- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,496
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
The columnist in that link proposes a single payer system like Medicare, which is nothing at all in practice similar to the VA system. The VA system is government owned facilities, government employed workers, delivering care to a very small slice of the population totally outside the extensive private delivery system we have in place. Single payer, as the columnist used it and I use that term, would replace some or all of the private insurers with ONE payer - e.g. Medicare - but retain the private delivery system.
I have over 46,000 posts in this forum, presenting data to back up everything I post including BLS, BEA, Treasury data. I even posted data showing TX information and what I have found out is that liberals don't take anything they don't actually research as accurate so the best thing to do is tell people like you to do your own research and find out the information. When you do you won't be heard from again because I know that if I post inaccurate data that everyone here on the opposite side are going to jump all over it and take great pride in proving me wrong. That has yet to happen here and won't because I am careful about the data I post.
Obviously you don't understand what a single payer system is. It is all about where the money comes from and in both the VA and Medicare it comes from the Federal Govt. after taking it from people who pay taxes. The govt. then sets the rates and that destroys incentive as well as drives doctors out of the business meaning there will be less choices. Medicare has driven doctors out of the system and will do the same thing with a single payer system for healthcare. Liberals always believe the opposite and when their beliefs are proven wrong they are already on to something else never admitting they were wrong.
I guess I'm not sure what data I'm going to uncover that will debunk the data I presented. I also try to be careful with what data I present, and so far in this thread at least no one has bothered to contradict me with other data, just asserted they don't like what I presented, backed by nothing. Not sure what I'm supposed to do.
Sure I understand what single payer is. Two words 'single' and 'payer' - like Medicare. But there is a world of difference between the VA system and Medicare.
And you say that single payer destroys incentives and drives doctors out of business, but somehow single payer systems in Europe manage to have far more physicians per capita in many cases than we do. Physicians (Per 10,000 Population) | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation
Per 10,000:
France: 34
UK: 28
Germany: 37
Sweden: 39
U.S.: 24
Canada only has about 20, so 20% less than the U.S., which probably explains some of their long wait times. But that's not an inherent problem with single payer, as you can see from the data from Europe.
Our supply here has been artificially kept low for decades through the AMA and limiting resident slots subsidized by Medicare. If we expanded slots, we'd fill them tomorrow with lots and lots of students not able to get a residency slot right now. We could allow more foreign born and/or educated physicians into this country.
You say I "believe the opposite," but I'm just asking for data to disprove what I have seen in the data.
Except that hasn't really proven to be the case in countries with a single payer system.Obviously you don't understand what a single payer system is. It is all about where the money comes from and in both the VA and Medicare it comes from the Federal Govt. after taking it from people who pay taxes. The govt. then sets the rates and that destroys incentive as well as drives doctors out of the business meaning there will be less choices. Medicare has driven doctors out of the system and will do the same thing with a single payer system for healthcare. Liberals always believe the opposite and when their beliefs are proven wrong they are already on to something else never admitting they were wrong.
Except that hasn't really proven to be the case in countries with a single payer system.
LOL....Sally Pipes? Seriously? You try to base your argument on an op-ed piece by a woman who has made a career out of selling books pushing a political agenda. Why am I not surprized. Too funny.This is what is happening in countries with single payer systemsThe Ugly Realities Of Socialized Medicine Are Not Going Away - Forbes
How is that "dodging the question"? I hear similar complaints all the time. My next door neighbor cries to me all the time about "Why am I paying to have my insurance cover pediatric dental? I don't even have any kids". My response to her is "Why does my insurance cover gynacological exams?" The point being....the insurance industry is set up to cover things that we may not necessarily want or care about....thats just the way the system operates and what it is based on.
How is that "dodging the question"? I hear similar complaints all the time. My next door neighbor cries to me all the time about "Why am I paying to have my insurance cover pediatric dental? I don't even have any kids". My response to her is "Why does my insurance cover gynacological exams?" The point being....the insurance industry is set up to cover things that we may not necessarily want or care about....thats just the way the system operates and what it is based on.
Turned 65 yet? Cannot wait for that to happen and you get forced onto Medicare. Great program, you are going to love it, LOL.
VA system is a single payer system and we all can see how well the Federal Govt. does in administering anything. Give the Vets a Voucher and let them go wherever they want. What is it about liberalism that believes a Federal Govt. that has created a 17.5 trillion dollar debt, created a 3.9 trillion dollar Federal Govt. and has over 100 million Americans dependent on that govt. could administer a single payer system any better than the private sector can by giving people tax credits to buy their own insurance?
Unless you can opt out...like Hobby Lobby can.
:shrug:
more than likely you have coverage through your company and your company offers an all inclusive plan.
if you were to get an individual policy before obamacare then you could opt out of gynacological exams and pediatric dental etc ...
It allows for them to exlcude from coverage ANY contraceptive coverage which they deem morally offensive.
I could have phrased it better and was not entirely clear.
umm yes that is exactly correct.I'm not so sure that it accurate. The entire insurance industry is based on the idea that people pay into a system and aren't likely to use the services. If people only opt in for the services that they use it wouldn't make sense for the insurance companies.
This is what is happening in countries with single payer systems
The Ugly Realities Of Socialized Medicine Are Not Going Away - Forbes
LOL....Sally Pipes? Seriously? You try to base your argument on an op-ed piece by a woman who has made a career out of selling books pushing a political agenda. Why am I not surprized. Too funny.
I didn't need to read longer than the first couple paragraphs to know she's a hack. She mentions the UK and their severe budget problems with their NHS. First of all, the UK model is socialized, government facilities, government employed doctors, etc. It's like the VA, which nobody is proposing. Furthermore, she fails to mention what the UK spends so we can get some perspective on the issue.
List of countries by total health expenditure (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
U.S. : $8,508
UK: $3,405
So, they spend 40% what we do. If we spent at their level, we'd have to cut about $1.7 TRILLION in spending per year. So, yes, if we cut 1.7T from spending, likely we'd have severe shortages, quality issues, etc. And this is what passes for a conservative expert, which is why I long ago abandoned the conservative movement.
I didn't need to read longer than the first couple paragraphs to know she's a hack. She mentions the UK and their severe budget problems with their NHS. First of all, the UK model is socialized, government facilities, government employed doctors, etc. It's like the VA, which nobody is proposing. Furthermore, she fails to mention what the UK spends so we can get some perspective on the issue.
List of countries by total health expenditure (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
U.S. : $8,508
UK: $3,405
So, they spend 40% what we do. If we spent at their level, we'd have to cut about $1.7 TRILLION in spending per year. So, yes, if we cut 1.7T from spending, likely we'd have severe shortages, quality issues, etc. And this is what passes for a conservative expert, which is why I long ago abandoned the conservative movement.
That was kinda the whole point of the case and the dissent. The point of the dissent being, knowing how our insurance industry operates, why should a religion owned company be allowed to opt out based on their religious views.
Doesn't really matter to you how many articles I post or where they come from because your mind is made up in spite of the results around the world. You see results don't matter to a liberal as long as someone else is paying for it
Like The U.S., Europe Wrestles With Health Care : Shots - Health News : NPR
Here is another hack for you
Like The U.S., Europe Wrestles With Health Care : Shots - Health News : NPR
By the way who is "we" since we live in a private sector economy. Guess you don't understand that costs have to be paid by someone and that someone is you if you pay taxes. You think a single payer system is going to cut costs? you are very naive, gullible and poorly informed but the rhetoric and promises sure sound good, don't they? What happens when you are proven wrong? Then it will be too late but what good is saying "I am sorry" then?
Put a voucher system in place and let people purchase their own insurance.
Actually....a much better article linked on your second try. No one is claiming that any system would be perfect, nor that it wouldn't involve growing pains and would need to adapt and make changes along the way. As the article you linked indicates, France has one of the best systems in the world, but it took a while and some flexibility for them to get there. Maybe with a little flexibility and being open to make some changes, the US system can get there as well.
I'll address that one, but interesting you had no comment about the problem with the Forbes article. It's obvious hackery.
The second article points out that costs are a problem everywhere. OK, modern medicine is expensive, France delivers care to every citizen at 2/3s our cost, gets excellent results, and doesn't have a perfect system. Well, what system IS perfect, for anything? I'm not trying to avoid any point in that article, but I'm not sure what part of it defends our status quo or some system that you haven't specified that you'd like better. And several people quoted think out system is nuts - crazy expensive, 16% uninsured.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?