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

Catawba · Mar 19, 2011

Harry Guerrilla said:
I addressed your first point, as the rest was just bloviating from you, without anything to back it up, as usual.
It is a terrible system, it removes incentives from individuals to better manage their own care, with their own money.

You already admitted that we have the most expensive healthcare system in the world. And, how is it not a disadvantage for companies to have partially pay for employee health insurance when companies in other countries don't have to?

I never said our government run system is the best in the world, I said the elderly in other countries would envy it, because you can currently use it as much as you wan

Oh, I see, its not the best, its just that people who would use health care envy it. That makes perfect sense.

Of course you will, because you don't ever research anything, beyond the superficial talking points of political people you like.

Research out killing people because they don't fit with an ideology? I've read history books about it, but it was never something I cared to propose for a national policy. Why would any sane person?

That's not what I said.
Two things you're very good at, putting words into the mouths of others and dishonesty.

You said we should deny medical care to people over 70 since they were just going to die anyway, and you propose that to save tax dollars. I stand by my mocking of your crass and inhumane notion.

Cost effective treatments often put a dollar value on each person, the government can not afford to treat all people with the best medicine.
It's not realistic, you live in a fantasy world.

You are the one putting a dollar value on each person, deciding who dies to save tax dollars. I prefer to once again make the wealthy pay their fair share in tax revenues over your ultimate solution!

Harry Guerrilla · Mar 19, 2011

Catawba said:
You already admitted that we have the most expensive healthcare system in the world. And, how is it not a disadvantage for companies to have partially pay for employee health insurance when companies in other countries don't have to?

Then stop giving businesses a tax break on insurance.
Very simple solution, although it would have to accompany other changes to the insurance market, like the removal of coverage mandates.

Catawba said:
Oh, I see, its not the best, its just that people who would use health care envy it. That makes perfect sense.

Medicare is good for seniors now, because if offers near unlimited coverage, at a ridiculously unsustainable price.
Who wouldn't love that.

But it won't last, because it's not realistic, that is why it isn't the best.

Catawba said:
Research out killing people because they don't fit with an ideology? I've read history books about it, but it was never something I cared to propose for a national policy. Why would any sane person?

That's not what I said, again, you're intentionally being dishonest with my statements.
Unless you have some kind of learning disability.
If so, you're forgiven.

Catawba said:
You said we should deny medical care to people over 70 since they were just going to die anyway, and you propose that to save tax dollars. I stand by my mocking of your crass and inhumane notion.

:lol:
Countries with UHC deny lifesaving/life extending treatment, to save money, all the time.
It's called cost effectiveness, it's the reality of UHC.

Catawba said:
You are the one putting a dollar value on each person, deciding who dies to save tax dollars. I prefer to once again make the wealthy pay their fair share in tax revenues over your ultimate solution!

Health effectiveness councils do just that, you don't know what you're talking about, at all. :lol:

Catawba · Mar 19, 2011

Harry Guerrilla said:
Then stop giving businesses a tax break on insurance.
Very simple solution, although it would have to accompany other changes to the insurance market, like the removal of coverage mandates.

That does not address health care affordability to the employees unless there is UHC.

Medicare is good for seniors now, because if offers near unlimited coverage, at a ridiculously unsustainable price.

Its the same health care cost whether there is an insurance program or not, and it is not unsustainable. It is just not a priority to some people.

But it won't last, because it's not realistic, that is why it isn't the best.

Yes, I heard your alternative, just deny health care to those over 70. Who do you think is ever going to vote that into law? Get real.

Countries with UHC deny lifesaving/life extending treatment, to save money, all the time.
It's called cost effectiveness, it's the reality of UHC.

Sounds like it should be right up your alley then, they have the same solution you want. So what's the problem?

Harry Guerrilla · Mar 19, 2011

Catawba said:
That does not address health care affordability to the employees unless there is UHC.

Of course it can, medical care can be effectively rationed based on the price relationship between consumers and producers of medical care.

Catawba said:
Its the same health care cost whether there is an insurance program or not, and it is not unsustainable. It is just not a priority to some people.

That's not true at all.
Price is based on consumption and production of resources, it's not fixed.

Catawba said:
Yes, I heard your alternative, just deny health care to those over 70. Who do you think is ever going to vote that into law? Get real.

No, we'd just have to get real about what services should be supplied to the elderly, if we're going to keep funding their medical care.

Cancer treatment for 80 year olds is not realistic.
Other minor treatments for common things, perfectly fine.

Catawba said:
Sounds like it should be right up your alley then, they have the same solution you want. So what's the problem?

