• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

Death Panels Of A Single Payer System

I am more of a fan of the Singapore healthcare system. they empower people through HSA's and competition and I mean actual competition.

basically it would work like this. the Government would issue a tax credit every year of say 3k for single and 6k for families.
with this you can buy any qualified medical expense. you can buy a catastrophic plan.

any medical expense counts against your deductible. you pay what you not someone else negotiates with your doctor.

with cash in hand you have more buying power than what the insurance companies can have you can also get lower rates.
next catastrophic plans are for just that huge impacts on your health.

you don't have to worry about pre-existing conditions.

companies can get special deductions for contributions to your HSA over 5k a year.

so you have the one time pump from the tax credit then every pay check you have more building up in your account.

Sounds intriguing and viable.
 
Emergency care is not healthcare.

I didn't know you could get chemo at the ER. The ER is only required to temporarily stabilize people that come in without insurance, not provide any primary care or operations that don't immediately save their lives. The "oh the poor can just go to the ER and get free healthcare" argument is a laughably stupid one and I think you should realize you can't build a national healthcare system on it.

Already started that the ER is the least desirable venue for healthcare as it carries with it the most expense, but the fact remains that the often parroted meme of 'people dying in the streets' is false, as ERs don't turn away patients in need.
 
Sounds intriguing and viable.

it would require major adjustments to our tax code. in Singapore a person making 55k a year only pays a 4% income tax.
that goes against liberal logic.
 
Sounds like the problem is the cost of treatments.

Well, that's certainly part of it, it no insurance company is ever going to continue "life-saving" treatment if no improvement is shown.
 
it would require major adjustments to our tax code. in Singapore a person making 55k a year only pays a 4% income tax.
that goes against liberal logic.

Such a system would also reduce the government influence, impact and control over the healthcare system, which is yet another facet that goes against liberal logic.

That everyone is responsible for their own healthcare, and pays for it via whatever mechanism is antithetical to leftist dogma.
 
Such a system would also reduce the government influence, impact and control over the healthcare system, which is yet another facet that goes against liberal logic.

That everyone is responsible for their own healthcare, and pays for it via whatever mechanism is antithetical to leftist dogma.

Singapore's system is built on public hospitals and government influence over prices, not to mention compulsory deductions into savings accounts and a subsidized national insurance plan.
 
Singapore's system is built on public hospitals and government influence over prices, not to mention compulsory deductions into savings accounts and a subsidized national insurance plan.

OK. Thanks for the additional info. I freely admit that I'm not fully aware of the details of the Singapore's health system.
 
Already started that the ER is the least desirable venue for healthcare as it carries with it the most expense, but the fact remains that the often parroted meme of 'people dying in the streets' is false, as ERs don't turn away patients in need.

You can't get all of the care you need in an ER, they are only required to stabilize you to walking condition. There are about a million sicknesses, diseases, injuries and conditions that can and will kill you that the ER won't treat. Yes, we literally leave our poor and middle class to die if they can't afford our outrageously expensive healthcare.
 
You can't get all of the care you need in an ER, they are only required to stabilize you to walking condition. There are about a million sicknesses, diseases, injuries and conditions that can and will kill you that the ER won't treat. Yes, we literally leave our poor and middle class to die if they can't afford our outrageously expensive healthcare.

That's not really true. The poor have gone to ER's for decades over every little nose sniffle and have been seen.
 
That's not really true. The poor have gone to ER's for decades over every little nose sniffle and have been seen.

Really? I didn't know you could get chemo in the ER. People like you pretend the ER takes care of all the Americans who don't have healthcare so you don't have to face the hard moral reality of your political positions. Our health insurance system (or lack thereof) unncessarily kills a lot of people, and the poor and middle class are not able to see doctors when they need to, especially for regular checkups and preventative maintenance.

When you let a problem get bad enough that you need to go to the ER it's already too late in many cases. There really is a better way to design a healthcare system, dozens of them, you just have to open your eyes and be honest with yourself that our system does not work, why not look at countries who were able to figure it out?
 
You can't get all of the care you need in an ER, they are only required to stabilize you to walking condition. There are about a million sicknesses, diseases, injuries and conditions that can and will kill you that the ER won't treat. Yes, we literally leave our poor and middle class to die if they can't afford our outrageously expensive healthcare.

And what to do with the people who don't take their own health seriously to provision for it? A difficult question.
 
Don't or cant? Or hit the maximum, or preexisting condition? Here's what you do now.

Bw_hRh5CMAA3ix8.jpg:large
 
And what to do with the people who don't take their own health seriously to provision for it? A difficult question.

I am not sure how people could have taken their own health more seriously or made provisions for it when the last recession hit and they lost their jobs and businesses, and were diagnosed with things like leukemia, glaucoma, and major car accidents.
 
As opposed to the "death panels" of the so-called free market system where insurance company doctors that have never seen me or talked to me make life-and-death decisions based on the whims of who pays their salary.

Sorry, not seeing a difference.

Exactly what are you saying?
 
I am not sure how people could have taken their own health more seriously or made provisions for it when the last recession hit and they lost their jobs and businesses, and were diagnosed with things like leukemia, glaucoma, and major car accidents.

And what minuscule fraction of a percentage of the population would fall under those remote circumstances, pray tell?

Does the healthcare system need to serve the needs of the 98% majority?
Or does the healthcare system need to add needless complexity and cost to the 98% majority to also cover the last 2%?

Wouldn't a more sensible approach be to design a healthcare system that serves the needs of the 98% very well, and then have some separate provisions to meet the needs of the last 2%? Or some such similar proportions.
 
And what minuscule fraction of a percentage of the population would fall under those remote circumstances, pray tell?

Does the healthcare system need to serve the needs of the 98% majority?
Or does the healthcare system need to add needless complexity and cost to the 98% majority to also cover the last 2%?

Wouldn't a more sensible approach be to design a healthcare system that serves the needs of the 98% very well, and then have some separate provisions to meet the needs of the last 2%? Or some such similar proportions.

That's universal coverage, and the 2% can pay more for luxury carpets and cordon bleu meals.
 
That's universal coverage, and the 2% can pay more for luxury carpets and cordon bleu meals.

Err. The 2% are those that need some sort of public assistance, as it would be unconscionable to not provide some sort of accommodations for them. Of course, if public assistance is too easy to get, everyone will sign up for it and defeat the whole intent. The goal would be for the vast majority of people to be able to support, understand, and have a decision role in making role their own healthcare decisions.

Being from the UK, I understand that this sort of thing is a foreign concept for you, given the decades of government run single payer healthcare system that you've had.

[h=3]Terminally ill boy denied 'potentially life-saving' treatment by NHS ...[/h]www.telegraph.co.uk › News

Apr 3, 2017 - An eight month old boy being denied “potentially life-saving” treatment at ... medical evidence relating to his rare genetic condition and what his doctors say ... “terminal” stages of his illness and he will “certainly die without treatment”. ... cannot be named, said that there were “cultural differences” in the UK.

[h=3]Charlie Gard: Parents of baby with rare genetic condition plead with ...[/h]www.independent.co.uk › News › Health
Apr 6, 2017 - A baby boy suffering from a rare genetic condition “deserves a chance” ... Gard, a postman from Bedfont in west London, told judge Nicholas Francis. ... have to die because he will not be like another little boy running around.

[h=3]Parents' desperate court battle to let their baby son live | Daily Mail ...[/h]www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article.../Parents-desperate-court-battle-let-baby-son-live.htm...
Mar 2, 2017 - Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital in London, where Charlie is in ... Doctors say boy with rare genetic illness should be allowed to die but his ... Seven-month-old Charlie Gard suffers from a genetic condition so rare he ...

[h=3]UK boy, 4, with extremely rare genetic disorder dies | Fox News[/h]www.foxnews.com/health/.../uk-boy-4-with-extremely-rare-genetic-disorder-dies.htm...

May 5, 2015 - A 4-year-old U.K. boy who suffered from CLOVES Syndrome, a rare genetic disorder that can cause overgrowth of limbs and skin deformities in ...

[h=3]Fate of terminally ill British baby sparks global debate - CBS News[/h]www.cbsnews.com/.../charlie-gard-terminally-ill-british-baby-global-debate-rare-gene...

2 days ago - LONDON -- President Trump has offered to help a terminally ill British baby. ... 11-month-old Charlie Gard, a British infant suffering from a rare genetic disease that has left him brain ... Britain's Supreme Court ruled that it's in Charlie's best interests to be allowed to die with dignity. ... The Malawi Mouse Boys ...

[h=3]Charlie Gard's parents told they must let doctors withdraw his life ...[/h]

Even if you have the money, government run single payer system denies you what you can afford and decide for yourself.
 
Last edited:
And what minuscule fraction of a percentage of the population would fall under those remote circumstances, pray tell?

As of 2009, 45,000 Americans were DYING every single year due to lack of access to health insurance. This does not include people living with chronic pain or going blind. Yes, you may tell us that's a "miniscule fraction", but we find it unacceptable in a modern developed economy. If you are OK with it, go speak with their surviving spouses and children.

