• 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
ttwtt78640 said:
Nope, I’ve quoted the entire OP below:
Click to expand...
You seem confused. The thread title and poll question does not mention universal care. It only mentions single payor.
 
cpwill said:
My mother survived not one, but two separate cancers last year. She has many years left to watch grandkids grow up.

I will absolutely take her survival :)
Click to expand...

People survive cancers in other countries, too, and they don't have to worry about losing their life savings or their residence.
 
washunut said:
So illegal immigrants could not go to a hospital if needed?
Click to expand...
That's a slightly different question. I was responding to whether tourists etc would get their healthcare covered by the American tax payer. There is a different question about how to manage illegal immigrants. My preference is to expel them, but that is a very complicated process. If an illegal immigrant needs urgent life threatening health care while in the country, then yes I think you will find pretty much all countries will provide at least the minimal life saving treatment under general humanitarian laws.
 
OlNate said:
I guess we'd have to look at the numbers and compare. Can you tell me how many Canadians die every year because of wait times? Because i can tell you how many Americans die because they can't afford healthcare...

More than 26 000 Americans die each year because of lack of health insurance - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Click to expand...

We had that debate ad nauseum around the ACA period, too.

Studies that assume deaths of the uninsured are due to the lack of insurance are using really, really, crummy methodology. If a guy shoots up a massive amount of meth, or gets into a car accident with an 18 wheeler, counting him as "having died due to lack of insurance" is a poor way to count.
 
rahl said:
You seem confused. The thread title does not mention universal care. It only mentions single payor.
Click to expand...
I defined the question not in the title (not enough room) but in the first post:

Allan said:
Just a temperature check on how Americans feel about single-payer universal health care.
Click to expand...
 
rahl said:
It isn’t an opinion. It’s empirical fact. Single payer systems provide better care at a fraction of the cost.
Click to expand...
C'mon. Of course it's an opinion - define "better" in terms other than totally subjective. And "at a fraction of the cost" - implying single payer systems barely cost anything, which is equally disingenuous.
 
rahl said:
It isn’t an opinion. It’s empirical fact. Single payer systems provide better care at a fraction of the cost.
Click to expand...

And what the ZOMG! COMMIE-CARE peeps don't realize is...there actually are (usually) private options if you want to pay for them. AFLAC's biggest market isn't the United States; it's Japan. Why? Because people who can afford it pay for gourmet care, whilst those who can't still get pretty decent care.
 
I think the more interesting question is when it will be imposed. It's definitely coming, but it's still a long way off.

The problem is right now, the entire healthcare industry is high regulated by the state. In a democracy, that means it is controlled by special interest groups. They've created a very nice cash cow and they are not going to give it up without a fight.

The government cannot just increase taxes to pay for universal healthcare, because it's way, way, way too much. That means they have to cut healthcare costs, and they will do that via price-controls. The healthcare industry is not going to like that at all, and the government needs their cooperation to make the system work.
 
Mr Person said:
We need to raise taxes across almost the whole board and pay for it. I don't give a shit about labels. It's more financially efficient. Complaints about single payer systems are necessarily cherry-picked.
Click to expand...
A flat tax of 18% on all food, ice cream, processed foods, cigarettes, wine, haircuts, etc. should cover it, and force deadbeats to pay a little towards their health care so they can feel proud they are contributing. This means the "rich" pay lots when they buy cars, jewelry, boats, and yachts. Then again, it puts those businesses out of business, so there's that.
 
aociswundumho said:
I don't think anyone can claim that the Canadian system, for example, works "very well" considering the very long wait times:



Keep in mind that socialist institutions get worse over time, not better, as each player figures out how to work the system to his maximum advantage. From almost 20 years ago, here is the Supreme Court of Canada:



and



That is the opposite of "works very well".
Click to expand...
Yeah yeah. Blah blah. We need lots of people, doctors and nurses being the highest profile. My old union local has been advertising for apprentice candidates for a couple years.
What's your skill set? There's probably a need somewhere here for you.
 
cpwill said:
It depends on what you measure. Are you sick with cancer, but want to survive? You probably want the U.S. system. Do you want to ensure that people die at more equal rates across the income spectrum? You want a U.K. or like system.
Click to expand...
Single payer systems provide better outcomes at a fraction of the cost of the US system.
 
multivita-man said:
People survive cancers in other countries, too, and they don't have to worry about losing their life savings or their residence.
Click to expand...

My mom didn't lose her life savings; and she had access to the best care around, with new cutting edge tech.

The CONCORD-3 report looked at 37.5 million records of cancer patients from 71 countries and territories. The study looked at 18 different types of cancers in adults and children to determine which countries' residents had the highest five-year survival rates. Based on this data, the highest survival rates were found in the following nations:
With my mom's life? I choose the U.S. system.

As, it is worth noting, do many of the wealthy in single payer countries, who still want the edge for themselves and their loved ones.
 
EdwinWillers said:
C'mon. Of course it's an opinion - define "better" in terms other than totally subjective.
Click to expand...
Rankers outline their methodology. The yardstick is the same for everyone.
EdwinWillers said:
And "at a fraction of the cost" - implying single payer systems barely cost anything, which is equally disingenuous.
Click to expand...
No one is saying that.
 
Nickyjo said:
Don’t we already have it with the VA and Medicare? We just don’t cover everyone.
Click to expand...


Medicare is single payer.

In Medicare the doctors you see, the clinics you go to, the procedures you have done and the hospitals you are admitted to are all private practice.
It's just that Uncle Sam is the payor and they are the payees.

VA is pure socialized medicine, it is LITERALLY "the government in the healthcare business".
A VA hospital is Federal Government property and the VA doctors are Federal Government employees.

So you see, the two are very very different.
Medicare is "sorta kinda like" Canadian healthcare whereas the VA is sorta kinda like the British National Health Service.
 
cpwill said:
My mom didn't lose her life savings; and she had access to the best care around, with new cutting edge tech.

The CONCORD-3 report looked at 37.5 million records of cancer patients from 71 countries and territories. The study looked at 18 different types of cancers in adults and children to determine which countries' residents had the highest five-year survival rates. Based on this data, the highest survival rates were found in the following nations:
With my mom's life? I choose the U.S. system.

As, it is worth noting, do many of the wealthy in single payer countries, who still want the edge for themselves and their loved ones.
Click to expand...
7 of those excellent systems have UHC.
 
cpwill said:
My mom didn't lose her life savings; and she had access to the best care around, with new cutting edge tech.

The CONCORD-3 report looked at 37.5 million records of cancer patients from 71 countries and territories. The study looked at 18 different types of cancers in adults and children to determine which countries' residents had the highest five-year survival rates. Based on this data, the highest survival rates were found in the following nations:
With my mom's life? I choose the U.S. system.

As, it is worth noting, do many of the wealthy in single payer countries, who still want the edge for themselves and their loved ones.
Click to expand...

I can't deny that there is some really excellent care in the United States - that much is still true. I think the complaints come from the distribution of care, and how uneven the accessibility is. So in some specific instances, the United State is superior, no doubt, but across the board, I think other countries' systems provide more bang for the buck.

In any case, I am glad your mother survived her treatment. She did right by getting the care she got here.
 
EdwinWillers said:
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."
Click to expand...
So your main problem is that you hate the federal government.
EdwinWillers said:
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.
Click to expand...
What counts as the general welfare is decided by the legislature.
 
multivita-man said:
And what the ZOMG! COMMIE-CARE peeps don't realize is...there actually are (usually) private options if you want to pay for them. AFLAC's biggest market isn't the United States; it's Japan. Why? Because people who can afford it pay for gourmet care, whilst those who can't still get pretty decent care.
Click to expand...

They're all two-tiered systems. It's a way for wealthy politicians to keep themselves and their family out of the shitty public system, just like they avoid public housing, public schools, public transportation, etc.
 
Allan said:
Irrelevant to the delivery of UHC.
Click to expand...

Very relevant, actually, considering that what we are looking at is results.

Allan said:
All the more reason to have UHC.
Click to expand...

UHC makes people exercise more and eat healthier?

That's odd. I've lived in Japan, Australia, and the U.K., and, I don't recall any of those systems ever getting me to alter my behaviors in those areas at all.
 
cpwill said:
We had that debate ad nauseum around the ACA period, too.

Studies that assume deaths of the uninsured are due to the lack of insurance are using really, really, crummy methodology. If a guy shoots up a massive amount of meth, or gets into a car accident with an 18 wheeler, counting him as "having died due to lack of insurance" is a poor way to count.
Click to expand...
That would be weird to count... wouldn't people in both those scenarios get treated anyway? They would be in critical condition, so unable to refuse care for financial concerns... can you prove they are included?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom