• 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!

Are You in Favor of a Single Payer Health Care System?

Do You Support a Single Payer Health Care System?


  • Total voters
    63

X Factor

Anti-Socialist
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
61,606
Reaction score
32,215
Location
El Paso Strong
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Recently, Rep. Conyers admitted that Obamacare was a platform to a single payer system (despite claims to the contrary during the debate).

“Had that bill (Obamacare) failed, with all of its flaws, it would have taken another decade or longer to get single payer up and going. We view the health care reform bill as a platform on which we are now able to move forward.”

http://www.singlepayeraction.org/blog/?p=2758

In a search on the net, there are definitely people who advocate and support it in the US.

Would you like to see single payer health care in the US?
 
Last edited:
Recently, Rep. Conyers admitted that Obamacare was a platform to a single payer system (despite claims to the contrary during the debate).



Conyers Proclaims Love for Obamacare « Single Payer Action

In a search on the net, there are definitely people who advocate and support it in the US.

Would you like to see single payer health care in the US?

You'd be replacing a lightly competitive middle man insurance market with a monopoly middle man.

Couldn't think of anything worse than our government, who can't even balance it's own budget, managing my medical care.
 
Recently, Rep. Conyers admitted that Obamacare was a platform to a single payer system (despite claims to the contrary during the debate).



Conyers Proclaims Love for Obamacare « Single Payer Action

In a search on the net, there are definitely people who advocate and support it in the US.

Would you like to see single payer health care in the US?

Holy ****, did you not understand what he said, or are you intentionally being misleading. Conyers and Kucinich discussed opposing the bill to fight for single payer, which they(and the website you link to) support, but decided to support the bill, largely for getting rid of pre-existing conditions as a reason to deny coverage.

They(meaning Conyers and Kucinich) will attempt to use the bill as a platform to work towards single payer, but that is not what the bill was designed as. It is also not a direct step towards single payer, and in fact, as he comments, grows the private insurance industry(the opposite of single payer). He is plotting the strategy for his goal moving forward, not saying that the bill was planned as a stepping stone.
 
You'd be replacing a lightly competitive middle man insurance market with a monopoly middle man.

Couldn't think of anything worse than our government, who can't even balance it's own budget, managing my medical care.

Not entirely a fair comment. The government also runs the most advanced, effective military in the world. The government has also led us to being the worlds foremost power militarily, politically and socially and continues to keep us there. Cynicism is easy, but it's as inaccurate as unbridled optimism.
 
Not entirely a fair comment. The government also runs the most advanced, effective military in the world. The government has also led us to being the worlds foremost power militarily, politically and socially and continues to keep us there. Cynicism is easy, but it's as inaccurate as unbridled optimism.

Yea but come on, the amount of wasteful spending in the military alone is just the icing on the cake of stupidity involved with these people.

Jet's and bases the DOD doesn't want but has to take because of the nut jobs in congress, it can only be worse with UHC.
 
Yea but come on, the amount of wasteful spending in the military alone is just the icing on the cake of stupidity involved with these people.

Jet's and bases the DOD doesn't want but has to take because of the nut jobs in congress, it can only be worse with UHC.

Are you saying large corporations are waste free? Any large undertaking has waste, fraud and abuse. Pointing to that as a reason we cannot do it us patently false. I am willing to bet that most to all insurance companies have an equivalent percentage of waste.

To me the real question is not can we do it. I think given the desire, we can do most anything successfully, which is why we are the greatest country on earth currently. I never think betting against the US is a good bet. The question to my mind is should we go to single payer, and that is a much tougher question, and I think Obama got it exactly right when he said that in the absence of another system, single payer would be the way to go, but since that is not the case, and we do have a system in place for health care, we should just work to improve that system, not replace it.
 
No, of course not. Mayor Snorkum is an American. He pays his own way for himself and owes nothing to others, who should also be paying their own way.
 
No, of course not. Mayor Snorkum is an American. He pays his own way for himself and owes nothing to others, who should also be paying their own way.

So you don't drive on public roads, expect police and fire support, and so on?
 
There are also people who support man-boy "love", but that's just as wrong.

There are also people who make irrelevant comparisons and appeals to emotion, but that's even more wrong.
 
Are you saying large corporations are waste free? Any large undertaking has waste, fraud and abuse.

Privately owned companies have people called "owners" who have an interest in cutting waste, fraud, and abuse. Government is not euqally motivated.

Privately owned companies that cannot control their losses can be underpriced by competitors and they either improve or vanish. Governments raise taxes.
 
Are you saying large corporations are waste free? Any large undertaking has waste, fraud and abuse. Pointing to that as a reason we cannot do it us patently false. I am willing to bet that most to all insurance companies have an equivalent percentage of waste.

I didn't say we can't, but that I don't want. :2razz:

Corporations do have waste but there are 2 things that effect their desire to remove it, that the government doesn't have.

1. Waste reduces profits and 2. they don't have to worry about "the people" when deciding to streamline something.

A good example of this is Medicare.
The political will to cut it deeply (where it needs to be cut), to balance our budget, just isn't there.

To me the real question is not can we do it. I think given the desire, we can do most anything successfully, which is why we are the greatest country on earth currently. I never think betting against the US is a good bet. The question to my mind is should we go to single payer, and that is a much tougher question, and I think Obama got it exactly right when he said that in the absence of another system, single payer would be the way to go, but since that is not the case, and we do have a system in place for health care, we should just work to improve that system, not replace it.

There is a lot of room for improvement, I don't think the political will is there to make it happen though.
Not betting against America, but being realistic with my expectations.
 
Privately owned companies have people called "owners" who have an interest in cutting waste, fraud, and abuse. Government is not euqally motivated.

The military is made up of particularly motivated citizens who help defend against waste, fraud and abuse(the forms are very easy to get and do get responses for example). Further, the military has a limited budget, which makes the leaders very conscious of how to best spend that budget.

Privately owned companies that cannot control their losses can be underpriced by competitors and they either improve or vanish. Governments raise taxes.

This is an advantage of capitalism, but not so much healthcare, where cutting costs is most easily done by cutting benefits. Further, private companies can do this thing called price fixing which is bad(and this does happen).

All your objections so far are simplistic and jingoistic.
 
There are also people who make irrelevant comparisons and appeals to emotion, but that's even more wrong.

Well, yes, but we all have learned to avoid the suffering induced by those demanding single payer systems.

It's not an appeal to emotion for Mayor Snorkum to say he pays his own way. That's incontrovertible fact.

Nor it is an appeal to emotion for Mayor Snorkum to claim he owes others nothing for their health care. That's another incontrovertible fact.

Nor is it lost that people claiming obvious facts are "appeals to emotion" aren't capable of discussing the facts presented and are seeking to shift the discussion away from those facts.

No American is his neighbor's keeper. That's another fact. Unless he's borrowed their chainsaw, he owes them nothing at all.

Any American wishing to VOLUNTEER assistance has every freedom to do so. That's yet another fact.

A final incontrovertible fact is that the federal government does not have the authority under the Constitution to establish any such thing as a single payer system, especially not if it's designating two hundred million taxpayers as the "single payer". Not one line in Article I, Section 8 permits this, and thus the Tenth Amendment applies.

Any state foolish enough to want to establish it's own "single payer" system has every freedom to do so, except, of course, for the fact that people can move out of that state, and will. There's a reason Nancy Pelosi had to tell the nation we couldn't know what was in the Obama Care bill before it was passed. Besides not knowing herself what was in it, I mean. If any openness existed in the Obama regime that bill would have been dissected and discussed and enough Americans would have known how bad it was to prevent it's passage.
 
The military is made up of particularly motivated citizens who help defend against waste, fraud and abuse(the forms are very easy to get and do get responses for example). Further, the military has a limited budget, which makes the leaders very conscious of how to best spend that budget.

The teacher's unions aren't motivated like that.
The other public employees unions aren't motivated like that.
The consumers of the taxpayer funded services aren't motivated like that.

You point to the military because the military is the only branch of government in which the volunteers care about the health of the country.

This is an advantage of capitalism, but not so much healthcare, where cutting costs is most easily done by cutting benefits. Further, private companies can do this thing called price fixing which is bad(and this does happen).

Health care is a business, and capitalism is capitalism, a philosophy of conducting business practices to generate profit and growth with efficiency. It's as applicable to health care as it is to television sales.

All your objections so far are simplistic and jingoistic.

As noted, you're posting code for arguments you cannot refute.
 
So you don't drive on public roads, expect police and fire support, and so on?

So you think health care is the commons? Mayor Snorkum's use of the roads is paid for by his taxes. Everyone uses the roads and payes their proportionate share of the expense, which on a per capita basis is minimal.

Health care serves not commerce functions, it's a private matter. No individual should be required to pay for someone else's hysterectomy or dialysis when his own prostate is working fine, just like his kidneys. Note the use of the word "required" in the preceding sentence.

The rest of us understand that police are an essential function of government, and don't pretend otherwise.

And, we're also aware that the free market is perfectly capable of providing fire control services if monopolistic government intrusion didn't destroy the market for same.
 
Not entirely a fair comment. The government also runs the most advanced, effective military in the world. The government has also led us to being the worlds foremost power militarily, politically and socially and continues to keep us there. Cynicism is easy, but it's as inaccurate as unbridled optimism.

One of the two main purposes of every government is running the military. Force is what governments do. They do nothing else.

Governments do not run businesses well. The successful fascist state with free people has never existed. It's a contradiction in terms. Health care is a business, and the evidence is in. Surprise! Governments around the world do not run healthcare well.
 
So you think health care is the commons? Mayor Snorkum's use of the roads is paid for by his taxes. Everyone uses the roads and payes their proportionate share of the expense, which on a per capita basis is minimal.

Health care serves not commerce functions, it's a private matter. No individual should be required to pay for someone else's hysterectomy or dialysis when his own prostate is working fine, just like his kidneys. Note the use of the word "required" in the preceding sentence.

The rest of us understand that police are an essential function of government, and don't pretend otherwise.

And, we're also aware that the free market is perfectly capable of providing fire control services if monopolistic government intrusion didn't destroy the market for same.

Ummm...if we had single payer, then your health care would be payed by your taxes just as your use of roads is now. You can't have it both ways.

If you have health insurance, you are paying for another person's hysterectomy or dialysis, just as other people will be paying for yours when your turn comes along.

You keep repeating these jingoistic soundbites that don't have any real content or basis in reality.
 
One of the two main purposes of every government is running the military. Force is what governments do. They do nothing else.

Governments do not run businesses well. The successful fascist state with free people has never existed. It's a contradiction in terms. Health care is a business, and the evidence is in. Surprise! Governments around the world do not run healthcare well.

No one is suggesting fascism. The over the top rhetoric with child molesting and fascism and such is just ridiculous.
 
Are you saying large corporations are waste free? Any large undertaking has waste, fraud and abuse. Pointing to that as a reason we cannot do it us patently false. I am willing to bet that most to all insurance companies have an equivalent percentage of waste.

To me the real question is not can we do it. I think given the desire, we can do most anything successfully, which is why we are the greatest country on earth currently. I never think betting against the US is a good bet. The question to my mind is should we go to single payer, and that is a much tougher question, and I think Obama got it exactly right when he said that in the absence of another system, single payer would be the way to go, but since that is not the case, and we do have a system in place for health care, we should just work to improve that system, not replace it.

According to most studies I have seen, from a value-add perspective, most company processes are somewhere in he range of 90 to 95% wasteful. This is a result I have seen over and over with a lean analysis. Its not just government that is wasteful.
 
Last edited:
According to most studies I have seen, from a value-add perspective, most company processes are somewhere in he range of 90 to 95% wasteful. This is a result I have seen over and over with a lean analysis. Its not just government that is wasteful.

Not trying to be argumentative, but I'm calling bs on that.

Even though most/all businesses can be/are wasteful (there is nothing that is perfectly efficient), being wasteful in the 90-95% range makes no sense at all.
 
We spend twice as much, per capita, as people in european countries with single payer systems.

Per Capita Health Expenditures by Country, 2007 — Infoplease.com

And yet, our life expectancy is less:

List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And, our infant mortality rates are worse:

List of countries by infant mortality rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, we're paying twice as much to get half as much. In what world is that a good deal?

Perhaps if we stopped subsidizing insurance companies, and the dollars went directly to healthcare providers, we'd be in a better place (aka the place that the rest of the civilized west has already located).

If you've been to an ER in the last 12 months (and I have been, twice, i have two teenagers), you would understand already that our current system is broken and unsustainable. I know that change is terrifying. But, exactly how much worse do you think it can get?
 
Last edited:
We spend twice as much, per capita, as people in european countries with single payer systems.

Per Capita Health Expenditures by Country, 2007 — Infoplease.com

And yet, our life expectancy is less:

List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And, our infant mortality rates are worse:

List of countries by infant mortality rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, we're paying twice as much to get half as much. In what world is that a good deal?

Perhaps if we stopped subsidizing insurance companies, and the dollars went directly to healthcare providers, we'd be in a better place (aka the place that the rest of the civilized west has already located).

If you've been to an ER in the last 12 months (and I have been, twice, i have two teenagers), you would understand already that our current system is broken and unsustainable. I know that change is terrifying. But, exactly how much worse do you think it can get?

Graphs/charts are always more fun:

healthcare+costs+lg.png


We spend much more and get mediocre results...how sad is that.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom