• 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
Oh yes, this is also in the Bill....one should ask why...especially in light of the other mandates I've noted ;)

SEC. 321. ESTABLISHMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF A PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION AS AN EXCHANGE-QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN.

(1) EXCLUSIVE TO THE EXCHANGE- The public health insurance option shall only be made available through the Health Insurance Exchange.

(2) ENSURING A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD- Consistent with this subtitle, the public health insurance option shall comply with requirements that are applicable under this title to an Exchange-participating health benefits plan, including requirements related to benefits, benefit levels, provider networks, notices, consumer protections, and cost-sharing.

(3) PROVISION OF BENEFIT LEVELS- The public health insurance option--

(A) shall offer basic, enhanced, and premium plans; and

(B) may offer premium-plus plans.
 
Oh yes, this is also in the Bill....one should ask why...especially in light of the other mandates I've noted ;)

SEC. 321. ESTABLISHMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF A PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION AS AN EXCHANGE-QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN.

(1) EXCLUSIVE TO THE EXCHANGE- The public health insurance option shall only be made available through the Health Insurance Exchange.

(2) ENSURING A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD- Consistent with this subtitle, the public health insurance option shall comply with requirements that are applicable under this title to an Exchange-participating health benefits plan, including requirements related to benefits, benefit levels, provider networks, notices, consumer protections, and cost-sharing.

(3) PROVISION OF BENEFIT LEVELS- The public health insurance option--

(A) shall offer basic, enhanced, and premium plans; and

(B) may offer premium-plus plans.


Would it be possilbe for you to repost in a fashion that doesn't make our eyes bleed???
 
Nope, you folks are getting what you wanted...you just didn't know it.

Now you do.

You mean posts we don't bother to read because they make our eyes hurt! You've got it!
 
You say that like cutting out the middlemen would be a bad thing.

Good point CPD ... that is what he saying and he is also saying a public option would offer better choices and the private insurers could not compete.

The thread was about single payor. Obama's HCR was not single payor ... it was an improvement over the current system yet not enough to fix a sadly broken system that has skyrocketing healthcare inflation.

Amazed makes a point that a public option if included in HCR (different than complete single payor) would drive private insurers out of business. Exactly ... Well if private insurance making billions in profit cannot offer the same level of service and competitive rates and service as a public option would have ... they will either cut the fat that cost 30% of each healthcare dollar to run .... or become efficient and less greedy and run on a 3-5% administrative rate.

Single payor would save American jobs, halt skyrocketing healthcare inflation and decrease bankruptcy rates.

The HCR when it included public option would have put some competition back in the market.

Single Payor is different than HCR and would be ideal if administered as a non profit.


So what do we do with a sky rocket inflationary inadequate health care system that is a big money maker for private insurers and the pharmaceutical industry but leaves one in six people lacking insurance and most with insurance that is too costly and inadequate?

The uninsured are not the deadbeats ... those people are on medicaid. (I am not saying that all on medicaid are deadbeats ... just that deadbeats find their way to medicaid).The 1 in six uninsured referenced are are usually employed or self employed. in the original HCR they would have had a choice to buy into an efficient not for profit coverage.

Seriously HCR is a bandaid albeit at least an attempt to offer solutions ... single payor administered as non profit is the much needed solution.

HCR has saved millions in fraud and allowed millions of people age 18-25 to be covered on their parents family policy. The public option was too much competition for the private companies dripping in fat with 40% adminstrative waste.

Single payor is the most complete solution.
 
Last edited:
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.

The budget isn't balanced because we keep coming up with spending ideas, like foreign wars... and then cutting taxes to pay for them....

As far as health insurance, it has to be an upgrade over one of the least efficient healthcare delivery systems in the free world. How do we manage to spend far more per capita than anyone else, have such mediocre results and still have 1/6 of our population shut out of the system. All Americans that believe in decency and compassion for our fellow man should be deeply ashamed.
 

Attachments

  • Life_expectancy_vs_spending_OECD.jpg
    Life_expectancy_vs_spending_OECD.jpg
    7.1 KB · Views: 158
Last edited:
That's a big if that you're resting your assumptions on here.

That's the only way a national medical scheme can function and stay solvent.
It's not surprising that almost all national health systems have this very same thing in one form or another.

Nationalize medical care is not a magic genie, a silver bullet or any other fanciful creation it's proponents make it out to be.
 
Nationalize medical care is not a magic genie, a silver bullet or any other fanciful creation it's proponents make it out to be.

I don't think that is what people are making it out to be. They are simply saying it is a superior system to what we have.
 
The budget isn't balanced because we keep coming up with spending ideas, like foreign wars... and then cutting taxes to pay for them....

Actually our 2 biggest budget problems are Medicare and Medicaid, our experiment with national medical care.

As far as health insurance, it has to be an upgrade over one of the least efficient healthcare delivery systems in the free world. How do we manage to spend far more per capita than anyone else, have such mediocre results and still have 1/6 of our population shut out of the system. All Americans that believe in decency and compassion for our fellow man should be deeply ashamed.

The first part is a lie, as for the rest, the U.S. has some of the best cancer survival rates in the world.
(We're in the top 3, a cute little statistic that some people like to forget)
That is were your money is going.

Don't try to play emotional games with me, it won't work.
 
Oh yes, this is also in the Bill....one should ask why...especially in light of the other mandates I've noted ;)

SEC. 321. ESTABLISHMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF A PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION AS AN EXCHANGE-QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN.

(1) EXCLUSIVE TO THE EXCHANGE- The public health insurance option shall only be made available through the Health Insurance Exchange.

(2) ENSURING A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD- Consistent with this subtitle, the public health insurance option shall comply with requirements that are applicable under this title to an Exchange-participating health benefits plan, including requirements related to benefits, benefit levels, provider networks, notices, consumer protections, and cost-sharing.

(3) PROVISION OF BENEFIT LEVELS- The public health insurance option--

(A) shall offer basic, enhanced, and premium plans; and

(B) may offer premium-plus plans.

Gosh, is it Christmas already?
 
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.


The amount paid for socialized medicine, to call "single payer" what it really is, is disproportionate to the value recieved, for most people.

Also, the freedom of choice is lost.

Not to mention that little fact you refused to address, that the Constitution forbids socialism in all forms, including medical.

With my medical insurance Mayor Snorkum has the freedom to choose his coverage, he has the freedom to shop for alternate providers, he has the freedom to choose his deductible, he has the freedom to decline being covered at all.

Socialized medicine ends all those freedoms, and yet provides nothing for Mayor Snorkum he isn't already providing, but socialized medicinen costs more, in dollar terms, in lost freedom, and in lost quality of care.
 
You say that like cutting out the middlemen would be a bad thing.

Oh.

So you favor the elimination of all insurance carriers and the elimination of all government agencies, and seek to return medical care to the days when people paid cash for their health care.

Interestingly anachronistic, but it's probably more productive to simply allow private insurance companies to finally conduct business across state lines and just get the government out of the health care market.
 
I support a single payer healthcare system. Insurance companies do not have patients as their goal. I think for profit healthcare is wrong. The goal should be to help and heal those that are sick, not squeeze them for money and leave them to die if they can't afford it. I completely understand that doctors and staff need to be paid and that procedures cost money, but insurance companies aren't in it to help people or look out for their consumer. I'm sick of being dependent on insurance companies that can do whatever they want to and charge whatever they want to while we are the ones who lose in the long run.

The single payer, ie, the government, won't have patient health as it's goal either. The goal of people in government is now, has always been, power, money, and prestige. It's perfectly clear that any single payer system will be rationed system and that means value judgements will be made on who deserves care and who does not, and that judgement is going to be based on..what else, financial considerations.

The correct alternative to your complaint that insurance companies are greedy is to recognize the fact that the residents of a given state are hostage to the insurance companies doing business in that state and the solution to closed markets is the opening of those markets. Lost freedom by government fiat isn't the solution to high prices, expanded competition is the solution. Demand the Congress permit interstate commerce in health insurance.
 
Health care cost per capita is over $6,000 in the US, far higher than any other nation, and that figure is from 2007. It is certain to be a lot higher now.

The bottom line is that the US can no longer afford the health care system it now has. It is bankrupting not only business, which pays for employee coverage, but the government as well. It is a negative force in the creation of jobs, and a big part of the current deficit.

Not only do we have the most expensive health care system on Earth, but we don't get what we pay for. People here are no healthier than they are in other modern nations, and may be less so.

There is no question about it: We need to have a real national health care system and soon.

interesting comment for a libertarian (LOL)

so the federal government has the power to create a national health care system?
 
The budget isn't balanced because we keep coming up with spending ideas, like foreign wars... and then cutting taxes to pay for them....

As far as health insurance, it has to be an upgrade over one of the least efficient healthcare delivery systems in the free world. How do we manage to spend far more per capita than anyone else, have such mediocre results and still have 1/6 of our population shut out of the system. All Americans that believe in decency and compassion for our fellow man should be deeply ashamed.

why do socialists constantly whine about a proper government function when its the improper government activities that cost the most money? and yes people like you need to have your taxes raised. the rich already pay too much
 
Amazed makes a point that a public option if included in HCR (different than complete single payor) would drive private insurers out of business. Exactly ... Well if private insurance making billions in profit cannot offer the same level of service and competitive rates and service as a public option would have ... they will either cut the fat that cost 30% of each healthcare dollar to run .... or become efficient and less greedy and run on a 3-5% administrative rate.

First, it is the first step toward the single payor, it is in there precisley because the rest of the bill is designed to wipe private carriers off the scene.

I do not assume that ANY Public Program can EVER give better results than ANY Private Program....there is no evidence of this in our Gov history.

We will all be forced into the single payor you folks want....Obama lied when he said you could keep what you have.
 
Last edited:
Not in a perfect world, but the Bill is designed to take them out.

First shots fired are....
1) No pre-existing exclusions.
2) Chilfren automatically covered.
3) Dependent up to age 26 on parents plan.


Just the pre-existing part will be enough to take out MOST carriers.
Single payer doesn't necessarily mean no private health care.
 
An analogy I just thought of.....Our new health care bill is similar to the US postal service with its competition from United Parcel and FedX.All three of these are lean and competitive.
Our health care can be the same, private health care can be equally competitive, right now, its very wasteful.
 
Back
Top Bottom