BREAKING:Obama says he would veto bill letting you keep your present health care plan

[thereisnospoon]

For profit insurers exist in nations with single-payer systems. That has been established by the link provided. Their market share is only relevant to their shareholders.

Would you mind clarifying what you mean by 'single payer'. I'm pretty sure we're not all on the same page here.

Single-payer health care is a system in which the government, rather than private insurers, pays for all health care costs.[1] Single-payer systems may contract for healthcare services from private organizations (as is the case in Canada) or may own and employ healthcare resources and personnel (as is the case in the United Kingdom). The term "single-payer" thus only describes the funding mechanism—referring to health care financed by a single public body from a single fund—and does not specify the type of delivery, or for whom doctors work. Although the fund holder is usually the state, some forms of single-payer use a mixed public-private system.

Single-payer health care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Misnomer. Government pays for NOTHING. The taxpayers fund it.
And that IS the central issue here.
Taxes in countries with single payer insurance are confiscatory. That is intolerable.
The demographic group that suffers the highest burden is the middle class.
Wealthy people feel little pain because they have the resources to absorb the additional expense. The poor pay nothing. This leaves the middle classes to foot the bill.
And to break that down even further, those who earn just above levels where subsidies kick in, feel the most pain. Their budgets are planned out for such and such money to go to essential spending( bills, housing, etc).
The thinking on the part of the left's idea of just waive a magic and wand VOILA!!!! Free medical care is an overly simplistic view generated by a dream of living in a socialist utopia.
As we have seen there are several western European nations in dire fiscal trouble due to socialism that the citizens can no longer afford to support. Too many riding in the boat and not nearly enough people rowing the boat.

 

[Antares]

Seeing as how some black men call each other 'nigga' on a regular basis, I would assume to think that they have no right being offended by being called one by a white man. I mean they didn't mind referring to each other as such.

Sure, you would think that from behind a computer screen, keyboard commando. I want to be there when you walk up to a Black man and call him that.

Go bake cookies. You silly little girl.

Would you eat anything she cooked?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Sure, you would think that from behind a computer screen, keyboard commando. I want to be there when you walk up to a Black man and call him that.

Go bake cookies. You silly little girl.

Would you eat anything she cooked?

Is that a trick question?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

One day after announcing he "might" change Obamacare to let people keep their present health care plans, Senators are revealing that he threatened to veto a bill to do just that.

Oh, well. So much for Presidential promises.

------------------------------------------

Obama Issues Veto Threat for "Keep Your Plan" Legislation - Katie Pavlich

If you want your plan, you can keep....veto!

The House of Representatives is getting ready to vote on legislation today legalizing the reinstatement of lost insurance plans thanks to Obamacare. Essentially, the Keep Your Plan Act does exactly what President Obama administratively (and probably illegally) declared as a "fix" for mass insurance cancellations. Late last night GOP Leader Eric Cantor revealed President Obama intends to veto the legislation should it pass and reach his desk for a signature.

Obama has episodes. I wonder if he has been diagnosed

A dictator mind

 

[Derideo_Te]

Would you mind clarifying what you mean by 'single payer'. I'm pretty sure we're not all on the same page here.

Single-payer health care is a system in which the government, rather than private insurers, pays for all health care costs.[1] Single-payer systems may contract for healthcare services from private organizations (as is the case in Canada) or may own and employ healthcare resources and personnel (as is the case in the United Kingdom). The term "single-payer" thus only describes the funding mechanism—referring to health care financed by a single public body from a single fund—and does not specify the type of delivery, or for whom doctors work. Although the fund holder is usually the state, some forms of single-payer use a mixed public-private system.

Single-payer health care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah. You could still have certain areas - dental, mental-health, etc... - that were covered by private insurance. People could also enlist private insurance to supplement the default coverage provided by government. But single payer does replace private insurance with government as the primary means of financing our health care.

I'm still not clear what you're advocating for, because what you described earlier - allowing the general public to purchase Medicare - is NOT single payer, in the traditional sense. It's what is more commonly referred to as the public option, which simply creates a government run insurance program that competes with private companies offering similar coverage.

I was also unclear on whether you would still want to include an individual mandate in the idea you were proposing.

The mandate that everyone must be covered still applies. Under the current ACA only private insurance is an option, albeit subsidized for those in lower income brackets. By changing the ACA to make Medicare an option it then becomes a hybrid single-payer system that includes private insurance. The Netherlands, Swiss and German hybrid single-payer systems work on a similar model. Mandating coverage is the key to universal healthcare. How it is delivered is only a factor of how much profit overhead you are willing to bear.

 

[dblack]

Single-payer health care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah. You could still have certain areas - dental, mental-health, etc... - that were covered by private insurance. People could also enlist private insurance to supplement the default coverage provided by government. But single payer does replace private insurance with government as the primary means of financing our health care.

