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

That's not entirely true, that often quoted number doesn't remove those who have access but chose not to participate.

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

You're drawing conclusions from simple statistical data, these people in countries with single payer/UHC systems, do not receive platinum care, they get average care, yet they have higher life expectancies.

Average does not create the best results.
There are other things at work here, racial demographics and overall cultural practices.

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

Medicaid is for the indigent, on paper.
If I remember correctly, some states give Medicaid to all pregnant women, who apply.
But never the less, we have practically complete coverage for pregnant woman and for children on a near universal scale.

Why are our infant mortality rates higher?
It can't be because of access to medical care.

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.

I did, that's why I said many of those factors are unrelated to medical care.
Obesity being one.

Life expectancy is a bunk statistic to use, to rate a medical care system.
It's loaded with more significant factors, besides 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?

What makes you think they get better quality of care?
One of our problems here is that we supposedly do to much to treat people, now our quality is lacking?
Which is it?

Sure, we spend more on cancer treatments than other countries who have UHC, our 5 year survival rates for some cancers are higher.
 
Government administered or managed healthcare is essential for moving ahead into the future. If you control people's health, you control their lives.
I believe you're the first supporter of government run health care to openly acknowledge this.

It is an indispensable tool in social engineering and population revisions. Even those against it will see the benefit when everything is in full swing. I don't think Mr. Obama's plan is ill-conceived and mostly unworkable but it is a tiny step in the right direction.
What benefits do you think we will see?
 
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.
So you'd rather be dependent on the government?
 
When my neighbor said he was voting for Senator Obama I laughed and ask him why. "I'm tired of paying for health insurance." I replied that was the best reason I'd heard for voting for Senator Obama. I saw my neighbor recently, he had moved, and asked how that "someone else paying" was working out. He said something very rude.
 
So you'd rather be dependent on the government?

Versus be dependent on an insurance company that only uses you for profit and has no desire to see you survive? Yes. We can't vote in insurance company CEOs.
 
It can if we make it more cost effective and efficient. With UHC the cost of profit does not factor, as it is a service and not a for profit enterprise. Even so, we could allow states to manage their own healthcare system if we had to. A large part of the demand is people coming in for routine physical maintenance, something that doesn't necessarily require an MD. Certain states and countries allow clinical pharmacists to see patients and write prescription for maintenance drugs while MDs can use their time in more serious areas (like the ER or complicated diagnosis). There are cost cutting measures that we can take, taking profit out of the equation can lower costs, and it is feasible.
See, what you all are overlooking is that profit is an excellent motivator for innovation. If you take profit out of health care, what is the incentive to develop continually better and cutting edge treatments? You complain of the cost of health care in the US. Part of that is the luxury of having the most advanced technology pretty much readily available. Why do you think people travel to the US from all over the world to get care here that they couldn't in their own countries?

Gosh, is it Christmas already?
When did Christmas colors become black, blue and red?

That's rather an unproveable point, as no two UHC systems are the same, and no two countries are the same, so comparing current existing systems is apples and oranges at the least, and frogs and Pluto at the most.

And yet people are comparing the US system to other countries and using those comparison's to argue for single-payer.
 
Last edited:
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.
I've always liked that analogy. Here's what Obama said during the debate;

f the private insurance companies are providing a good bargain, and if the public option has to be self-sustaining -- meaning taxpayers aren't subsidizing it, but it has to run on charging premiums and providing good services and a good network of doctors, just like any other private insurer would do -- then I think private insurers should be able to compete. They do it all the time. I mean, if you think about -- if you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? No, they are. It's the Post Office that's always having problems.


http://www.thenextright.com/michaelturk/obamas-upsfedexusps-analogy

You have to appreciate his argument. He's using the failures of one government agency to argue in favor of creating another.
 
Last edited:
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:

And which is why Mayor Snorkum rejected Romney in 2008 and why the voters rejected Romney then and will continue to do so. No one trusts his sudden conversion from Massachusetts Liberal to faux-American.
 
The United States did, as well as all the other European nations, before the introduction to price and service altering mandates/controls.


So in other words, none since the failure of the market approach.





life_expect.gif
 
And which is why Mayor Snorkum rejected Romney in 2008 and why the voters rejected Romney then and will continue to do so. No one trusts his sudden conversion from Massachusetts Liberal to faux-American.

If your thoughts speak for more than just yourself, its why the GOP will lose next year. Romney is the best chance they have.
 
Government administered or managed healthcare is essential for moving ahead into the future. If you control people's health, you control their lives. It is an indispensable tool in social engineering and population revisions. Even those against it will see the benefit when everything is in full swing. I don't think Mr. Obama's plan is ill-conceived and mostly unworkable but it is a tiny step in the right direction.

Oh, the United States is going to move into the future one second at a time, just like every other nation. The question is whether in the future the United States will continue to be a free nation or if it shall be burdened with fascist or socialist medicine.

Obama Care is the first step towards national serfdom.

Well, the fourth step, since Social Security, Welfare, and Public Education are in place already.
 
If your thoughts speak for more than just yourself, its why the GOP will lose next year. Romney is the best chance they have.

Right. Just like when the Left was proclaiming that McCain was the best chance the GOP had while the Right was rejecting that liberal mofo.

Besides, to all appearances, the Left will be running that incompetent boob who plays golf and goes on vacation while Japan melts down in the middle of the Libyan revolution while the US does not have a passed budget. Giving the likely opposition the GOP faces even a loon like Ron Paul has an excellent chance of winning the election if nominated.
 
Last edited:
Funny how you keep saying "ultimate" solution when it's pretty clear you're simply avoiding the phrase "final solution".

What would you call it when someone suggest denying medical care to those over 70?

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.

Fairness is when we are taxed proportional to our wealth. Progressive tax rates were never successfully challengened on Constitutional grounds. They were in effect during the most prosperous 50 year period for the middle class in history.
 
It's the only way we're ever going to control medical costs and lift the burden of providing health care from the employers. It's way past time for the US to join the civilized world and provide universal medical care to every citizen of this great country.

How to control medical costs in the real world.

1) Deny medical services to all attorneys representing plaintiffs in medical malpractice suits who claim more than 5% of the award fee.

2) Make the patient pay for his care, not a third party. Patients know what care they recieve and are reluctant to waste their money unnecessarily. Generally an agency that doesn't track closely the claims of the medical providers and who can raise money simply by waving a gun around and demanding higher taxes doesn't pay careful attention to detailed expenditure lists.

3) Allow competition in the medical and insurance market places.
 
What would you call it when someone suggest denying medical care to those over 70?

It's rationing, something Obama Care does, as must all government medical plans.

The issue wasn't my objection to the process, it was scorn as your cowardice in avoiding the appropriate label.

When people pay for their own medical care, rationing is no longer an issue and that whole line of argument becomes irrelevant.

Fairness is when we are taxed proportional to our wealth.

Exactly.

A person making 25,000 dollars a year pays $2,500, and a person making $2,500,000 pays $250,000 dollars. Both pay 10%, and hence both are paying the as proportional tax.

Perhaps you should learn what the word "proportionate" means? Oh, never mind, you were just instructed.

Progressive tax rates were never successfully challengened on Constitutional grounds.

So? That doesn't mean they're not unconstitutiona. Just in case you missed it, the courts in the United States are not politically unbiased. Just ask yourself how the Brown v Board of Education decision came about. That's right, it came about because the courts decided it was politically correct to reverse that earlier decision, Plessy v Fergusson, which was also based on the politics of the time.

That any particular court rules something is or is not Constitutional does not in fact mean the law is consistent with the Constititution. The courts have ruled that DUI roadblocks can stop any and every person travelling past a particular point without regards to probable cause and every person trapped in that roadblock can be cited for any infraction or arrested for any crime the police uncover, even though the Fourth Amendment demands the existence of probable cause before the police can stop anyone. Clearly unconstitutional, yet the corrupt courts allow it.

That the courts allow unfair taxation that punishes the successful does not mean the Constitution allows it, it means the courts aren't doing their job.

You're going to disagree with that and yet somewhere on this forum there is most likely posts from you railing against the recent USSC decision in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission or the Bush v Gore decision.

They were in effect during the most prosperous 50 year period for the middle class in history.

And, naturally, the most propserous years of US history were not prosperous because the government was stealing all that money from the people who created the wealth, the US was properous in spite of that taxation which impeded growth. The US was prosperous in the Post-War economy for one reason and one reason only:

The United States was the only industrialized nation in the world with intact factories. The United States made a booming business selling other nations finished goods and tools and raw materials their foolish lust for war had destroyed in their own countries. Who couldn't make money in an environment like that?
 
It's rationing, something Obama Care does, as must all government medical plans.

Mayor Snorkum just posted utter hogwash! Where does the new health care bill deny health care coverage for those over 70?

When people pay for their own medical care, rationing is no longer an issue and that whole line of argument becomes irrelevant.

The problem is that thanks to our 30 year experiment with Reaganomics (trickle down economics and deregulation), 50 million people can no longer afford healthcare. What is your solution other than throwing our elderly to the street? Or is that your solution?


A person making 25,000 dollars a year pays $2,500, and a person making $2,500,000 pays $250,000 dollars. Both pay 10%, and hence both are paying the as proportional tax.


I said effective tax rates on wealth, not income. Now, if we were to tax all wealth than a flat tax would be fair. The progressive tax rate we used to have in this country used to compensate for that discrepancy by taxing the income of the rich at a much higher effective tax rate.


So? That doesn't mean they're not unconstitutiona. Just in case you missed it, the courts in the United States are not politically unbiased.

Of, course they have been biased to the right for years. How could I miss it. That doesn't mean I don't believe in the rule of law. Do you believe in the rule of law?



And, naturally, the most propserous years of US history were not prosperous because the government was stealing all that money from the people who created the wealth, the US was properous in spite of that taxation which impeded growth. The US was prosperous in the Post-War economy for one reason and one reason only:

The United States was the only industrialized nation in the world with intact factories. The United States made a booming business selling other nations finished goods and tools and raw materials their foolish lust for war had destroyed in their own countries. Who couldn't make money in an environment like that?

And, the progressive tax and SS is what built the strongest middle class we've had in history. Without it, the robber baron society would have continued the two class system that was in effect, which is what we are returning to today since the class war that began in 1981 against the middle class.
 
Last edited:
That's not entirely true, that often quoted number doesn't remove those who have access but chose not to participate.

Regardless of whether they choose not to participate, or whether the health insurers make the choice for them, the fact is that they don't have it.


You're drawing conclusions from simple statistical data, these people in countries with single payer/UHC systems, do not receive platinum care, they get average care, yet they have higher life expectancies.

Average does not create the best results.
There are other things at work here, racial demographics and overall cultural practices.

And yet, they do have better results. You can say that other things are at work, but you haven't backed up that statement with more than thin air, at lest not as yet.



Medicaid is for the indigent, on paper.
If I remember correctly, some states give Medicaid to all pregnant women, who apply.
But never the less, we have practically complete coverage for pregnant woman and for children on a near universal scale.

Sorry, but you don't remember correctly.

Why are our infant mortality rates higher?
It can't be because of access to medical care.

It most likely is because of our lack of access to medical care.

I did, that's why I said many of those factors are unrelated to medical care.
Obesity being one.

and smoking another. Did you read in my fact sheet I posted that the US has done a better job of quitting smoking than most other nations?

You did read my fact sheet I posted, didn't you? It was for anyone who is interested in fac... Oh never mind.

Life expectancy is a bunk statistic to use, to rate a medical care system.
It's loaded with more significant factors, besides medical care.

There are many factors, yes, medical care being one of them, particularly preventative care.



What makes you think they get better quality of care?
One of our problems here is that we supposedly do to much to treat people, now our quality is lacking?
Which is it?

Preventative care would most likely be the main one.

Sure, we spend more on cancer treatments than other countries who have UHC, our 5 year survival rates for some cancers are higher.

Wow! One bright spot in an otherwise dismal record. Is that worth spending more than anyone else?
 
So in other words, none since the failure of the market approach.

An assumption based on nothing.
I think I'll start using India as evidence that UHC is an abysmal failure.



That isn't proof as life expectancy has been steadily increasing before the government got involved with medical care.
 
An assumption based on nothing.
I think I'll start using India as evidence that UHC is an abysmal failure.

If it is based on nothing, list the first world nations that use your suggested approach to health care today?

Smart to pick a non-first world nation to compare with. You wouldn't want to compare apples to apples.

"In recent times, India has eradicated mass famines, however the country still suffers from high levels of malnutrition and disease especially in rural areas. Water supply and sanitation in India is also a major issue in the country and many Indians in rural areas lack access to proper sanitation facilities and safe drinking water. However, at the same time, India's health care system also includes entities that meet or exceed international quality standards. The medical tourism business in India has been growing in recent years and as such India is a popular destination for medical tourists who receive effective medical treatment at lower costs than in developed countries."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_India




That isn't proof as life expectancy has been steadily increasing before the government got involved with medical care.

Why isn't it, in your opinion? it covers the area before to well after the implementation of Medicaid/Medicare.
 
Last edited:
Regardless of whether they choose not to participate, or whether the health insurers make the choice for them, the fact is that they don't have it.

