• 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!

Americans - would you support single-payer?

Would you support a single payer system in the US?


  • Total voters
    108
those numbers are not apples to apples. The U.S., for example, counts premie deaths.

Also, having been on it, I can attest that our government-run Healthcare is qualitatively worse than our private system.
Do you mean Canada, say, or New Zealand don't count newborn infant deaths? Or that the cost of health care or presence or absence of medical insurance coverage doesn't affect the care newborns receive?
 
I don't have an opinion one way or the other. I've rarely had need of medical assistance, mostly (IMO) because I don't have a lot of "vices" that lead to poor health.

1. I don't smoke. (Nothing, so don't ask if that includes "preferred drugs").

2. I don't drink alcohol of any kind. To be honest it all tastes terrible, and if it tastes bad I figured it's not that good for you.

3. I avoid foods that are full of processed sugars (no candy, no confections, and no soft drinks).

4. I don't do any "recreational drugs."

I have annual physicals at the V.A. and pass them all with flying colors. That is literally the only "medical visits" I've had in decades.

I am not sure I support massive government programs of most kinds, but especially those that give people a false sense of security allowing them to think they can "party on," and someone will come take care of them.

1) Not all illnesses are based on bad choices

2) It’s not all about you.
 
Are you saying our method of paying for health care is the primary reason for that?

“Our method of paying for health care?”

Ever stop to think that people who can’t afford to go to the doctor, and do not have insurance, are the main reason that we are 59th?
 
It depends on who the single payer is that is going to pay for everyone's healthcare 😁


Well, it’s quite simple, really.

Your tax dollars can pay for it for those who don’t have health care, or you can pay for it via higher insurance premiums, thanks to all the hospital ER write offs for people who get their medical care from the ER and can’t afford to pay the bill.

Either way, you are going to pay for poor people’s health care. Wouldn’t you rather it be paid for via tax dollars instead of higher insurance premiums?
 
those numbers are not apples to apples. The U.S., for example, counts premie deaths.

Also, having been on it, I can attest that our government-run Healthcare is qualitatively worse than our private system.
To your edit- It's not rocket science and you don't have to reinvent the wheel. There's umpteen government health insurance schemes around the world and many work very well. Just pick one that does what you want it to and copy it.
 
Well, it’s quite simple, really.

Your tax dollars can pay for it for those who don’t have health care, or you can pay for it via higher insurance premiums, thanks to all the hospital ER write offs for people who get their medical care from the ER and can’t afford to pay the bill.

Either way, you are going to pay for poor people’s health care. Wouldn’t you rather it be paid for via tax dollars instead of higher insurance premiums?
Not to mention the cost of personal bankruptcies on society. If Sam and Janet declare bankruptcy for medical reasons the people they owe unpaid debts to have had to build the cost of those unpaid debts into the price everyone else pays for their service.
 
I don't have an opinion one way or the other. I've rarely had need of medical assistance, mostly (IMO) because I don't have a lot of "vices" that lead to poor health.

1. I don't smoke. (Nothing, so don't ask if that includes "preferred drugs").

2. I don't drink alcohol of any kind. To be honest it all tastes terrible, and if it tastes bad I figured it's not that good for you.

3. I avoid foods that are full of processed sugars (no candy, no confections, and no soft drinks).

4. I don't do any "recreational drugs."

I have annual physicals at the V.A. and pass them all with flying colors. That is literally the only "medical visits" I've had in decades.

I am not sure I support massive government programs of most kinds, but especially those that give people a false sense of security allowing them to think they can "party on," and someone will come take care of them.

You get Socialist Healthcare at the VA. Thats awesome!!

I too am on Socialized Medicine...its pretty sweet!!
 
Single payer systems are cheaper and more efficient than the US system. Every other first world nation which has it, demonstrates this.

We already do. Medicare/medicaid

Medicare and Medicaid are very different programs and neither is universal.
 
No.

I would support however getting the federal government out of our healthcare entirely. Nothing is so inefficient or wastefully expensive as a federal "program."

Moreover, I don't believe the general welfare clause - butchered as it's been over the decades - supports the federal government running, or even regulating the nation's healthcare system.
I'm curious if you actually have healthcare? Your posts suggests that you do not and that you have almost no knowledge of how it works. It's monumentally bad for anyone who is uninsured. Are you one of the uninsured? If not, what sort of healthcare do you have?

I have mine thru work with Cigna for about $320 per month with a $35 co-pay etc. I also get a tax deduction as it's taken out pre-tax.

I would be for single payer for sure.
 
Last edited:
those numbers are not apples to apples. The U.S., for example, counts premie deaths.

As they should, considering the US has higher infant mortality rates than many other developed countries. Why do you think that is? Could it have to do with the expectant mothers not having proper medical care?

Also, having been on it, I can attest that our government-run Healthcare is qualitatively worse than our private system.

I’ve been on it for years. I’ve been on Tricare Prime for probably 20 years, and Medicare for 8.

I have absolutely no issue with either. They both work as designed.
 
There are few things I can think of that would have as large a positive impact on the American economy. Absolutely I would support it. Decoupling insurance from employment alone would unleash entrepreneurs shackled to cubes for the healthcare. It would herald a new renaissance in commerce.
 
Not to mention the cost of personal bankruptcies on society. If Sam and Janet declare bankruptcy for medical reasons the people they owe unpaid debts to have had to build the cost of those unpaid debts into the price everyone else pays for their service.

Thus higher insurance premiums, and more out of pocket expenses.

I always get tickled at the ones who are so blissfully unaware that they hell, “I ain’t payin’ for yer health care!” Dumbass, you already are. 🤣
 
No.

I would support however getting the federal government out of our healthcare entirely. Nothing is so inefficient or wastefully expensive as a federal "program."

The bolded is wildly inaccurate by a factor of 10 or more!

Private insurance overhead is 15-20 percent. Medicare is just over 1%, less than 2%!

Private insurers take huge chunks out of our healthcare dollars, while Medicare passes nearly every dollar on to the providers..

I have no idea where you're getting your figures from.

Moreover, I don't believe the general welfare clause - butchered as it's been over the decades - supports the federal government running, or even regulating the nation's healthcare system.

Thankfully the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, do not believe what you claim you believe.
 
We already do. Medicare/medicaid
I know we do - doesn't make it right, or constitutional - or even efficient and economical.
 
I don't have an opinion one way or the other. I've rarely had need of medical assistance, mostly (IMO) because I don't have a lot of "vices" that lead to poor health.

1. I don't smoke. (Nothing, so don't ask if that includes "preferred drugs").

2. I don't drink alcohol of any kind. To be honest it all tastes terrible, and if it tastes bad I figured it's not that good for you.

3. I avoid foods that are full of processed sugars (no candy, no confections, and no soft drinks).

4. I don't do any "recreational drugs."

I have annual physicals at the V.A. and pass them all with flying colors. That is literally the only "medical visits" I've had in decades.

I am not sure I support massive government programs of most kinds, but especially those that give people a false sense of security allowing them to think they can "party on," and someone will come take care of them.
Countries that have UHC have populations that aren't less healthy than the US.
 
As they should, considering the US has higher infant mortality rates than many other developed countries. Why do you think that is? Could it have to do with the expectant mothers not having proper medical care?

Sorry, I was unclear.

The reason this isn't apples to apples is that the U.S. counts premie deaths (which make up a majority of such cases) and other nations do not.

So, for example, if 1 out of 10,000 U.S births were a premie child who was lost, we would report an infant mortality death rate of .01%. In comparison, should, say, Germany lose 2 premies out of 10,000, they will report an infant death rate of 0% despite losing twice as many actual children.


I’ve been on it for years. I’ve been on Tricare Prime for probably 20 years, and Medicare for 8.

I have absolutely no issue with either. They both work as designed.

I've done TriCare and the VA. Both do indeed work as designed - badly.
 
To your edit- It's not rocket science and you don't have to reinvent the wheel. There's umpteen government health insurance schemes around the world and many work very well. Just pick one that does what you want it to and copy it.

Hong Kongs' is attractive, but, I'm not sure Americans are down for being made responsible for family members.

The problem with applying those systems is that we have an American government, and populace.
 
Yes if you can get rid of all the money grubbing middle men like insurance companies. The middle men are why health care is so expensive in the US.
 
Would it cover non-Americas who get sick in America? Would there be an opportunity for supplemental insurance as Medicare does?
Based on the norm in other countries, no it wouldn't cover non-Americans and travellers should carry insurance. In the country I am in working right now I can pay my UHC 'taxes' plus but incredibly comprehensive insurance with almost zero deductibles for less than the cost of buying inferior insurance in the US. One of the often misunderstood points is that UHC drives down the cost of even private health care in that country.
 
Thus higher insurance premiums, and more out of pocket expenses.

I always get tickled at the ones who are so blissfully unaware that they hell, “I ain’t payin’ for yer health care!” Dumbass, you already are. 🤣
Heck, just credit cards. Sam and Janet max out a Visa and a MasterCard paying for Sam's prostate cancer, Visa and MasterCard don't just swallow the loss. They recover it from everyone else. Bankruptcy is protection from creditors - those creditor's know how much loss to anticipate and everyone else covers it.
 
Back
Top Bottom