• 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!

The basic idea of a Single Payer Health Care System doesn't seem wrong

So...since I brought up the fact that they have been doing this literally since the country's genesis, the only conclusion I (or anyone else) can draw from your statements is that you don't want any government, unless you are willing to admit that some freedoms need restrictions for a society to function properly with the least amount of human suffering. Because it would be impossible to have a society in which everyone agreed on the exact amount of taxes collected and on every program those taxes were spent on.

No, I want limited govt, limited to only doing things that the people expressly permit it to do. And a single payer health program is neither legal under the publicly agreed to laws, nor would it be in line with individual freedom because it would eliminate the individuals ability to choose how they satisfy their own health needs. It makes no more sense then having single payer housing or feeding.
 
No, I want limited govt, limited to only doing things that the people expressly permit it to do. And a single payer health program is neither legal under the publicly agreed to laws, nor would it be in line with individual freedom because it would eliminate the individuals ability to choose how they satisfy their own health needs. It makes no more sense then having single payer housing or feeding.

This was NEVER about the current legality of a single payer health care system. It was about the effectiveness of such a program were it to be implemented. So I'm completely ignoring about half of your response there automatically. Technically, I agree that it would require a changing of laws by publicly elected officials.

No, no, and no....A system in which various services and benefits could be chosen and not chosen, a system with different plans, different hospitals, different doctors; ALL can exist within a single payer system, or a public/private system. You're simply imputing your own assumptions of what such a system would be like, but there are more ways than one to run such a system.

The insurance HAS TO BE THERE, either privately or publicly. Many health care costs are simply too high for many people to pay for and also maintain a relatively modest standard of living...or pay for at all, regardless of cuts to ones' budget. Having everyone pooled together, with a progressive pay scale, everything else equal, would be superior to a fragmented and self defeating privatized system. That was the argument being made. And again, unless your definition of freedom includes the need TO NOT have insurance, then it is moot point, because you'll have certain health care decisions take away from you whether it is a private or public system.
 
This was NEVER about the current legality of a single payer health care system. It was about the effectiveness of such a program were it to be implemented. So I'm completely ignoring about half of your response there automatically. Technically, I agree that it would require a changing of laws by publicly elected officials.

No, no, and no....A system in which various services and benefits could be chosen and not chosen, a system with different plans, different hospitals, different doctors; ALL can exist within a single payer system, or a public/private system. You're simply imputing your own assumptions of what such a system would be like, but there are more ways than one to run such a system.

The insurance HAS TO BE THERE, either privately or publicly. Many health care costs are simply too high for many people to pay for and also maintain a relatively modest standard of living...or pay for at all, regardless of cuts to ones' budget. Having everyone pooled together, with a progressive pay scale, everything else equal, would be superior to a fragmented and self defeating privatized system. That was the argument being made. And again, unless your definition of freedom includes the need TO NOT have insurance, then it is moot point, because you'll have certain health care decisions take away from you whether it is a private or public system.

Insurance does not HAVE TO BE THERE. It wasn't even invented until the 1800s, and somehow the human race survived before then. My definition of freedom does indeed include the CHOICE to not have insurance.
 
Leo, who decides how much to pay the health care provider? What takes the place of price competition to keep prices in-check? Is there just a nation wide standard price list that all healthcare providers have to utilize? And is there no difference between the quality of care? Seems to me that health care providers may tend to scrimp on quality and customer service to keep their bottom line profit up, if they can't compete on value (defining "value" as a combination of price and quality).

And some medical treatment isn't necessary, but may be desirable. So does the government insurance program automatically pick up the tab for treatment that may be more cosmetic in value than medical? Like a nosejob or facelift? If I wanted to get my ears "reshaped", would that be free? Would it be automatic, or would I have to "apply" for a procedure like that, and wait for some authority to approve me, hoping that they agree that my ears are so misformed that the taxpayer should pick up the tab for my ear surgery? And what if my ear surgery was not approved, would I have the opportunity to just pay for it out of my own pocket, or would it just not be an option allowed to me?

Not attacking here, just want to understand how this socialized insurance works.

Image P, I’ll address your questions in relation to Medicare because I’m covered and best aware of Medicare which I consider to be to golden standard of all insurance with regard to value for both the entire aggregate nation, Medicare covered individuals and those individuals’ families.

In my opinion it’s unfortunate that Medicare does not cover most dental procedures. I particular advocate coverage for examinations and cleaning between generally accepted and recommended durations of months, cavity and root canal tasks.

In my opinion it’s reasonable that Medicare does not cover cosmetic surgery unless the surgery remedies or significantly improves what is a grievous deformity or is of sufficient medical justification.

The maximum prices are determined by what Medicare schedule of procedures and prices will allow and those prices differ within local areas. No Health provider is required to accept Medicare patients but having accepted the patient, they must accept all Medicare's maximum prices charged to any Medicare patients.

Since I choose my doctor and can change my doctor at any time, that’s some inducement for quality care. Since almost all people over the age of 65 are covered by Medicare or Medicaid, a health provider that chose not to accept such patients would limit their elderly practice to only the very wealthiest of those patients.