Does the healthcare system need to serve the needs of the 98% majority?
Or does the healthcare system need to add needless complexity and cost to the 98% majority to also cover the last 2%?

The number of uninsured only recently fell below 10% for the first time in its history under Obamacare. It was still continuing its downward trend. Not for long, though, I am sure.

Wouldn't a more sensible approach be to design a healthcare system that serves the needs of the 98% very well, and then have some separate provisions to meet the needs of the last 2%? Or some such similar proportions.

The devil is in the details. If you got such a plan, please write the whitehouse or your congressman. Otherwise, I am sure it's just as good as Donald Trump's great plan:

I'll replace ObamaCare with something terrific...Believe me. We're going to have insurance for everybody. [They] can expect to have great health care. It will be in a much simplified form. Much less expensive and much better."
-Donald Trump

Yeah, OK guys. Wake us up when you got something.
 
As of 2009, 45,000 Americans were DYING every single year due to lack of access to health insurance. This does not include people living with chronic pain or going blind. Yes, you may tell us that's a "miniscule fraction", but we find it unacceptable in a modern developed economy. If you are OK with it, go speak with their surviving spouses and children.

Source please, as well as current stats. I'm willing to bet that as of 2016 45,000 Americans were DYING due to lack of access to health insurance. If you have high deductibles and out of pocket expenses as Obamacare policies do, then you have a lack of access to health insurance. If you don't go to the doctor because you can't afford those out of pocket expenses then you die, just like you did before.
 
Err. The 2% are those that need some sort of public assistance, as it would be unconscionable to not provide some sort of accommodations for them. Of course, if public assistance is too easy to get, everyone will sign up for it and defeat the whole intent. The goal would be for the vast majority of people to be able to support, understand, and have a decision role in making role their own healthcare decisions.

Being from the UK, I understand that this sort of thing is a foreign concept for you, given the decades of government run single payer healthcare system that you've had.

[h=3]Terminally ill boy denied 'potentially life-saving' treatment by NHS ...[/h]www.telegraph.co.uk › News

Apr 3, 2017 - An eight month old boy being denied “potentially life-saving” treatment at ... medical evidence relating to his rare genetic condition and what his doctors say ... “terminal” stages of his illness and he will “certainly die without treatment”. ... cannot be named, said that there were “cultural differences” in the UK.

[h=3]Charlie Gard: Parents of baby with rare genetic condition plead with ...[/h]www.independent.co.uk › News › Health
Apr 6, 2017 - A baby boy suffering from a rare genetic condition “deserves a chance” ... Gard, a postman from Bedfont in west London, told judge Nicholas Francis. ... have to die because he will not be like another little boy running around.

[h=3]Parents' desperate court battle to let their baby son live | Daily Mail ...[/h]www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article.../Parents-desperate-court-battle-let-baby-son-live.htm...
Mar 2, 2017 - Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital in London, where Charlie is in ... Doctors say boy with rare genetic illness should be allowed to die but his ... Seven-month-old Charlie Gard suffers from a genetic condition so rare he ...

[h=3]UK boy, 4, with extremely rare genetic disorder dies | Fox News[/h]www.foxnews.com/health/.../uk-boy-4-with-extremely-rare-genetic-disorder-dies.htm...

May 5, 2015 - A 4-year-old U.K. boy who suffered from CLOVES Syndrome, a rare genetic disorder that can cause overgrowth of limbs and skin deformities in ...

[h=3]Fate of terminally ill British baby sparks global debate - CBS News[/h]www.cbsnews.com/.../charlie-gard-terminally-ill-british-baby-global-debate-rare-gene...

2 days ago - LONDON -- President Trump has offered to help a terminally ill British baby. ... 11-month-old Charlie Gard, a British infant suffering from a rare genetic disease that has left him brain ... Britain's Supreme Court ruled that it's in Charlie's best interests to be allowed to die with dignity. ... The Malawi Mouse Boys ...

[h=3]Charlie Gard's parents told they must let doctors withdraw his life ...[/h]

Even if you have the money, government run single payer system denies you what you can afford and decide for yourself.

Charlie Gard is brain dead and suffering. He is being tortured
 
So you consider rushing to the ER "healthcare"?

anyone in America has access to a doctor and medical help if they need it.
I do not believe handing my healthcare over to a moron in Washington as "healthcare"
more of a form of slow suicide.
 
anyone in America has access to a doctor and medical help if they need it.

On what planet?

You are uninsured and have leukemia. You have been told you will die of it in 3 years if left untreated. You go to the ER, and the triage nurse asks you why are there. You tell her you are going to die of leukemia in 3 years if you don't get treated for it.

What do you think is going to happen next?
 
Back
Top Bottom