I don't want a government bureaucrat deciding what treatment is affordable for me, I'd prefer to pay for it myself.

Catawba · Mar 19, 2011

Harry Guerrilla said:
Of course it can, medical care can be effectively rationed based on the price relationship between consumers and producers of medical care.

Which country is that working for?

Price is based on consumption and production of resources, it's not fixed.

Neither does our tax base have to be to pay for it.

No, we'd just have to get real about what services should be supplied to the elderly, if we're going to keep funding their medical care.

What services do you think should be eliminated?

Cancer treatment for 80 year olds is not realistic

Oh I see you moved the age limit up a decade. Very generous of you! Not realistic for what? So you can save a couple bucks on your taxes? Some choose not to take treatment for cancer at 80. It should continue to be the patients choice.

I choose life over tax breaks for the wealthy and I think you will find that the great majority of Americans agree.

I don't want a government bureaucrat deciding what treatment is affordable for me, I'd prefer to pay for it myself.

I thought that is what you were advocating with your suggestion to withhold medical care for those over 80 with cancer?

Harry Guerrilla · Mar 19, 2011

Catawba said:
Which country is that working for?

Every single country that has ever had a market economy.

Catawba said:
Neither does our tax base have to be to pay for it.

But why should we?
Before Medicare, elderly people had no problem paying for their own medical care.

Catawba said:
What services do you think should be eliminated?

Depends, I don't want a UHC system, I think it's detrimental to society.

But if I were the grand poobah of the cost effectiveness health council, I would eliminate treatments that were expensive and didn't realistically extend the life of the elderly.

You have to remember that by the numbers a cost effectiveness person will measure many things, a person's net tax contributions, realistic lifespan and the cost of the life extending procedure.

Catawba said:
Oh I see you moved the age limit up a decade. Very generous of you! Not realistic for what? So you can save a couple bucks on your taxes? Some choose not to take treatment for cancer at 80. It should continue to be the patients choice.

We can go back down to 70 if you wish.
Doesn't matter what the patient wants, there comes a point where the financial interests of the state are considered more important.

That is what happens with UHC, I'm surprised you're just learning this.
What do you think the U.K.'s NICE board does?

Catawba said:
I choose life over tax breaks for the wealthy and I think you will find that the great majority of Americans agree.

With state funded UHC, it doesn't matter what you want, that's the point.
The state will not fund all you want.

It's not realistic to provide you with all the medical care you want.
Doesn't work that way.

Catawba said:
I thought that is what you were advocating with your suggestion to withhold medical care for those over 80 with cancer?

I don't want to withhold medical care from anyone but to think you can indefinitely fund any treatment for them, under a government system is ridiculous.

Catawba · Mar 19, 2011

Harry Guerrilla said:
Every single country that has ever had a market economy.

My question was in regard to health care. Which country handles health care the way you suggest?

But why should we?
Before Medicare, elderly people had no problem paying for their own medical care.

Yeah, because they died young because of inadequate medical care.

Depends, I don't want a UHC system, I think it's detrimental to society.

Wel fortunately, Libertarians are very, very tiny voting block.

But if I were the grand poobah of the cost effectiveness health council, I would eliminate treatments that were expensive and didn't realistically extend the life of the elderly.

Just like what you imagine UHC to be, that's very interesting. So why is your plan superior if it does the same thing?

You have to remember that by the numbers a cost effectiveness person will measure many things, a person's net tax contributions, realistic lifespan and the cost of the life extending procedure.

Some plan you have there!

We can go back down to 70 if you wish.

Its your pipe dream, go with whatever you want!

Doesn't matter what the patient wants, there comes a point where the financial interests of the state are considered more important.
That is what happens with UHC, I'm surprised you're just learning this.
What do you think the U.K.'s NICE board does With state funded UHC, it doesn't matter what you want, that's the point.
The state will not fund all you want.

Should be right up your alley then. What you imagine them to be is exactly what you suggest!

It's not realistic to provide you with all the medical care you want.
Doesn't work that way?

Medicaid and Medicare have not created the death panels you simultaneously embrace as smart and deplore as what you imagine UHC to be. I see no reason UHC cannot be managed in the same way.

I don't want to withhold medical care from anyone but to think you can indefinitely fund any treatment for them, under a government system is ridiculous.

That's a nice contradiction you've got there in that one sentence.

Which is it? Do you not want to withhold medical care? Or, do you not want to continue helping pay for it?

Harry Guerrilla · Mar 19, 2011

Catawba said:
My question was in regard to health care. Which country handles health care the way you suggest?

The United States did, as well as all the other European nations, before the introduction to price and service altering mandates/controls.

We wouldn't be in our current mess if politicians stayed in their proper sphere's of legislation.

Catawba said:
Yeah, because they died young because of inadequate medical care.

Proof?

Catawba said:
Wel fortunately, Libertarians are very, very tiny voting block.

That makes no difference, you're just trolling now.

Catawba said:
Just like what you imagine UHC to be, that's very interesting. So why is your plan superior if it does the same thing?

It's what happens with UHC systems.
It's the inevitable.

Catawba said:
Some plan you have there!

It's not mine, I took it from the U.K.

Catawba said:
Its your pipe dream, go with whatever you want!

See above.

Catawba said:
Medicaid and Medicare have not created the death panels you simultaneously embrace as smart and deplore as what you imagine UHC to be. I see no reason UHC cannot be managed in the same way.

Then why is it managed in the same way I described?
I didn't say death panels, they're called cost effectiveness boards.

Medicare and Medicaid are about to be turned on their heads in what they provide.
It's already happening

Catawba said:
That's a nice contradiction you've got there in that one sentence.

Which is it? Do you not want to withhold medical care? Or, do you not want to continue helping pay for it?

False dilemma.

It's not a contradiction, you just have such a narrowly focused belief system, that when anything new or different is introduced, you automatically reject it.

Mayor Snorkum · Mar 19, 2011

upsideguy said:
There is nothing you can do about Medicare or Medicaid. As a society these costs get absorbed somehow. You can not just make them go away. We are the only 1st world country that ignores its healthcare. Medicare and medicaid are mere stop gaps. They are not the budget problem, because you can not make them go away and there isn't much you can realistically do to trim them.

What you're saying then is that while Medicare and Medicaid are busting our budget NOW, things will only get better if the goverment takes over the othe 80% of the health care in the country. That won't do any damage to the bottom lie....er line, right?

Mayor Snorkum · Mar 19, 2011

Catz Part Deux said:
Really. There are price controls on phone and cable television. Are we having shortages?

You're assuming regulations on cable exist to keep costs down.

They do not, they exist to limit competition and keep costs up.

Also, you're assuming that people opposed to government intrusion in the medical marketplace aren't equally opposed to government intrusion into the telecommunications market.

Your whole argument is a non-sequitur.

Mayor Snorkum · Mar 19, 2011

Dittohead not! said:
Because every other nation on Earth has a universal care system, all of them pay much less per capita than we do, and the modern nations have better outcomes. That's why.

Better outcomes? You mean forcing women with breast tumors to wait for treatment and thus dying is a better outcome?

Ockham · Mar 19, 2011

Mayor Snorkum said:
Better outcomes? You mean forcing women with breast tumors to wait for treatment and thus dying is a better outcome?

Sure. It's possible that a miracle will happen and the tumor will complete disappear on it's own.

Mayor Snorkum · Mar 19, 2011

Harry Guerrilla said:
Have you not heard of cost effective treatment?

What i suggested goes a bit to far I'll admit, but that's (kind of) what will happen if we get a government paid system.

When the same entity collects taxes from a person as determines the suitably cost effective treatment for a patient, that entity, by the nature of the bureaucratic beast, is going to come to the decision that at some point the tax on a man's estate brings more value to the bureaucracy than his expected future earnings less the expense of treating his medical problems.

Bean counters don't care about beans, something the Left would do well to finally learn.

Mayor Snorkum · Mar 19, 2011

Ockham said:
Sure. It's possible that a miracle will happen and the tumor will complete disappear on it's own.

Some women do survive that way. If Mayor Snorkum recalls a biography he read a two decades ago, the wife of Sam Houston had a problem like that but didn't die from it.

Mayor Snorkum · Mar 19, 2011

Catawba said:
I prefer to once again make the wealthy pay their fair share in tax revenues over your ultimate solution!

Funny how you keep saying "ultimate" solution when it's pretty clear you're simply avoiding the phrase "final solution".

Also, define, mathematically, your concept of fairness in your use of the phrase "fair share", and then cite the constitutional clause that invalidates the Fourteenth Amendment's stricture that everone be treated equally before the law.

Dittohead not! · Mar 19, 2011

Harry Guerrilla said:
False.
Not every nation has universal health care except us.

Perhaps not every nation, but every modern industrialized nation. We could compare ourselves to Somalia, perhaps, or Yemen, or Zaire.

Harry Guerrilla said:
True.
Of those that do, they typically pay less.

They all pay less, every one. We pay more for health care than any other nation on Earth, period.

Harry Guerrilla said:
False.
The U.S. has some of the best cancer survival rates.
And for many other things, we are right there with the rest of those nations with UHC.

We are "up there with" some of the modern nations on some things. We are fourth in cancer deaths. Our infant mortality is the highest in the industrialized world. Our life expectancy is the lowest. Most other measures put us somewhere in the middle. We aren't getting much bang for our buck, are we?

Link to the above figures, in case anyone is interested in facts.

Harry Guerrilla · Mar 19, 2011

Dittohead not! said:
Perhaps not every nation, but every modern industrialized nation. We could compare ourselves to Somalia, perhaps, or Yemen, or Zaire.

Not true at all.
Germany does not have universal health care, yet they have high results.
They only cover 90% of their population with an insurance based scheme.

Dittohead not! said:
They all pay less, every one. We pay more for health care than any other nation on Earth, period.

If you looked at one of my earlier figures, we pay around the same, its when you include care for the elderly, which is currently provided in unlimited amounts, that we pay more.

"The average health care expense in 2002 was $11,089 per year for elderly people but only $3,352 per year for working-age people (ages 19-64)."

The High Concentration of U.S. Health Care Expenditures

Dittohead not! said:
We are "up there with" some of the modern nations on some things. We are fourth in cancer deaths. Our infant mortality is the highest in the industrialized world. Our life expectancy is the lowest. Most other measures put us somewhere in the middle. We aren't getting much bang for our buck, are we?

Link to the above figures, in case anyone is interested in facts.

We already provide nearly free coverage to woman who are pregnant and children from birth to 18.
If we're already providing these things, which mimic UHC, why are we lower?

The only way UHC can control costs is by reducing services through price fixing or eliminating choices in care.
They have no magical way of fixing the problem of cost.

Edit: By the way, many of those numbers are not attributable to medical care, deaths to diabetes can be fully related to the fact that we are more obese, something that can't be controlled by a medical care system.
Stop attributing cultural problems to medical care, they are not one in the same.

Dittohead not! · Mar 19, 2011

Harry Guerrilla said:
Not true at all.
Germany does not have universal health care, yet they have high results.
They only cover 90% of their population with an insurance based scheme.

Gosh, only 90%. What does the other 10% do?

Harry Guerrilla said:
If you looked at one of my earlier figures, we pay around the same, its when you include care for the elderly, which is currently provided in unlimited amounts, that we pay more.

"The average health care expense in 2002 was $11,089 per year for elderly people but only $3,352 per year for working-age people (ages 19-64)."

The High Concentration of U.S. Health Care Expenditures

Well, duh! Older people cost more in health care than younger people do. They don't run as fast on average, either. So, is your solution to put the elderly on an ice floe and push it out to sea, or what? I did notice a post suggesting that people over 70 not be given health care, but thought it had to be satire. I suppose that really is your plan.

Oh, and did you notice my link to actual per capita costs? Those in the US are higher than anywhere else. Of course, if you just shoot everyone when they reach 70, you could save a ton of money. Maybe we could execute people with long term health issues as well. Sure, that's the solution, sure. The final solution.

But, those other nations, the ones with lower health care costs, do provide care for seniors as well.

Harry Guerrilla said:
We already provide nearly free coverage to woman who are pregnant and children from birth to 18.
If we're already providing these things, which mimic UHC, why are we lower?

Because you're just making stuff up out of thin air. Try looking at the facts instead.

Harry Guerrilla said:
The only way UHC can control costs is by reducing services through price fixing or eliminating choices in care.
They have no magical way of fixing the problem of cost.

Hint: efficiency. Look it up.

Harry Guerrilla said:
Edit: By the way, many of those numbers are not attributable to medical care, deaths to diabetes can be fully related to the fact that we are more obese, something that can't be controlled by a medical care system.
Stop attributing cultural problems to medical care, they are not one in the same.

Is infant mortality a cultural problem in your opinion, then? Maybe other nations populations just value babies more than we do.

Harry Guerrilla · Mar 19, 2011

Dittohead not! said:
Gosh, only 90%. What does the other 10% do?

The same thing our approximate 10% do.

Dittohead not! said:
Well, duh! Older people cost more in health care than younger people do. They don't run as fast on average, either. So, is your solution to put the elderly on an ice floe and push it out to sea, or what? I did notice a post suggesting that people over 70 not be given health care, but thought it had to be satire. I suppose that really is your plan.

Oh, and did you notice my link to actual per capita costs? Those in the US are higher than anywhere else. Of course, if you just shoot everyone when they reach 70, you could save a ton of money. Maybe we could execute people with long term health issues as well. Sure, that's the solution, sure. The final solution.

But, those other nations, the ones with lower health care costs, do provide care for seniors as well.

Not at the same level as medicare does, but that is ending anyway.

You can't give everyone unlimited access to medical care.
Swapping to a full, single payer model will have results you didn't expect.
With budget cuts already looming, your medical care will be the first to be slashed.

Dittohead not! said:
Because you're just making stuff up out of thin air. Try looking at the facts instead.

So we don't have pregnancy Medicaid, nor Medicaid for children?

Dittohead not! said:
Hint: efficiency. Look it up.

That's bunk, they cut costs by reducing services and price fixing, which has the secondary effect of reducing services.

Dittohead not! said:
Is infant mortality a cultural problem in your opinion, then? Maybe other nations populations just value babies more than we do.

It certainly can be.
What is our rates of drug usage for pregnant women, nutrition for children (or pregnant mothers) and the myriad of other factors that are in play with infant mortality?

Only the most foolish believe that all health related statistics come from poor medical care.

X Factor · Mar 19, 2011

Redress said:
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.

Obviously Conyer's believes that the health care law is a step toward single payer. Given that Obama has expressed his belief that single payer is the best way to go, why is it so hard to believe that this law was intended to be a platform, or a step toward single payer?

digsbe · Mar 19, 2011

I do believe that UHC can be efficient and achieved. Hypothetical arguments talking about wait times doesn't really apply if we can establish a superior cost effective system that can efficiently care for patients. There are many steps that we can take.

pbrauer · Mar 19, 2011

X Factor said:
Obviously Conyer's believes that the health care law is a step toward single payer. Given that Obama has expressed his belief that single payer is the best way to go, why is it so hard to believe that this law was intended to be a platform, or a step toward single payer?

Single payer means the government would be the insurer, not private insurance companies like what the Affordable Health Care Act does. Which is nothing more than legislation proposed for years by Republicans and implemented in Massachusetts by Mitt Romney. :mrgreen:

X Factor · Mar 19, 2011

theplaydrive said:
I checked "no." I meant "yes". Oops.

It's funny, I saw your no vote and was surprised by it. Now it makes sense.

Dittohead not! · Mar 19, 2011

Harry Guerrilla said:
The same thing our approximate 10% do.

We have more than 10% that don't have any health care coverage. Most of the rest of us have employee paid insurance.

Harry Guerrilla said:
Not at the same level as medicare does, but that is ending anyway.

You can't give everyone unlimited access to medical care.
Swapping to a full, single payer model will have results you didn't expect.
With budget cuts already looming, your medical care will be the first to be slashed.

No, of course you can't give everyone unlimited access. All the rhetoric about rationing seemed to ignore that fact.

Harry Guerrilla said:
So we don't have pregnancy Medicaid, nor Medicaid for children?

How does that relate to your original statement? Medicaid is for the indigent.

Harry Guerrilla said:
That's bunk, they cut costs by reducing services and price fixing, which has the secondary effect of reducing services.

and yet, they have a lower infant mortality and higher life expectancy. Other factors show the US somewhere in the middle.

But, those were just facts I linked to. I'd be willing to bet you didn't even look at them.

Harry Guerrilla said:
It certainly can be.
What is our rates of drug usage for pregnant women, nutrition for children (or pregnant mothers) and the myriad of other factors that are in play with infant mortality?

Only the most foolish believe that all health related statistics come from poor medical care.

No, but a lot of them are driven by the quality of health care.

If you think that we actually have a better outcome as a result of our higher spending on health care, can you support your opinion?

X Factor · Mar 19, 2011

Aunt Spiker said:
I

so - regardless of the cost rising, that leaves 15% or so uncovered - and not benefiting at all from all the technology that we have at our disposal. China, Japan, Russia, Canada - these four countries provide, at least, a basic level of care *for everyone* - Yep, even China. So I think it's ridiculous that they outpace us in the number of people we cover.

That is NOT saying that their systems are adequate, that the doctors who are employed by the government are paid enough or couldn't do a better job - but overall, it's important to them to provide something for everyone.

So - there are some real reasons to have serious issue with our healthcare system. Unfortunately - most of hte people forming the strongest opinions aren't one of the 15%

This is an interesting observation. I remember a poll during the debate that said that something like 85% of Americans were satisfied with their health care. If that was, indeed, true, than can we really say that our system was/is "broken"? I don't have any problem trying to address the 15%, but not at the expense of forcing me into a system I don't want to be in.

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

Do You Support a Single Payer Health Care System?

Yes

No

Maybe

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist

Noblesse oblige

master political analyst

master political analyst

Anti-Socialist

Truth will set you free

Anti-Socialist

master political analyst

Anti-Socialist