I'm still not clear what you're advocating for, because what you described earlier - allowing the general public to purchase Medicare - is NOT single payer, in the traditional sense. It's what is more commonly referred to as the public option, which simply creates a government run insurance program that competes with private companies offering similar coverage.

I was also unclear on whether you would still want to include an individual mandate in the idea you were proposing.

The mandate that everyone must be covered still applies. Under the current ACA only private insurance is an option, albeit subsidized for those in lower income brackets. By changing the ACA to make Medicare an option it then becomes a hybrid single-payer system that includes private insurance. The Netherlands, Swiss and German hybrid single-payer systems work on a similar model. Mandating coverage is the key to universal healthcare. How it is delivered is only a factor of how much profit overhead you are willing to bear.

Ok... well, scratch what I said earlier then. What you're calling 'single-payer' (aka 'public option') would be no better than ACA in my view. Ultimately, it's the same approach, the lobbying cartels would ensure the public plan offered little competition for profitable customers, and the mandate would still scapegoat and punish the people exhibiting the most personal responsibility (by carrying the least amount of insurance).

Ultimately, it's just a corporatist ploy to privatize socialism. I'd rather have my socialism straight up and honest, and run by government - not by private companies for a profit. Either provide health care as a taxpayer funded service of government, or stay the hell out of it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yeah. You could still have certain areas - dental, mental-health, etc... - that were covered by private insurance. People could also enlist private insurance to supplement the default coverage provided by government. But single payer does replace private insurance with government as the primary means of financing our health care.

I'm still not clear what you're advocating for, because what you described earlier - allowing the general public to purchase Medicare - is NOT single payer, in the traditional sense. It's what is more commonly referred to as the public option, which simply creates a government run insurance program that competes with private companies offering similar coverage.

I was also unclear on whether you would still want to include an individual mandate in the idea you were proposing.

The mandate that everyone must be covered still applies. Under the current ACA only private insurance is an option, albeit subsidized for those in lower income brackets. By changing the ACA to make Medicare an option it then becomes a hybrid single-payer system that includes private insurance. The Netherlands, Swiss and German hybrid single-payer systems work on a similar model. Mandating coverage is the key to universal healthcare. How it is delivered is only a factor of how much profit overhead you are willing to bear.

Ok... well, scratch what I said earlier then. What you're calling 'single-payer' (aka 'public option') would be no better than ACA in my view. Ultimately, it's the same approach, the lobbying cartels would ensure the public plan offered little competition for profitable customers, and the mandate would still scapegoat and punish the people exhibiting the most personal responsibility (by carrying the least amount of insurance).

Ultimately, it's just a corporatist ploy to privatize socialism. I'd rather have my socialism straight up and honest, and run by government - not by private companies for a profit. Either provide health care as a taxpayer funded service of government, or stay the hell out of it.

I agree with your sentiment that honest socialism is preferable to the hybrid system. However we have to deal with reality. In the unlikely event that the ACA is ever repealed it won't be replaced for a pure single-payer system since those advocating the repeal are opposed to single-payer. The best that we can realisitically expect is the "public option" hybrid system. Until we can rid this nation of corporate control over the political process we are never going to see any different.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Sure, you would think that from behind a computer screen, keyboard commando. I want to be there when you walk up to a Black man and call him that.

Actually, coming from a white woman, you wouldn't know a damned thing. You think you know black people. No wonder you have them fooled into voting for you, you play on their hairpin triggers as far as race goes.

Not really. I was raised in urban America. African Americans don't all call each other that, you are guilty of stereotyping here. It's offensive and I'm kind of tired of sitting back being satisfied that you guys will end up just making yourselves look like idiots.

It's sad really that some here are just stuck in some alternate experience.

Oh no never. Black people never refer to each other as "nigga" or "******"...
If you maintain this line, it is most certain you were NOT raised in a mixed race urban setting. And if you were, it was in an upper middle class setting.
Nobody cares if you believe you are 'offended'....That is one problem you libs have. you are always looking for things with which to bother yourselves.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Actually, coming from a white woman, you wouldn't know a damned thing. You think you know black people. No wonder you have them fooled into voting for you, you play on their hairpin triggers as far as race goes.

Not really. I was raised in urban America. African Americans don't all call each other that, you are guilty of stereotyping here. It's offensive and I'm kind of tired of sitting back being satisfied that you guys will end up just making yourselves look like idiots.

It's sad really that some here are just stuck in some alternate experience.

Geezus, make up shit much?

Yes they DO call each other that.

This is typical of liberals. They see things that make them uncomfortable. They then ignore them, hoping they will go away.

 

[thereisnospoon]

LOL, unfair?

It would eliminate them.

Single payer would eliminate them, our at the very least relegate them to a supplementary role. But a public option wouldn't, that's the key difference between them.

I'm afraid it would.

The Public option, backed by tax dollars, accepting ALL adverse risks vs. a for profit insurer who has NO tax dollar backing and cannot accept all adverse risk...it would indeed eliminate them.

In order for Single payer to work and to have enough funding, it MUST exist in a captive market. Participation must be compulsory.

 

[dblack]

The mandate that everyone must be covered still applies. Under the current ACA only private insurance is an option, albeit subsidized for those in lower income brackets. By changing the ACA to make Medicare an option it then becomes a hybrid single-payer system that includes private insurance. The Netherlands, Swiss and German hybrid single-payer systems work on a similar model. Mandating coverage is the key to universal healthcare. How it is delivered is only a factor of how much profit overhead you are willing to bear.

Ok... well, scratch what I said earlier then. What you're calling 'single-payer' (aka 'public option') would be no better than ACA in my view. Ultimately, it's the same approach, the lobbying cartels would ensure the public plan offered little competition for profitable customers, and the mandate would still scapegoat and punish the people exhibiting the most personal responsibility (by carrying the least amount of insurance).

Ultimately, it's just a corporatist ploy to privatize socialism. I'd rather have my socialism straight up and honest, and run by government - not by private companies for a profit. Either provide health care as a taxpayer funded service of government, or stay the hell out of it.

I agree with your sentiment that honest socialism is preferable to the hybrid system. However we have to deal with reality. In the unlikely event that the ACA is ever repealed it won't be replaced for a pure single-payer system since those advocating the repeal are opposed to single-payer. The best that we can realisitically expect is the "public option" hybrid system. Until we can rid this nation of corporate control over the political process we are never going to see any different.

A hybrid system amplifies the worst drawbacks of both a free market and state socialism - the worst of both worlds. It destroys consumer freedom and guarantees corporate profits via government collusion.

 

[dblack]

Single payer would eliminate them, our at the very least relegate them to a supplementary role. But a public option wouldn't, that's the key difference between them.

I'm afraid it would.

The Public option, backed by tax dollars, accepting ALL adverse risks vs. a for profit insurer who has NO tax dollar backing and cannot accept all adverse risk...it would indeed eliminate them.

In order for Single payer to work and to have enough funding, it MUST exist in a captive market. Participation must be compulsory.

Single payer isn't the same as public option.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=single+payer+vs+public+option

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm afraid it would.

The Public option, backed by tax dollars, accepting ALL adverse risks vs. a for profit insurer who has NO tax dollar backing and cannot accept all adverse risk...it would indeed eliminate them.

In order for Single payer to work and to have enough funding, it MUST exist in a captive market. Participation must be compulsory.

Single payer isn't the same as public option.

Let me google that for you

it's worse

 

[thereisnospoon]

I'm afraid it would.

The Public option, backed by tax dollars, accepting ALL adverse risks vs. a for profit insurer who has NO tax dollar backing and cannot accept all adverse risk...it would indeed eliminate them.

In order for Single payer to work and to have enough funding, it MUST exist in a captive market. Participation must be compulsory.

Single payer isn't the same as public option.

Let me google that for you

And?
The government should not be in the insurance business save for the types available before ACA was passed.

 

[dblack]

In order for Single payer to work and to have enough funding, it MUST exist in a captive market. Participation must be compulsory.

Single payer isn't the same as public option.

Let me google that for you

And?
The government should not be in the insurance business save for the types available before ACA was passed.

Just pointing out that single payer and the public option are radically different things.

 

[Derideo_Te]

In order for Single payer to work and to have enough funding, it MUST exist in a captive market. Participation must be compulsory.

Single payer isn't the same as public option.

Let me google that for you

it's worse

Facts not in evidence.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Single payer isn't the same as public option.

Let me google that for you

it's worse

Facts not in evidence.

Well considering obamacare supporters are void of facts thanks.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Every time I post the far right reactionary response shows just how right I am.

No you just show how left and wrong you are.

Nope, just shows that what you think is left, liberal, prog is actually right of center mainstream.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Every time I post the far right reactionary response shows just how right I am.

No you just show how left and wrong you are.

Nope, just shows that what you think is left, liberal, prog is actually right of center mainstream.

Jakes confused he call's himself one thing but openly writes support for the total opposite

 

[JakeStarkey]

No you just show how left and wrong you are.

Nope, just shows that what you think is left, liberal, prog is actually right of center mainstream.

Jakes confused he call's himself one thing but openly writes support for the total opposite

You support the far right clownishness that would hurt this country.

I support the middle mainstream of America and the center of its worth.

The far left and that of the far right simply are weird extremes and caricatures of Americanism.