• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Soon to be single payer.

I don't think they should be in the emergancy room. i think the emergancy room should be able to send people the emergacy clinic down the road unless it is really life threatening which is the purpose of an emergancy room.

government caused that problem along with the other majority of problems with our heatlhcare and you think by turning it over to the people that have screwed it up is going to fix it.

the logic is simply not there.

healthcare is screwed up because it is an essential service with inelastic demand that is being artificially bottlenecked. add in geographic immediacy, and it becomes so efficient that looking at other healthcare distribution systems is the only logical move.

you'll notice that few who live in countries with single payer are arguing to get rid of it and replace it with the American system. there's a pretty good reason for that.
 
No, you are forced to do that because of mandatory treatment laws that the federal government passed last century.

we live in a first world country. we don't let people die on the streets, and i'm pretty happy about that. we do, however, need to fix the inefficiencies of our current UHC.

NoThe ACA, Obamacare, or crap, whatever you choose to call it took some of the worst ideas from some of the most expensive treatment states like Ca., Ma., etc. and put it into federal law. It's the worst of the worst legislatively and adds to an incorrectly regulated market to begin with. Obamacare is a "reform" of bad law using worse law. To be perfectly honest, the system wasn't efficient since some time prior to the 1930s.

i'm not a fan of the ACA. the solution i supported was single payer or at least a medicare buy in. i do approve of the preexisting conditions part and the section that lets college kids remain on their parents' insurance. those should have been passed separately, though, and the bill should have been dumped the second the public option was off the table.
 
we live in a first world country. we don't let people die on the streets, and i'm pretty happy about that. we do, however, need to fix the inefficiencies of our current UHC.



i'm not a fan of the ACA. the solution i supported was single payer or at least a medicare buy in. i do approve of the preexisting conditions part and the section that lets college kids remain on their parents' insurance. those should have been passed separately, though, and the bill should have been dumped the second the public option was off the table.
The inefficiencies were caused by overregulation, which adds cost, paperwork, and compliance issues. We have had an unnatural shortage since at least the early 1900s because of AMA lobbying to limit acceptance into medical programs. The problem is a UHC system doesn't solve any of that, it just asks taxpayers to pick up the tab, there are mountains of issues in UHC countries, like excessive wait times, denials due to demand/supply issues without appeals(even with them it costs time). UHC is sold as the perfect solution, it is far from it.
 
The inefficiencies were caused by overregulation, which adds cost, paperwork, and compliance issues. We have had an unnatural shortage since at least the early 1900s because of AMA lobbying to limit acceptance into medical programs. The problem is a UHC system doesn't solve any of that, it just asks taxpayers to pick up the tab, there are mountains of issues in UHC countries, like excessive wait times, denials due to demand/supply issues without appeals(even with them it costs time). UHC is sold as the perfect solution, it is far from it.

eh, i used to buy that when i was a libertarian, but i don't anymore. Canadians and Europeans aren't dropping like flies. in fact, they're living longer than us for a fraction of the cost. meanwhile, i cut my thumb in December, and it cost about $1,600 to superglue it shut by the time i got all of the bills. i paid a grand of that with good insurance. a couple weeks later, i got violently ill with norovirus, and i absolutely refused to go to the ER even though my family demanded that i go. i puked my guts out and waited for it to stop because there was no way i was giving them another red cent.

our setup sucks, but it is fixable.
 
healthcare is screwed up because it is an essential service with inelastic demand that is being artificially bottlenecked. add in geographic immediacy, and it becomes so efficient that looking at other healthcare distribution systems is the only logical move.

you'll notice that few who live in countries with single payer are arguing to get rid of it and replace it with the American system. there's a pretty good reason for that.

What are food, clothing and shelter, if not essential and inelastic? The idea that citizens are expected to provide these needs to themselves and their dependents is fairly basic.
 
What are food, clothing and shelter, if not essential and inelastic? The idea that citizens are expected to provide these needs to themselves and their dependents is fairly basic.

haven't we already done this in another thread?

there are eight million places to buy food. it's dirt cheap, and access to it is in fact guaranteed by safety nets.

there are eight million places to live. some are cheap, and access to shelter is aided by safety nets.

there are eight million places to buy clothes. clothes can be purchased for dirt cheap, and access to clothes is aided by safety nets.

when you're seriously sick, though, you have a couple geographical choices. it's horrendously expensive. access is guaranteed, but there are all kinds of people who don't qualify for medicaid, and they just go to the ER. those of us with insurance get to pay for their care. we're the only first world country in which the term "medical bankruptcy" is even relevant.

we need to fix the system.
 
eh, i used to buy that when i was a libertarian, but i don't anymore. Canadians and Europeans aren't dropping like flies. in fact, they're living longer than us for a fraction of the cost. meanwhile, i cut my thumb in December, and it cost about $1,600 to superglue it shut by the time i got all of the bills. i paid a grand of that with good insurance. a couple weeks later, i got violently ill with norovirus, and i absolutely refused to go to the ER even though my family demanded that i go. i puked my guts out and waited for it to stop because there was no way i was giving them another red cent.

our setup sucks, but it is fixable.
They are not living any longer, averages may go up and down per country, but that is due to many factors medical and non-medical. In fact, a few UHC countries are looking at decentralizing health coverage and going to semi-private markets. In the big picture, it's not as good as advertised.
 
They are not living any longer, averages may go up and down per country, but that is due to many factors medical and non-medical. In fact, a few UHC countries are looking at decentralizing health coverage and going to semi-private markets. In the big picture, it's not as good as advertised.

then why don't they demand our system?

seriously, man, i used to be a libertarian. i remember all of this stuff. i got a very rude awakening in 2009, and then started researching to see if my views on this topic were bull****. i was upset to find that they were. the rest of the first world really is getting equivalent or better care than us at a much lower price.

we can argue about what the solution should be, but not about whether our former status quo was actually good enough to keep.
 
then why don't they demand our system?
Don't know, but semi-privatization is the first step towards it. In fact, medical tourism to the U.S. was a pretty well established international business amongst those who could afford it for many years.

seriously, man, i used to be a libertarian. i remember all of this stuff. i got a very rude awakening in 2009, and then started researching to see if my views on this topic were bull****. i was upset to find that they were. the rest of the first world really is getting equivalent or better care than us at a much lower price.
I was in the insurance business, it was my job to know this stuff when the cost objections to premiums were raised. It's not B.S. in the least, there are a lot of laws in place that sound good on paper, but add to the bottom line.
we can argue about what the solution should be, but not about whether our former status quo was actually good enough to keep.
Of course the old course needed some tweaking, but overhauling to something different, with different problems is not the best solution.
 
Don't know, but semi-privatization is the first step towards it. In fact, medical tourism to the U.S. was a pretty well established international business amongst those who could afford it for many years.

I was in the insurance business, it was my job to know this stuff when the cost objections to premiums were raised. It's not B.S. in the least, there are a lot of laws in place that sound good on paper, but add to the bottom line.
Of course the old course needed some tweaking, but overhauling to something different, with different problems is not the best solution.

considering that i want to replace the entire model, i don't see a lot of potential for reaching common ground on this one. i'd compromise on single payer, but it would have to be a compromise that combines the best parts of every other first world system to make custom fit a solution for the US. i don't believe that the free market can most efficiently deliver an essential service with inelastic demand in which geographic immediacy is a factor.

anyway, i enjoyed discussing it with you.
 
considering that i want to replace the entire model, i don't see a lot of potential for reaching common ground on this one. i'd compromise on single payer, but it would have to be a compromise that combines the best parts of every other first world system to make custom fit a solution for the US. i don't believe that the free market can most efficiently deliver an essential service with inelastic demand in which geographic immediacy is a factor.

anyway, i enjoyed discussing it with you.
Same here man. I can't come to terms with a workable UHC, I just don't see that it can dynamically adjust to issues and it requires a ton of prior planning and restrictions. I'm willing to trade "some" inefficiencies for speed of care, and willing to discuss how to minimize those, but cannot agree that UHC is the panacea we need.
 
healthcare is screwed up because it is an essential service with inelastic demand that is being artificially bottlenecked. add in geographic immediacy, and it becomes so efficient that looking at other healthcare distribution systems is the only logical move.

you'll notice that few who live in countries with single payer are arguing to get rid of it and replace it with the American system. there's a pretty good reason for that.

The bottleneck is being caused by government. if we truely had a free market medical system then costs would down trend drastically. If i could shop state to state for the same coverage and get the same coverage cheaper in ND as i could in NY then that would force NY insurance companies to compete.

as it stands now there is little competition as all insurance companies have to comply with their own state insurance board.
I agree i support an all cash system. You pay for general practice care while there is a hospital insurance plan that covers any type of serious injury that may occur.

Actually you are seeing those system become more semi-private than before. people are tired of getting snubbed and delayed and having their coverages reduced by the government. they are seeking out private doctors who can treat them faster than the government run centers.

This is also taking the burden off of the government to try and control costs by rationing care.

I saw the difference between government run hospitals and private ones wheni was out of the country last year. i prefer private run insurance to government ones.
i don't like LCD healthcare you might but i don't.

health insurance forms and government documentation cost on healthcare is 60-80%.
that is why when you pay cash doctors and hospitals give huge discounts.
 
The bottleneck is being caused by government. if we truely had a free market medical system then costs would down trend drastically. If i could shop state to state for the same coverage and get the same coverage cheaper in ND as i could in NY then that would force NY insurance companies to compete.

as it stands now there is little competition as all insurance companies have to comply with their own state insurance board.
I agree i support an all cash system. You pay for general practice care while there is a hospital insurance plan that covers any type of serious injury that may occur.

Actually you are seeing those system become more semi-private than before. people are tired of getting snubbed and delayed and having their coverages reduced by the government. they are seeking out private doctors who can treat them faster than the government run centers.

This is also taking the burden off of the government to try and control costs by rationing care.

I saw the difference between government run hospitals and private ones wheni was out of the country last year. i prefer private run insurance to government ones.
i don't like LCD healthcare you might but i don't.

health insurance forms and government documentation cost on healthcare is 60-80%.
that is why when you pay cash doctors and hospitals give huge discounts.
Some things could be considered the purview of government like sanitation requirements, minimum licensing, and anti-fraud regulations. I prefer that to be completely on the state level though.
 
That's the end game, we lost guys. Give it up, in two to three years as this monstrosity of a mess implodes, we'll be forced into paying higher taxes and private insurance will be outlawed. We'll all be on some national form of "Medicare", we'll get our "Medicare" cards, and all get "free" access to basic care. That's the end game.

The Progressive desire to destroy the concept of Natural Law governing our limited form of Government is reaching it's pinnacle.

Those on the left, and who think Rights just mean whatever will be ecstatic. Most people are when their ideology "wins". And they won. We lost. Get over it. Single Payer will be enacted before the year 2020. We can be just like the "rest of the world!"

Yay us.

Don't blame Obama, don't blame Congress, don't blame FDR or TR.

Blame your fellow ****ing Americans, who have surrendered the most precious gift our Founding Fathers gave us, in return for "free stuff".

They are to blame.

Here is something that may interest you:

In March 1962, Gallup asked Americans about Kennedy's plan: "Two different plans are being discussed in Washington for meeting hospital costs for older persons: One plan would let each individual decide whether to join Blue Cross or buy some form of voluntary health insurance. The other plan would cover persons on Social Security and would be paid by increasing the Social Security tax deducted from pay checks. Which of these two plans would you prefer?" At that time, a majority of Americans, 55%, preferred the Social Security approach, 34% preferred the private insurance approach, and 11% were undecided.

So one could say what we have with the ACA today was decided against back in 1962. Interesting that 34% back then in favor of the ACA/private insurance approach pretty much matched the 35% that were in favor of the ACA back in 2009. But here is the whole Gallup article if you want to read it.

The Gallup Brain: Medicare's Early Days
 
Some things could be considered the purview of government like sanitation requirements, minimum licensing, and anti-fraud regulations. I prefer that to be completely on the state level though.

i agree i think some regulation is needed just to keep things honest, but it shouldn't be at the federal level it should be at the state level.
 
The bottleneck is being caused by government. if we truely had a free market medical system then costs would down trend drastically. If i could shop state to state for the same coverage and get the same coverage cheaper in ND as i could in NY then that would force NY insurance companies to compete.

as it stands now there is little competition as all insurance companies have to comply with their own state insurance board.
I agree i support an all cash system. You pay for general practice care while there is a hospital insurance plan that covers any type of serious injury that may occur.

Actually you are seeing those system become more semi-private than before. people are tired of getting snubbed and delayed and having their coverages reduced by the government. they are seeking out private doctors who can treat them faster than the government run centers.

This is also taking the burden off of the government to try and control costs by rationing care.

I saw the difference between government run hospitals and private ones wheni was out of the country last year. i prefer private run insurance to government ones.
i don't like LCD healthcare you might but i don't.

health insurance forms and government documentation cost on healthcare is 60-80%.
that is why when you pay cash doctors and hospitals give huge discounts.

i agree with you about some of the private insurance competition, but i would prefer if we all had basic care covered nationally and then maybe private insurance (also nationally competitive) for extra coverage. still, no other first world country is trying to enact the American system, and i don't know of one that is trying to go to a cash only free market health care model. i don't believe that can work, because if my kid has pneumonia in the middle of the night, he or she is going to the hospital in my geographic area regardless of what it costs. it is not a service that is conducive to a market-only solution.

we already cover the elderly and the poor under programs like medicare. i'd like to see us cover the rest.
 
the state is just a extension of the federal government.
Negative. The federal is an agreement amongst the states, every power they were granted was decided by a delegation of the several states, and amendment is the asking for power by the federal and the granting of from the states.
 
Negative. The federal is an agreement amongst the states, every power they were granted was decided by a delegation of the several states, and amendment is the asking for power by the federal and the granting of from the states.

and this collection of states is bound into a nation.
 
i agree with you about some of the private insurance competition, but i would prefer if we all had basic care covered nationally and then maybe private insurance (also nationally competitive) for extra coverage. still, no other first world country is trying to enact the American system, and i don't know of one that is trying to go to a cash only free market health care model. i don't believe that can work, because if my kid has pneumonia in the middle of the night, he or she is going to the hospital in my geographic area regardless of what it costs. it is not a service that is conducive to a market-only solution.

we already cover the elderly and the poor under programs like medicare. i'd like to see us cover the rest.

singapore did this. the majority of their healthcare is spent by their populace. their government only contributes 33% of their healthcare cost.

they have manditory savings through a payroll deduction along with a hospitalzation plan.

it works very well and is a free market type system.
the thing is that we would have to have massive tax reform. the average person in singapore making 60k a year pay 4% tax. the rest of their pay roll tax goes to their HSA and SS fund.

they also don't tax capital gains. liberals would have a fit.
 
the state is just a extension of the federal government.

no it is not and this is the main issue with liberal ideology. It is the opposite of what you say the federal government is an extension of the state.
the federal governments power is suppose to be derived from the governed.
 
yet it was instagated by th founders them selves
The founders did not go past the granted powers, they did not reinterpret what they wrote. The current mess started right after the civil war, but was heavily exacerbated around the early 1900s.
 
no it is not and this is the main issue with liberal ideology. It is the opposite of what you say the federal government is an extension of the state.
the federal governments power is suppose to be derived from the governed.

the powers of the state are intertwined because the interests of the state overlap with the federal government
 
Back
Top Bottom