• 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!

universal healthcare would save us trillions

Manc Skipper said:
The bigger the insured pool covered, the bigger the saving, the healthier the population, and the fewer driven to bankruptcy or death. What's not to like?
Click to expand...
Right wingers are pro-death.
 
aociswundumho said:
Yes, they are an issue. Healthcare is a service, it's all labor.



If that were true then we would have the same problem in thousands of other for-profit industries.



Again, health insurance companies are not the problem:

View attachment 67438199


Furthermore, their profits are capped by the 80/20 rule:

www.healthcare.gov

Rate Review & the 80/20 Rule

The health care law provides 2 new ways to hold insurance companies accountable and help keep your costs down: Rate Review and the 80/20 rule.
www.healthcare.gov
Click to expand...
You keep saying "the" problem as if there's just one. LOL.
 
Deuce said:
..do you think people just don't get sick unless they can afford a doctor? Of course the demand exists.


Every single system of universal healthcare costs less than ours. Consider the possibility that Econ 101 didn't teach you enough to describe everything.
Click to expand...
And the means to pay for provision of the demand?

And WHY does ours cost more?

No idea what Econ 101 teaches today, but if nothing else, I profit from lacking that knowledge. I was a Math and CS major.
 
BirdinHand said:
People are making those decisions already.

Can you afford that insulin? Can you afford the knee replacement? Can you afford the dental work?

Why would cutting out the middle man (insurance companies) be harmful?
Click to expand...
Changing the middle man to being the Federal government only results in the ability to live further beyond our means, requiring inflation to keep or debt sustainable.
 
BirdinHand said:
Oh, it will raise taxes.

Has anyone said it wouldn’t?

But the tax increase for most individuals is likely less than what they pay for insurance currently.
Click to expand...
Then I would suggest we need to resolve the tax issue first and foremost.
 
eman623 said:
I support Universal Healthcare. I oppose Single Payer.

They are not the same thing. Many countries have the former without having to resort to the latter.
Click to expand...
the-mandalorian-this-is-the-way.gif
 
Individual said:
If the demand already exists, then providing access would necessitate increased spending.
Click to expand...

These fears were expressed in Britain in 1948 when the NHS was formed. It was managed by prioritising clinical need, in a post war economy..
 
Individual said:
Changing the middle man to being the Federal government only results in the ability to live further beyond our means, requiring inflation to keep or debt sustainable.
Click to expand...
What are our “means”
 
Manc Skipper said:
These fears were expressed in Britain in 1948 when the NHS was formed. It was managed by prioritising clinical need, in a post war economy..
Click to expand...
Just stating a fiscal reality, NOT a fear.
 
Nomad4Ever said:
Awesome. That means more people are living better, healthier lives. Fantastic even.
Click to expand...
Thus the demand would level off BECAUSE preventive care REDUCES extreme situations from developing.
 

10 Reasons Americans Need Single Payer​

With a system that is highly dependent on employer-based, for-profit health insurance, millions of Americans have no or inadequate coverage. The patchwork of expensive, unequal insurance plans has contributed to bankruptcy, homelessness, preventable disease, and death.

Inflated insurance and health care costs place unfair demands on businesses and taxpayers. By making high-quality health care for all as cost-effective as possible, a single-payer system meets the health needs of the public and contributes to a healthy economy.


  1. Patients and doctors make health care decisions.​

    You choose your doctor. You and your doctor decide what is best for you. You take the medications that you and your doctor agree are appropriate for you.
    Insurers currently impose restrictions on the kinds and amount of care covered. Such restrictions interfere with the rights of doctors and patients to choose care based on an individual’s needs. Many insurance plans also restrict an individual’s choice of health professionals.
    A single-payer system allows choice of licensed health care professionals and accredited facilities and automatically covers all medically necessary care, with a focus on preventive care. It includes alternatives supported by evidence, including chiropractor and acupuncture services, and gives equal consideration to physical and mental health needs. Decisions on treatment are left to the patients and their doctors.

  2. Everybody in.​

    Single payer covers all of us. Every resident of California is in the system and can receive health care when we need it.
    Make the “best health care in the world” available to all in California. While we have the resources – excellent medical schools and research centers, dedicated health care professionals, and the latest technology – our current approach to financing health care skews delivery. It keeps millions of people from being able to contribute responsibly and leaves millions without needed care. The pieces of a potentially excellent system cannot form a coherent whole.
    A single-payer system puts in place the financing mechanism and the cost and quality parameters necessary to achieve sustainable universal health care so that everyone has the care they need when they need it, at a price they can afford.

  3. Never lose coverage again.​

    Single payer is the ultimate freedom to choose. You can choose to go to school, change jobs, start a new business, retire, or stay home and care for children and parents. Through all life’s twists and turns, you’ll never have to worry about losing access to health care again.

  4. Stop waste.​

    The insurance-hospital industry now spends more than 30% of each health care dollar on administration, marketing, and paperwork. When single payer eliminates this costly 30%, your doctor will not have to spend oodles of time on the phone to get permission from your insurance for your ruptured appendix surgery.
    Billions of dollars spent on insurance now go toward administering multiple plans, packaging and marketing the plans, excessive profits and executive compensation, lobbying for policies that detract from health care, and for campaign donations.

  5. Single payer streamlines administration by having one agency handle all financing and by giving everyone the same benefits.     With “everyone in and nobody out”, money will no longer be wasted on marketing, underwriting, and administration of multiple health insurance plans. Health care professionals will no longer incur the cost of dealing with so many different plans, rules, and forms.
 

  • Stabilize costs.​

    Costs are rising at rates far beyond inflation. Charges for health insurance premiums and care vary dramatically and are difficult to justify. Reimbursement for services and supplies is unpredictable. People who cannot afford regular care misuse expensive hospital emergency rooms when problems arise and require more expensive treatment when conditions worsen.
    In a single-payer system, the single-payer agency negotiates fair prices for services, supplies, and pharmaceuticals, using the purchasing power of the entire populace to make care more affordable for all.
    Single payer allows negotiations for medicines and medical devices. You’ve heard of the flagrant increased costs for insulin and EpiPen. Single payer gives the government the power to negotiate pricing for medications.
    Preventive care and timely intervention has the potential for keeping health problems from developing or worsening, making the need for expensive treatment less likely. Access to regular care reduces costly use of emergency rooms.
    Single payer means no co-payments, deductibles, or premiums. For most of us, the total bottom line for single payer, which will likely be paid for through progressive taxes, will be significantly less than the total bottom line we now pay. This is how we pay for other public goods and services: schools, roads, fire, and libraries.

  • Stop medical bankruptcy.​

    Medical debt is the number one reason for personal bankruptcy in the United States. Almost 80% who went through bankruptcy had some form of health insurance. That insurance was clearly insufficient.

  • End financial rationing.​

    Single payer ends health care rationing based on how much money you have or don’t have. Some of us are forced to make financial decisions when we need health care if we are uninsured or underinsured. We may have to choose between health care and food. Single payer ends these no-win choices.

  • Businesses can focus on their core mission.​

    Businesses will no longer be burdened with health plans for employees. Lower health costs make businesses more competitive, both domestically and internationally, and earn more for employees and shareholders. Single payer makes it easier to start a new business without the complications, costs and worries of obtaining employee insurance benefits.

  • Maintain an excellent health care delivery network.​

    Emergency rooms and entire hospitals are closing, and doctors are prematurely giving up their practices because financing of health care has become so expensive and frustrating. The number of primary care physicians is in dangerous decline because the services of these doctors are not sufficiently valued and compensated. Health professionals treating patients in under-funded government programs are difficult to recruit and retain.
    In a single-payer system, licensed health care professionals and accredited facilities negotiate fees and budgets and receive timely payment. Their services continue to be part of the valuable network we depend on.

  • Peace of mind.​

    No more surprise bills. No more “out of network” sticker shock. No more staying in a bad job just for the benefits. Single payer is the peace of mind that no matter your life circumstances, when you need health care, you will receive it.
 
memberya2 said:
Universal healthcare would save money it costs more for the system that we got right now
so people complaining about how much america spends should be happy about a single payer system
it would save us alot.

ysph.yale.edu

Study: More Than 335,000 Lives Could Have Been Saved During Pandemic if U.S. Had Universal Health Care

If the U.S. had had a single-payer universal health care system in 2020, nearly 212,000 American lives would have been saved that year, according to a new study
ysph.yale.edu ysph.yale.edu
www.citizen.org

FACT CHECK: Medicare for All Would Save the U.S. Trillions; Public Option Would Leave Millions Uninsured, Not Garner Savings - Public Citizen

Medicare for All opponents repeatedly claim that Medicare for All is “too expensive” by presenting misleading numbers without the proper…
www.citizen.org
Click to expand...
All good and well, however have you looked at the actual implementations? Wait times are horrendous for many procedures. Canada and Great Britain are cautionary tales dealing with populations a fraction of ours.
 
aociswundumho said:
Healthcare is a service - it's all labor. In no large market is labor better protected from competition than the healthcare market. Any grand leftist plan you have must be approved by the extremely politically powerful labor cartels and monopolies in the healthcare market, and they are not going to go along with anything that results in them making less money.
Click to expand...

You are making predictions about what would happen based on a particular model of the world that you have. It’s like having a hypothesis. But when there are so many facts in the real world that do not match up with your predictions and your hypothesis, it may be time to think that your model may not be correct, and you may have to go back to the drawing board.

It turns out most doctors are administratively overwhelmed by all the different private insurance companies, with all their different rules, regulations, requirements, preauthorizations, etc….

www.medscape.com

Majority of Healthcare Professionals Back Single-Payer System

Supporters cited better health outcomes and lower costs in countries with single-payer care.
www.medscape.com www.medscape.com
 
Individual said:
And the means to pay for provision of the demand?

And WHY does ours cost more?

No idea what Econ 101 teaches today, but if nothing else, I profit from lacking that knowledge. I was a Math and CS major.
Click to expand...
Ours costs more for a lot of reasons, but most of them revolve around the idiotic idea that profit motive should be involved. We have entities inserted into the process whose primary motivation is that you don't get healthcare because that makes them lose money.
 
aociswundumho said:
In the US, there is one problem - the price of healthcare.
Click to expand...
Whoaaaaa who told you? Think of where health care dollars would no longer go:

Over paid CEO's
Golden Parachutes
Bonus Packages
Commissions
Advertising
Political Campaigns
12 lobbyists per elected official
Prescription Over Charges
Golf Tournaments
 
RetiredUSN said:
Serious question here.

If this is so obviously successful, then why haven't any Democrats or Republican administrations implemented it?
Click to expand...
The way I heard it, the ACA (without a public option) was all the Democrats could get passed, such is/was the power and opposition of insurance companies. As to republicans, all of them voted against it, even though some democrats and commentators argued that the ACA idea had conservative roots. It’s interesting to see the GOP progression through the decades on three big government programs. A substantial number voted for Social Sucurity, fewer, fewer but significant numbers voted for Medicare, and no republicans for the ACA.

Does anyone know if the GOP is planning to resurrect “repeal and replace” in the current House?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom