• 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!

ACA: Are the Dems blowing an opportunity?

ACA: Are the Dems blowing an opportunity?

  • Total voters
    20
  • Poll closed .
apdst said:
I bring up the Charlie Gard case to point out a good reason why government run healthcare is a bad idea.

Don't give me the "it can't happen here" bull****.
Click to expand...
When we get government run healthcare, I expect this will become an issue at some point shortly after it's implementation.

We'll need to address it.

Edit: And by that I mean we'll need to examine the question of what medical procedures are unnecessary - for example I think some plastic surgery is covered by the UK system, and I'm not sure purely cosmetic surgery is something we should be supporting people getting on taxpayer funding.
 
apdst said:
Single payer and medicaid/medicare are two different animals. You don't seem to understand that.
Click to expand...

No they are not. Both Medicare and Medicaid are single payer systems. You have one entity, the government, paying for the health coverage for beneficiaries of those programs. That is the very definition of a single payer. What would change is that Medicare would be for everyone, not just those over 65.
 
The thing I think was political malpractice was the GOP not coming up with a draft plan during all these years. They could have campaigned on it, pointed out how much better their version was, etc.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
No they are not. Both Medicare and Medicaid are single payer systems. You have one entity, the government, paying for the health coverage for beneficiaries of those programs. That is the very definition of a single payer. What would change is that Medicare would be for everyone, not just those over 65.
Click to expand...
That's a huge difference, though.

I mean we're literally talking millions more people using the system, and probably billions more dollars going through it. It's obviously different.

Which is not to say I think we shouldn't try for single-payer, or some form...state-level single payer? 50+ different single-payer systems?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
No they are not. Both Medicare and Medicaid are single payer systems. You have one entity, the government, paying for the health coverage for beneficiaries of those programs. That is the very definition of a single payer. What would change is that Medicare would be for everyone, not just those over 65.
Click to expand...

Cite the law that forces anyone to use medicare/medicaid.
 
apdst said:
Cite the law that forces anyone to use medicare/medicaid.
Click to expand...

There isn't one. There would not be a law that would force anyone to use medicare if everyone was eligible for it. Your point, just like your comparison to a fully nationalized system like there is in the U.K., is not just a strawman, it is an absurd one at that.
 
The Mark said:
That's a huge difference, though.

I mean we're literally talking millions more people using the system, and probably billions more dollars going through it. It's obviously different.

Which is not to say I think we shouldn't try for single-payer, or some form...state-level single payer? 50+ different single-payer systems?
Click to expand...

I am not even for a single payer system if for no other reason that I don't want some idiot like Donald "who knew healthcare would be so complicated" Trump running it.

Just the same, the comparison of a single payer system which would be Medicare for everyone in the United States, to the NHS in the U.K, where the government doesn't just provide your health coverage but also owns the hospitals and employs virtually all the providers, is an apples and oranges comparison. It would be like comparing Medicare to the health system in the former Soviet Union.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I am not even for a single payer system if for no other reason that I don't want some idiot like Donald "who knew healthcare would be so complicated" Trump running it.

Just the same, the comparison of a single payer system which would be Medicare for everyone in the United States, to the NHS in the U.K, where the government doesn't just provide your health coverage but also owns the hospitals and employs virtually all the providers, is an apples and oranges comparison. It would be like comparing Medicare to the health system in the former Soviet Union.
Click to expand...
Also true.

I think it would be possible to set up single-payer system that would not be exploitable by partisan politics, or at least was somewhat protected from them - requirements in it's...charter, for lack of a better word, and so forth.
Things like a requirement to ensure all people within the defined area or population had a certain minimum level of healthcare, and define that healthcare not in monetary terms, but rather by how much it benefits them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom