• 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
Harry Guerrilla said:
Is it or not?

If life expectancy is an effective measurement, then India is a perfect example of why UHC is bad.

If it isn't, then you should stop using the life expectancy statistic, as a measurement of effectiveness.
Click to expand...


if you could show that the economic and sanitary conditions in the 50's in the US were as bad as in India today, you might have a point. I'll wait for your proof of that.
 
Catawba said:
if you could show that the economic and sanitary conditions in the 50's in the US were as bad as in India today, you might have a point. I'll wait for your proof of that.
Click to expand...

What about other things, like genetic predispositions to certain diseases, weather related events that can cause higher mortality rates, exposure to UV rays, etc?

There are so many different things that effect life expectancy besides medical care, that using it as a measurement is fallacious.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
What about other things, like genetic predispositions to certain diseases, weather related events that can cause higher mortality rates, exposure to UV rays, etc?
Click to expand...

Those things decrease life expectancy. Ours has been going up. Provide your documented evidence of factors other than increased medical care in this country from the the 60's to today that have caused the increase in life expectancy?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Is it or not?

If life expectancy is an effective measurement, then India is a perfect example of why UHC is bad.

If it isn't, then you should stop using the life expectancy statistic, as a measurement of effectiveness.
Click to expand...

I'm a little confused here.

Didn't I see a graph showing life expectancy in India steadily increasing? How is that showing that UHC is bad?

And, why are we comparing the US to India? It seems to me that six grand a person should buy better health care than they can afford in India. Of course, it should be a lot better than what they have in France, England, Canada, Australia, and Switzerland as well. Can you show that it is?
 
Catawba said:
Those things decrease life expectancy. Ours has been going up. Provide your documented evidence of factors other than increased medical care in this country from the the 60's to today that have caused the increase in life expectancy?
Click to expand...

All of these factors are ever present, but you can look at the link that Dittohead provided.
It shows the various outcomes for various issues, many not caused by a faulty medical care system.
Regardless of whether it increases or decreases life expectancy does not matter, the point is that other things have significant effects on life expectancy.

Hawaii for example, has one of the highest life expectancies in the U.S.
They also have the highest population of Asian Americans, more so than anywhere else in the U.S.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I'm a little confused here.

Didn't I see a graph showing life expectancy in India steadily increasing? How is that showing that UHC is bad?
Click to expand...

So have the U.S.'s yet you have used that very same thing as a measurement of success. :confused:
Either turn about it is fair play or life expectancy is a faulty measurement.

Dittohead not! said:
And, why are we comparing the US to India? It seems to me that six grand a person should buy better health care than they can afford in India. Of course, it should be a lot better than what they have in France, England, Canada, Australia, and Switzerland as well. Can you show that it is?
Click to expand...

Can I show what?
 
By single-payer do we mean everyone who pays federal taxes will pay or just a few of us. Somebody is sure as hell going to pay.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
So have the U.S.'s yet you have used that very same thing as a measurement of success. :confused:
Either turn about it is fair play or life expectancy is a faulty measurement.



Can I show what?
Click to expand...

That the US has superior health care compared to the nations of western Europe, or Australia, or Canada. Since we pay more, we should get more, correct?
 
I voted Yes on the poll but I'd like to qualify my answer. I am for it, I'm just not for it being Federally administered. I have no problem with the states doing something like this, I just don't trust the Federal government....for several reasons.
 
TurtleDude said:
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
Click to expand...

Interesting. First, the only consistent whining I have ever seen on this board has been from you about paying your taxes.

As a point of reference, I have, for most of the past decade, paid taxes at the highest rates. I never once whined about the taxes I paid, but instead was very much in touch with how incredibly blessed I was to enjoy the take home pay I did. You see, I believe one's circumstance are far more about God's blessing than about personal accomplishment. I am just not that arrogant.

As to raising my taxes now, rest assured that ain't going to happen. I am not taxable, nor do you want me to be. I am in the middle of a start-up, financed by my own money. As a start-up just finishing its first year, I lost quite a bit of money, which puts me in the sub-basement of income taxes. In the process, I created 35 jobs last year (and what was your contribution to our economy? probably not much) Sorry, people that our blessed yet complain incessantly about the consequences of that blessing, and then have the arrogance to suggest that they are somehow better than their fellowman because of their blessing.... well, with me, they are the pond scum of our society.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
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
Click to expand...

Um, starting wars in foreign lands is a proper government but providing for the welfare of our citizens is not? Sorry, but I think its a much bigger stretch to say that foreign adventures are covered under "common defense" but creating a universal healthcare system is not "promoting the general welfare." Remember, most of the drafters of the consistution were against the idea of a standing army.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Sure you can, you can stop treating 70+ year olds for diseases, when they're going to die soon anyway.
That's cost effective.
Click to expand...

Ah, death panels..... Wow, you have opened my eyes... all last summer when Sarah Palin was going on and on about death panels, I thought she was trying to frighten people to turn them against healthcare reform, when she was really endorsing Obama care because it included these death panels, which you like so much. Or was Sarah critical of Obama because his death panels weren't strong enough. Maybe I still am confused.

Harry Guerrilla said:
That's bull crap to.
We've had more and more money coming in, it just keeps getting spent on the least cost effective crap..
Click to expand...

I suggest you study the actual revenues and expenditures at BEA.gov. Revenue fell $500B from 2008 to 2009 because of the recession. That is 1/3 of the deficit, and the easiest thing to fix. I will post the charts if you don't know where to find them.

Harry Guerrilla said:
You said,

What you posted was not proof at all, it was life expectancy, a number that is not primarily determined by medical care.
Your comparison is invalid, because it is framing an argument based on fiction, a falsity or lie.
Click to expand...

Offer a fact based argument, if you have one beyond the emotional "America is #1 at everything, damnit." There is no lie in the numbers, they are widely available on the internet. Start with the table on the bottom of the page per this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada

Life expectancy has little to do with medical care? Are you serious? Here is something I found quickly on the subject without much research. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12406460. Kindly offer a compelling counter argument (supporting that statement, or supporting why the US healthcare system is cost effective) or stand-down. Enough with your intellectual laziness passing something you don't agree with as a lie. A simple "I don't agree" though shallow, is at least more honest.

The only lie here is the one you keep telling yourself because somehow you think its unpatroitic to be critical of your own country..... nothing is more patroitic than to be critical of your own country, if your heart is that you want it to be the best.
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
Ah, death panels..... Wow, you have opened my eyes... all last summer when Sarah Palin was going on and on about death panels, I thought she was trying to frighten people to turn them against healthcare reform, when she was really endorsing Obama care because it included these death panels, which you like so much. Or was Sarah critical of Obama because his death panels weren't strong enough. Maybe I still am confused.
Click to expand...

:lol:

What are you talking about.
I never said death panels, both you and Catawba brought that nonsense to this.
They are boards that measure cost effectiveness and sometimes they deny people services, because it isn't cost effective.


upsideguy said:
I suggest you study the actual revenues and expenditures at BEA.gov. Revenue fell $500B from 2008 to 2009 because of the recession. That is 1/3 of the deficit, and the easiest thing to fix. I will post the charts if you don't know where to find them.
Click to expand...

Aside from the recession, we've had a continuous uptick in revenues and an even large uptick in spending.

upsideguy said:
Offer a fact based argument, if you have one beyond the emotional "America is #1 at everything, damnit." There is no lie in the numbers, they are widely available on the internet. Start with the table on the bottom of the page per this link:

Health care in Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Where did I say" America is #1 at everything?"

Numbers can be used to tell lies.
Old adage, "There are lies, damn lies and statistics."
If you'd like to explain what that means I can.


upsideguy said:
Life expectancy has little to do with medical care? Are you serious? Here is something I found quickly on the subject without much research. The contribution of medical care to changing life ... [Soc Sci Med. 2002] - PubMed result. Kindly offer a compelling counter argument (supporting that statement, or supporting why the US healthcare system is cost effective) or stand-down. Enough with your intellectual laziness passing something you don't agree with as a lie. A simple "I don't agree" though shallow, is at least more honest.

The only lie here is the one you keep telling yourself because somehow you think its unpatroitic to be critical of your own country..... nothing is more patroitic than to be critical of your own country, if your heart is that you want it to be the best.
Click to expand...

Medical care is but 1 part of a huge puzzle that is life expectancy.
I've gone to great lengths to explain this, if you chose not to listen I can not help you anymore.

That's great, I already knew that our medical system isn't cost effective.
We spend to damn much on elderly people, from our UHC system, no less.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
:lol:

What are you talking about.
I never said death panels, both you and Catawba brought that nonsense to this.
Click to expand...

No, you didn't say anything about death panels, just not providing health care for people over 70. They're all used up by then, after all, aren't likely to contribute to the tribe. Just put them on an ice floe and send it off to sea. God will welcome them home.
 
Redress said:
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.
Click to expand...
How does the governement running an effective military have any relevance toward it being able to effectively run health care, a much more complex subject of matter? Have you not seen the negative impacts that the current entitlements are having on our country? S.S. is supposed to be empty by 2037.
 
DontDoIt said:
How does the governement running an effective military have any relevance toward it being able to effectively run health care, a much more complex subject of matter? Have you not seen the negative impacts that the current entitlements are having on our country? S.S. is supposed to be empty by 2037.
Click to expand...


The problems with Medicaid/Medicare are all due to rising health care cost, not by the management by the government. Both are run with a much lower overhead than in the private sector. SS has been so successful that it has helped fund other spending by the federal government. That theft from SS is the only reason there is shortfall projected in the future. The bright side is that all that needs to be done to make SS solvent again is to raise the FiCA cap. :sun
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
The problems with Medicaid/Medicare are all due to rising health care cost, not by the management by the government. Both are run with a much lower overhead than in the private sector. SS has been so successful that it has helped fund other spending by the federal government. That theft from SS is the only reason there is shortfall projected in the future. The bright side is that all that needs to be done to make SS solvent again is to raise the FiCA cap. :sun
Click to expand...

The very fact that the government manages any health care "insurance" plan is exactly why health care costs are rising. It is been widely reported that doctors are turning away Medicare patients because of the low reimbursements. Those loses that other doctors are willing to take get passed on to the rest of the population. Not to mention that people with health care that they perceive to be cheap or free are going to behave differently than those that see health care as expensive. So, Medicare patients go to the doctor more often than necessary because of the costs...or lack there of.

My solution, ban all health insurance that is anything other major medical or catastrophic insurance (which ever term you prefer).
 
ksu_aviator said:
The very fact that the government manages any health care "insurance" plan is exactly why health care costs are rising. It is been widely reported that doctors are turning away Medicare patients because of the low reimbursements. Those loses that other doctors are willing to take get passed on to the rest of the population. Not to mention that people with health care that they perceive to be cheap or free are going to behave differently than those that see health care as expensive. So, Medicare patients go to the doctor more often than necessary because of the costs...or lack there of.

My solution, ban all health insurance that is anything other major medical or catastrophic insurance (which ever term you prefer).
Click to expand...


So your complaint is our old people are too healthy? See Libertarian party, third door down on the right.
 
Dittohead not! said:
No, you didn't say anything about death panels, just not providing health care for people over 70. They're all used up by then, after all, aren't likely to contribute to the tribe. Just put them on an ice floe and send it off to sea. God will welcome them home.
Click to expand...
What you're not getting is that it's the single payer system that will more likely screw the elderly.

The study, carried out by the National Cancer Intelligence Network (NCIN), concluded that there was a tendency within parts of the NHS to view older patients as being inappropriate for surgery.
Mick Peake, who led the study, told the paper that the report's findings highlighted why England's cancer survival rates are not as good as many other countries.
He said that a decline in operations amongst the middle aged were a cause for concern.
Dr Peake, who is based at Glenfield Hospital, Leicester, said: "There are clearly places where the teams are just looking at the patients and saying ‘no’. They sit there like in the arena in the Colosseum and it’s thumbs up or thumbs down.”
Click to expand...

Middle-aged 'being denied cancer surgery' - Telegraph
 
Last edited:
Dittohead not! said:
The elderly already have a single payer health care system.
Click to expand...
Right now though, there are still other options.



mertex said:
I don't understand their confusion with Medicare?
Click to expand...


And guess which "insurance" denies more claims than any other. Essentially, you want us all to be on a form of Medicare.
 
X Factor said:
And guess which "insurance" denies more claims than any other. Essentially, you want us all to be on a form of Medicare.
Click to expand...
Some people I know who are on Medicare, have no complaints. Some who are on other insurances, not too happy.
 
Catawba said:
So your complaint is our old people are too healthy? See Libertarian party, third door down on the right.
Click to expand...

That's not even close to what I said. My complaint is that we have created artificially high demand by removing the cost factor in the decision making process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom