somehow in the future there was a very liberal congress, and a very liberal president, we are decades away from having a majority liberal Supreme Court. So even if a bill were passed implementing a national single payer healthcare program, SCOTUS would either strike it down, or strike down so much of it that it would fail.

Hence the cognitive dissonance. If you have ever voted for a candidate at any level of government that was not a hardcore, we are talking Bernie - Paul Wellstone type of hardcore liberal, then you are not doing enough to get single payer because the only way you will ever get it would be to fill the government with a bunch people like them. Which will never happen, hence the reason it is politically impossible.
 
They also have the option to have the state funded portion deposited into a health savings account but not many do that to my understanding.

The would be infinitely better than the others presented thus far.
The problem is that our lobby and interest groups prevent things like this from happening.

It's one of the serious faults of democratic based governments.
Short term political gain supersedes long term planning for the betterment of all.

Singapore is a decent example of a mix of quasi autocracy and democracy.
They've been largely a de facto single party state, thus allowing them to form long term legislation.
It's also part of their cultural history via Confucianism.
 
I don't like the current ACA, but I don't want it replaced with a version which gives the AMA, Big Pharma, and the Insurance Industry even more money and control over healthcare.

IMO a national single payer program modeled after the best practices of other Western single payer plans, while addressing and correcting the ills of such plans is the best medicine for the people of the United States.

That is what we should ALL be demanding of our representatives in Congress and the White House.

We could start with simply reorganizing Medicare, Medicaid and whatever other programs we have at the Federal level into universal healthcare deducted from our payroll then build on it.

If you DO agree, please explain what YOU would like to see.

If you DO NOT agree, please explain why.

I'm pretty conservative/libertarian but this is one area where I've slowly broken from my normal ideology due to observe reality. Through decades of corruption in both the private sector and government interference, at both national and local levels, we've come to a point where the healthcare itself is just too expensive and unsustainable, even for people doing everything right.

Same solution you have seems to be the easiest way and I think it would actually be even easier than the ACA or this new bill is to write. Just expand Medicare for all. Done.
 
No. The government is big enough and my taxes are high enough. I do not want the government to have more influence over healthcare and I do not want to pay more for other peoples healthcare.

What if it was a flat tax on everyone?
 
The would be infinitely better than the others presented thus far.
The problem is that our lobby and interest groups prevent things like this from happening.

It's one of the serious faults of democratic based governments.
Short term political gain supersedes long term planning for the betterment of all.

Singapore is a decent example of a mix of quasi autocracy and democracy.
They've been largely a de facto single party state, thus allowing them to form long term legislation.
It's also part of their cultural history via Confucianism.

They also don't give a **** about rights. That is the price you pay.
 
What if it was a flat tax on everyone?

Just don't want the program period, so really it makes no difference. The fact is liberals tried to get this result since FDR and I refuse to give them what they want.
 
So the only solution is to let the government take it over?

Let the government take over paying for it, sure. Don't worry though, the republicans are going to find a way to make Obamacare cost less for the wealthy, more for everyone else, and provide less care; I guarantee it.
 
Let the government take over paying for it, sure. Don't worry though, the republicans are going to find a way to make Obamacare cost less for the wealthy, more for everyone else, and provide less care; I guarantee it.

I wish people would stop saying things like "the government pays for it". The government doesn't pay for anything. It feels like one of those debates where everyone wants to raise minimum wage or pass some regulation and then act like they aren't paying for that.
 
As a side note, I am always amazed when I see someone that is overweight, smokes, or has any chronic health conditions argue that they "want the government out of healthcare". Them not realizing of course that if there were no government involvment in healthcare, no one would even sell someone like them a health insurance policy.
 
If he doesn't want to pay for anyone else's healthcare, I don't think he understand's how insurance works.

You mean people agreeing to buy a service that involves polls for payments.

Well, before it was a mandated service anyway.
 
A national single-payer healthcare plan is coming to the USA eventually.

But probably not while the GOP is running the country.
 
Sort of.
Most governments don't really care about rights.
They're constantly testing to see what they can get away with, (see; Wikileaks).

Autocracies are just more transparent about it.

Singapore not really, they like to pretend to have rights and a functioning democracy. They say that when journalists gets arrested and their electoral districts are gerrymandered to hell. They have the Chinese love of authoritarianism.
 
Just don't want the program period, so really it makes no difference. The fact is liberals tried to get this result since FDR and I refuse to give them what they want.

Oh OK...so the paying for other people was a smoke screen?
 
As a side note, I am always amazed when I see someone that is overweight, smokes, or has any chronic health conditions argue that they "want the government out of healthcare". Them not realizing of course that if there were no government involvment in healthcare, no one would even sell someone like them a health insurance policy.

That's because you always start with yourself first.
 
Oh OK...so the paying for other people was a smoke screen?

No? Liberals have been raising the costs of healthcare ever since they failed to get what they wanted with FDR. Do you think it's just by shear accident that we are talking about a solution they wanted all long because of high healthcare costs?
 
Singapore not really, they like to pretend to have rights and a functioning democracy. They say that when journalists gets arrested and their electoral districts have exclaves. They have the Chinese love of authoritarianism.

It's somewhat part of the cultural tradition.
Confucianism has a long history and effect, it's not entirely bad.

I mean you can kinda call interest groups in western democratic countries, quasi autocratic.
They tend to block meaningful change for their own sake, rather than for the interests of the people at large.

There is no sinless government system.
 
So at what point does people say the government takes enough of their money in taxes? You would think we would have hit that point by now, but apparently not.
 
Back
Top Bottom