• 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!

Single payer debate no so easy

It is just total nonsense that we would be cutting one third of the GDP. That is just a flat out lie.

Well you are free to link to all the statistics that you have that healthcare is not a significant portion of GDP.. oh..and that its not going to grow in the next decade.

we all await your evidence.
 
Well you are free to link to all the statistics that you have that healthcare is not a significant portion of GDP.. oh..and that its not going to grow in the next decade.

we all await your evidence.

Dude we are not cutting one third of the GDP if we switched to a single payer tomorrow. That is complete nonsense
 
Dude we are not cutting one third of the GDP if we switched to a single payer tomorrow. That is complete nonsense

Again.. lets please show me your evidence.. that refutes Greenbeards evidence.

Go ahead and show what percentage of our GDP is healthcare currently.. and what its going to be when we have reduced our expenditures to levels one of those countries you crow about.

Please show your evidence.. we all await..
 
Again.. lets please show me your evidence.. that refutes Greenbeards evidence.

Go ahead and show what percentage of our GDP is healthcare currently.. and what its going to be when we have reduced our expenditures to levels one of those countries you crow about.

Please show your evidence.. we all await..

You think that if we switched to single payer TOMORROW it would end one third of our GDP? What complete and total nonsense. We are just shifting money around....not ending it. Less to you and more to helping others.
 
You think that if we switched to single payer TOMORROW it would end one third of our GDP? What complete and total nonsense. We are just shifting money around....not ending it. Less to you and more to helping others.

Well.. if you want to get the savings that other countries get in single payer then yes.. it would gravely hurt an industry that is about 1/4 to 1/3 of our nations GDP...(depending on how you calculate it).

but You go ahead vegas.. get the evidence that refutes the information that Greenbeard provided.. We all want to see where you get your numbers and how wonderful these cuts will be for the economy.

Cuz its just shifting money around... so go ahead.. tell us where that money is going to be shifted and show us your evidence.
 
Well.. if you want to get the savings that other countries get in single payer then yes.. it would gravely hurt an industry that is about 1/4 to 1/3 of our nations GDP...(depending on how you calculate it).

but You go ahead vegas.. get the evidence that refutes the information that Greenbeard provided.. We all want to see where you get your numbers and how wonderful these cuts will be for the economy.

Cuz its just shifting money around... so go ahead.. tell us where that money is going to be shifted and show us your evidence.
Canada is my evidence. They did and did not wreck their economy. The notion that it would destroy our economy is complete nonsense
 
Canada is my evidence. They did and did not wreck their economy. The notion that it would destroy our economy is complete nonsense

Great.. show me what percentage of GDP was Canadian healthcare when they developed their system.. then show me the economic effects that hand on their country.

then.. compared that to America TODAY.. and its percentage of GDP that is healthcare.. and what a reduction of spending... to get the to the same level as Canadian spending would do to the economy.

We await your research and evidence.
 
Great.. show me what percentage of GDP was Canadian healthcare when they developed their system.. then show me the economic effects that hand on their country.

then.. compared that to America TODAY.. and its percentage of GDP that is healthcare.. and what a reduction of spending... to get the to the same level as Canadian spending would do to the economy.

We await your research and evidence.

I'll get right on that. Cam I make you a sandwich first?



Your argument is laughable nonsense
 
I agree that part of the savings from a single payer system would be in cutting salaries and reducing excess capacity. And politically those things are hard. But personally I have no problem with that

You may not. But the politics of the situation--and indeed even the rhetoric of many single-payer supporters--suggest that in practice the promised cost-cutting won't materialize. The problem is in denying the existence of any trade-offs at all and assuming, or promising, that single-payer will be everything to everyone.

Let me give you two examples.

First, the post below yours:

I will address just the cost issue... you state that people will lose jobs if we made a switch to single payer. I don’t think so... there will be a shift in jobs that is for sure. But I think most in health care would be able make that shift and still maintain employment.

Variants of this argument have been by lots of single-payer supporters. Even Bernie Sanders makes it. And it may be more or less true! But if we just end up shuffling people around, whatever the merits of that, we aren't going to achieve cost savings. We'll still spend what we do, just a little differently. Which is probably the most realistic scenario for how single-payer would play out.

Second, another ongoing thread: Hospital Closings.

The example is a rural hospital in Tennessee that is closing its doors. That hospital is a cost in the health care system. It could be a good cost or a bad cost, justifiable or not, necessary or unnecessary. But in order for that hospital to keep its doors open, someone has to cover that cost. That isn't currently happening so it's closing up.