So if people do have coverage options but chose not to exercise those options, it's the failure of the system and not the person?
Is that how you rationalize it?
Hilarious. :lol:

And yet, they do have better results. You can say that other things are at work, but you haven't backed up that statement with more than thin air, at lest not as yet.

India has a UHC system, why are they not getting better results?

I've provided plenty of information you and others, conveniently ignore.
You guys constantly and ignorantly use life expectancy as a firm measure of the effectiveness of a medical care system.

Sorry, but you don't remember correctly.

Regardless, pregnancy and children's medical care is nearly universally covered.
How do you rationalize this one?

Insurance company hit squads trying to drive up our infant mortality rate?

It most likely is because of our lack of access to medical care.

Proof.

and smoking another. Did you read in my fact sheet I posted that the US has done a better job of quitting smoking than most other nations?

You did read my fact sheet I posted, didn't you? It was for anyone who is interested in fac... Oh never mind.

I did read it and again, you have yet to show how non medical related health problems are the fault of our system.


There are many factors, yes, medical care being one of them, particularly preventative care.

Preventative does not save money. :lol:
This has already been shown.


Preventative care would most likely be the main one.

Riiiight.

"Our findings suggest that the broad generalizations made by many presidential candidates can be misleading. These statements convey the message that substantial resources can be saved through prevention. Although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not."

MMS: Error

Wow! One bright spot in an otherwise dismal record. Is that worth spending more than anyone else?

How is it dismal?
The vast majority of people are happy with their medical care have coverage.
You're just making sweeping generalizations.
 
Smart to pick a non-first world nation to compare with. You wouldn't want to compare apples to apples.

Now you're moving goal posts. :lol:

Why isn't it, in your opinion? it covers the area before to well after the implementation of Medicaid/Medicare.

Life expectancy is based on a myriad of factors, medical care being but 1 portion of it relative to the other more broadly effective categories.

Cultural practices (diet, sexual promiscuity, personal safety habits, general cleanliness, etc.), geography, rate of immigration, weather patterns, murder rate, accidental death rate, etc.
 
Now you're moving goal posts. :lol:

What are you talking about? I never made any claims about UHC in third world countries with unsafe water issues and inadequate sanitation. Quote where I did if you can.



Life expectancy is based on a myriad of factors, medical care being but 1 portion of it relative to the other more broadly effective categories.

Cultural practices (diet, sexual promiscuity, personal safety habits, general cleanliness, etc.), geography, rate of immigration, weather patterns, murder rate, accidental death rate, etc.


Oh, you meant before that you were changing goalposts, I see. Before you had said you wanted "proof as life expectancy has been steadily increasing before the government got involved with medical care."

That's what I provided proof of. Now, you want to throw in other factors. Okay, look at india that you mentioned the reason their UHC is not as effective as first world nations is their economy, unsafe drinking water and inadequate sanitation:

"In recent times,[when?] India has eradicated mass famines, however the country still suffers from high levels of malnutrition and disease especially in rural areas. Water supply and sanitation in India is also a major issue in the country and many Indians in rural areas lack access to proper sanitation facilities and safe drinking water. However, at the same time, India's health care system also includes entities that meet or exceed international quality standards. The medical tourism business in India has been growing in recent years and as such India is a popular destination for medical tourists who receive effective medical treatment at lower costs than in developed countries.
Healthcare in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
What are you talking about? I never made any claims about UHC in third world countries with unsafe water issues and inadequate sanitation. Quote where I did if you can.

Oh, you meant before that you were changing goalposts, I see. Before you had said you wanted "proof as life expectancy has been steadily increasing before the government got involved with medical care."

That's what I provided proof of. Now, you want to throw in other factors. Okay, look at india that you mentioned the reason their UHC is not as effective as first world nations is their economy, unsafe drinking water and inadequate sanitation:

"In recent times,[when?] India has eradicated mass famines, however the country still suffers from high levels of malnutrition and disease especially in rural areas. Water supply and sanitation in India is also a major issue in the country and many Indians in rural areas lack access to proper sanitation facilities and safe drinking water. However, at the same time, India's health care system also includes entities that meet or exceed international quality standards. The medical tourism business in India has been growing in recent years and as such India is a popular destination for medical tourists who receive effective medical treatment at lower costs than in developed countries.
Healthcare in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I just got you to admit that the life expectancy statistic is a false measurement, of the effectiveness, of a medical care system.

Thanks. :)
 
I just got you to admit that the life expectancy statistic is a false measurement, of the effectiveness, of a medical care system.

Thanks. :)

In your mind anyway!
 
Back
Top Bottom