Medicare or the Affordable Care Act penalizes hospitals and other facilities that release patients too early or do less than a complete job. If the patient requires additional treatment because the facility failed to properly treat or follow up their patients treatments, the facility, (not the insurance carrier which in my case is Medicare) absorbs that entire additional cost.

Opponents of limiting medical suits disregard that the medical industry would return to the industries’ disregarding the consequences of poor care because the medically ignorant public are not aware of the harm while it’s being done. Certainly Medicare’s refusal to allow the cost of such avoidable additional care would increases the difficulty of defending medical malpractice in our courts.

Medicare patients pay 1/5 of Medicare’s allowable health provider’s charges. I suspect I must be paying almost no co-payment for hospitalization because the only sizable bills that I’ve received from hospitals are for the individual doctors’ services.

Medicare is not socialized medicine; it’s a basic semi-socialized medical insurance. I and my employs together paid a total of 3% of my entire earnings toward Medicare funding. I additionally pay an annual deductable for my treatment each year and beyond that deductable I pay 1/5 of Medicare’s allowable charges as my co-payments. It’s single payment in the sense that the U.S. (CMS), Center of Medicare and Medicaid Services administers the insurance and distributes their portion of payments to health providers and facilities.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Image P, I’ll address your questions in relation to Medicare because I’m covered and best aware of Medicare which I consider to be to golden standard of all insurance with regard to value for both the entire aggregate nation, Medicare covered individuals and those individuals’ families.

In my opinion it’s unfortunate that Medicare does not cover most dental procedures. I particular advocate coverage for examinations and cleaning between generally accepted and recommended durations of months, cavity and root canal tasks.

In my opinion it’s reasonable that Medicare does not cover cosmetic surgery unless the surgery remedies or significantly improves what is a grievous deformity or is of sufficient medical justification.

The maximum prices are determined by what Medicare schedule of procedures and prices will allow and those prices differ within local areas. No Health provider is required to accept Medicare patients but having accepted the patient, they must accept all Medicare's maximum prices charged to any Medicare patients.

Since I choose my doctor and can change my doctor at any time, that’s some inducement for quality care. Since almost all people over the age of 65 are covered by Medicare or Medicaid, a health provider that chose not to accept such patients would limit their elderly practice to only the very wealthiest of those patients.

Medicare or the Affordable Care Act penalizes hospitals and other facilities that release patients too early or do less than a complete job. If the patient requires additional treatment because the facility failed to properly treat or follow up their patients treatments, the facility, (not the insurance carrier which in my case is Medicare) absorbs that entire additional cost.

Opponents of limiting medical suits disregard that the medical industry would return to the industries’ disregarding the consequences of poor care because the medically ignorant public are not aware of the harm while it’s being done. Certainly Medicare’s refusal to allow the cost of such avoidable additional care would increases the difficulty of defending medical malpractice in our courts.

Medicare patients pay 1/5 of Medicare’s allowable health provider’s charges. I suspect I must be paying almost no co-payment for hospitalization because the only sizable bills that I’ve received from hospitals are for the individual doctors’ services.

Medicare is not socialized medicine; it’s a basic semi-socialized medical insurance. I and my employs together paid a total of 3% of my entire earnings toward Medicare funding. I additionally pay an annual deductable for my treatment each year and beyond that deductable I pay 1/5 of Medicare’s allowable charges as my co-payments. It’s single payment in the sense that the U.S. (CMS), Center of Medicare and Medicaid Services administers the insurance and distributes their portion of payments to health providers and facilities.

Respectfully, Supposn

That is good information.

I would like to add that only 3% of the Medicare population use original medicare. Most buy a plan that gives you much better coverage for very little.
 
Image P, I’ll address your questions in relation to Medicare because I’m covered and best aware of Medicare which I consider to be to golden standard of all insurance with regard to value for both the entire aggregate nation, Medicare covered individuals and those individuals’ families.
Respectfully, Supposn

With equal respect, my friend, he was asking about the Australian Medicare, which is a single payer, government run, universal health care system. It bears no relationship to what you call Medicare in the USA. :)
 
Insurance does not HAVE TO BE THERE. It wasn't even invented until the 1800s, and somehow the human race survived before then. My definition of freedom does indeed include the CHOICE to not have insurance.

Ok. We are done. If you cannot understand the social, economic, and technological differences between pre 1800's and modern times, then there exists no good reason to continue this at all. I really shouldn't respond further, but would you care to guess what the average life expectancy was pre 1800's? Even if costs were bought down, and even if those costs were brought down via some kind of free market reform, the fact remains that the technologies (drugs included) and services required to achieve the higher level of medical care one could receive in modern times, a level of medical care that would significantly extend one's life beyond what it would be otherwise, heath insurance is usually required.
 
Ok. We are done. If you cannot understand the social, economic, and technological differences between pre 1800's and modern times, then there exists no good reason to continue this at all. I really shouldn't respond further, but would you care to guess what the average life expectancy was pre 1800's? Even if costs were bought down, and even if those costs were brought down via some kind of free market reform, the fact remains that the technologies (drugs included) and services required to achieve the higher level of medical care one could receive in modern times, a level of medical care that would significantly extend one's life beyond what it would be otherwise, heath insurance is usually required.

Sorry me too dum dum to understand. Me go crush rocks.
 
Back
Top Bottom