There are multiple folks in that thread who argue that single-payer would save that hospital and others in that situation. It might! The single-payer might direct cash into those kinds of struggling facilities to cover their costs and keep them afloat. But that's an added expense to the system. Again, it might be a good one, that's open to debate. But arguing that single-payer will pump new money into health care infrastructure that isn't economically viable runs entirely counter to the argument that it's going to lower spending and save money. And yet I would wager that every person in that thread who argued single-payer can save such hospitals would also argue that it's going to save money.

This is the denial of tradeoffs and the compartmentalization of "costs" that I've been critical of. It cheapens the discussion of single-payer because it obscures what we're actually talking about when it comes to health care and what single-payer does and does not offer.
 
You may not. But the politics of the situation--and indeed even the rhetoric of many single-payer supporters--suggest that in practice the promised cost-cutting won't materialize. The problem is in denying the existence of any trade-offs at all and assuming, or promising, that single-payer will be everything to everyone.

Let me give you two examples.

First, the post below yours:



Variants of this argument have been by lots of single-payer supporters. Even Bernie Sanders makes it. And it may be more or less true! But if we just end up shuffling people around, whatever the merits of that, we aren't going to achieve cost savings. We'll still spend what we do, just a little differently. Which is probably the most realistic scenario for how single-payer would play out.

Second, another ongoing thread: Hospital Closings.

The example is a rural hospital in Tennessee that is closing its doors. That hospital is a cost in the health care system. It could be a good cost or a bad cost, justifiable or not, necessary or unnecessary. But in order for that hospital to keep its doors open, someone has to cover that cost. That isn't currently happening so it's closing up.

There are multiple folks in that thread who argue that single-payer would save that hospital and others in that situation. It might! The single-payer might direct cash into those kinds of struggling facilities to cover their costs and keep them afloat. But that's an added expense to the system. Again, it might be a good one, that's open to debate. But arguing that single-payer will pump new money into health care infrastructure that isn't economically viable runs entirely counter to the argument that it's going to lower spending and save money. And yet I would wager that every person in that thread who argued single-payer can save such hospitals would also argue that it's going to save money.

This is the denial of tradeoffs and the compartmentalization of "costs" that I've been critical of. It cheapens the discussion of single-payer because it obscures what we're actually talking about when it comes to health care and what single-payer does and does not offer.

The cost of every procedure can be lowered. Thst is a fact. If that rural county has a school it should have a hospital. The most important factor is the lives it will save
 
The cost of every procedure can be lowered. Thst is a fact. If that rural county has a school it should have a hospital. The most important factor is the lives it will save

You just said "personally I have no problem" with reducing excess capacity. Now it sounds like you want to increase capacity?

It's very easy to make abstract statements about cutting costs. It's very hard to talk about--much less take action on!--the concrete realities of what it means to lower the cost structure of our system.

That's why it's very hard to believe single-payer would lower costs. That doesn't mean it's not worth doing, but it does mean it probably won't do what you think it will. And honestly it doesn't really sound like you'd want it to, anyway, when push comes to shove.
 
You just said "personally I have no problem" with reducing excess capacity. Now it sounds like you want to increase capacity?

It's very easy to make abstract statements about cutting costs. It's very hard to talk about--much less take action on!--the concrete realities of what it means to lower the cost structure of our system.

That's why it's very hard to believe single-payer would lower costs. That doesn't mean it's not worth doing, but it does mean it probably won't do what you think it will. And honestly it doesn't really sound like you'd want it to, anyway, when push comes to shove.

Its not abstract. Do you know what a MRI costs in France? A knee surgery in canada?
 
I agree that part of the savings from a single payer system would be in cutting salaries and reducing excess capacity. And politically those things are hard. But personally I have no problem with that

Lefties are handicapped in that they understand so little about fiscal issues and they do not know what it would be like for the government not to mother them from cradle to grave, no matter the cost.
 
Lefties are handicapped in that they understand so little about fiscal issues and they do not know what it would be like for the government not to mother them from cradle to grave, no matter the cost.

What? I can't hear you thru all the bs
 
Its not abstract. Do you know what a MRI costs in France? A knee surgery in canada?

And he is trying to explain to you WHY that knee surgery costs less. You just are not listening.

So.. why does the Knee surgery cost less in Canada? In part.. because their system does not have EXTRA HOSPITALS that add cost to the system.

Okay.. lets say that you have two systems.

In one system you have a surrounding area of 4 communities that have a total of 200 people that need knee surgery.

In one system.. each of those communities has a hospital.. all with its costs, doctors etc... MRI machines etc.. everything needed for a hospital to do surgery. now. each community has 50 of those people that need a knee surgery...

that means that cost of that hospital.. is spread out over those 50 knee surgeries... that means that each of those knees surgeries and their MRI is going to cost quite a bit... versus..

the second system.. in which there is only ONE hospital serving those 200 patients. one hospital serving those 4 communities. Now the price per procedure can be dramatically lower.. because the cost of that one hospital. is spread over 200 knee surgeries.

The trade off for that decrease in cost.. is that now those people have to travel farther for their knee surgery.. have less choice of the doctor that they see.. and have a longer wait time.. to get their MRI and a longer wait time to get their surgery.

understand now?
 
And he is trying to explain to you WHY that knee surgery costs less. You just are not listening.

So.. why does the Knee surgery cost less in Canada? In part.. because their system does not have EXTRA HOSPITALS that add cost to the system.

Okay.. lets say that you have two systems.

In one system you have a surrounding area of 4 communities that have a total of 200 people that need knee surgery.

In one system.. each of those communities has a hospital.. all with its costs, doctors etc... MRI machines etc.. everything needed for a hospital to do surgery. now. each community has 50 of those people that need a knee surgery...

that means that cost of that hospital.. is spread out over those 50 knee surgeries... that means that each of those knees surgeries and their MRI is going to cost quite a bit... versus..

the second system.. in which there is only ONE hospital serving those 200 patients. one hospital serving those 4 communities. Now the price per procedure can be dramatically lower.. because the cost of that one hospital. is spread over 200 knee surgeries.

The trade off for that decrease in cost.. is that now those people have to travel farther for their knee surgery.. have less choice of the doctor that they see.. and have a longer wait time.. to get their MRI and a longer wait time to get their surgery.

understand now?

They also don't have to forgo that knee surgery and limp around in pain for years because they can not afford the deductibles and co pays. And it is time to get rid of excess capacity. Canada has plenty of hospitals even in rural areas
 
They also don't have to forgo that knee surgery and limp around in pain for years because they can not afford the deductibles and co pays. And it is time to get rid of excess capacity. Canada has plenty of hospitals even in rural areas

Well actually yes they do have to limp around in pain because they do not fit the government criteria yet for knee surgery. Its another way in which they get the savings they do in these countries.

then they have to wait on the surgery waiting list when they do meet the criteria.

as far as getting rid of excess capacity.. well then.. you are going back on this:

If that rural county has a school it should have a hospital. The most important factor is the lives it will save

By the way:

February 23, 2017, Mississauga, ON) Individuals living in rural communities in Canada have long faced challenges in obtaining equitable access to health care services. They constitute 18% of the Canadian population but are served by only 8% of the physicians in Canada.* Improving the recruitment and retention of skilled family physicians in rural communities is needed to improve access to and equity of health care.

https://www.cfpc.ca/steps_improving_rural_health_care_canada/

Some more:

If there is two-tiered medicine in Canada, it’s not rich and poor, it’s urban versus rural.”(1) This is how Health Canada’s Special Advisor on Rural Health described the increasingly dire circumstances facing rural Canadians with respect to access to health care. It has been shown that the health status of rural residents is lower than that of their urban counterparts. At the same time, rural Canadians are limited to a smaller range of health care providers; rural hospital closures and centralization of health services have had a severe impact on rural residents

•Generally, rural Canadians have higher death rates, higher infant mortality rates, and shorter life expectancies than do urban Canadians.

•Two recent reports on the future of health care in Canada (the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, and the Romanow Commission) have acknowledged that providing for the health care needs of rural residents is an important challenge that must be addressed. In 2001, a national Ministerial Advisory Committee on Rural Health was created to advise the federal Minister of Health on how the health of rural residents can be improved.

Rural Canada: Access To Health Care
 
Well actually yes they do have to limp around in pain because they do not fit the government criteria yet for knee surgery. Its another way in which they get the savings they do in these countries.

then they have to wait on the surgery waiting list when they do meet the criteria.

as far as getting rid of excess capacity.. well then.. you are going back on this:



By the way:



https://www.cfpc.ca/steps_improving_rural_health_care_canada/

Some more:





Rural Canada: Access To Health Care

In america you just wait forever and suffer in silence
 
Back
Top Bottom