Newt, Ron Paul and Mitt are FOR a "single payer" system.

[francoHFW]

Don't be duped by Pubcrappe. Obamacare will do all the things single Payer would, not quite as well or as cheap, but we WERE able to pass it. It will be similar to the Swiss and Dutch systems in the end.

 

[francoHFW]

Newt etc. want to continue the boondoggle system we have now.

 

[oreo]

Watching the Republican debate on CNN, all three said that if you buy insurance that's part of a big group, then can keep your insurance even if you lose your job.

HELLO! That was Single Payer which Republicans vehemently opposed.

WTF?

Ron Paul won this debate--& I am a Newt Gingrich supporter saying it. Ron Paul is NOT for forcing ANYONE to purchasing anything.

What is happening is that the republican establishment has circled their wagons around their chosen one (Mitt Romney) who has millions of dollars to donate to other republicans running for reelection in 2012.

So they are trying to shove down our throats another weak kneeded Mass. Moderate--over MONEY & ENDORSEMENTS. It's the 2008 John McCain campaign all over again. They'll always support losers--if they can get $$$ to win their own reelection campaign.

 

[dblack]

So, I'd like to throw this out there again - for those of you insisting that health care is something government should provide: why shouldn't they also provide the rest of life's necessities?

The usual justification for the notion that health care should be a 'right' is based on the idea that the health care is required for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". If that's the reasoning, then why wouldn't food, clothing, shelter, etc.... also be considered 'rights'? Shouldn't government also be responsible for providing these?

 

[merrill]

The government does not and will not provide the healthcare.

We taxpayers will always pay for our own medical insurance. There is no free medical insurance on the table...... not a sign of it.

IMPROVED Medicare Single Payer Insurance will be quite a revised Medicare insurance program. It is not free and never has been presented as free.

Medicare does not provide health care it merely pays for the health care.

IMPROVED Medicare Single Payer Insurance will be the best buy on the planet and it never cuts off coverage for any reason.

 

[dblack]

The government does not and will not provide the healthcare.

Says who? I see repeated arguments for making government responsible as the single insurer of all. "Medicare for all" is the phrase. You get coverage whether you 'can' pay for it or not. This is the essential feature in any government provided service. If government is paying for your healthcare, they're providing it. Equivocating on whether or not they are hiring doctor's directly, or simply writing them checks is irrelevant.

We taxpayers will always pay for our own medical insurance. There is no free medical insurance on the table...... not a sign of it.

IMPROVED Medicare Single Payer Insurance will be quite a revised Medicare insurance program. It is not free and never has been presented as free.

Agreed. Never said it was free. Taxpayers are forced to pay for a service they may, or may not, want. That's the essential feature of all government services.

Now, let's see if you can answer my question; why should government be responsible for providing us with health insurance as a taxpayer-funded, state service, but not 'food insurance', or 'home insurance'? The arguments used for single-payer can be applied to any necessity of life, right?

 

[rdean]

So, I'd like to throw this out there again - for those of you insisting that health care is something government should provide: why shouldn't they also provide the rest of life's necessities?

The usual justification for the notion that health care should be a 'right' is based on the idea that the health care is required for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". If that's the reasoning, then why wouldn't food, clothing, shelter, etc.... also be considered 'rights'? Shouldn't government also be responsible for providing these?

Please. Ron Paul's campaign manager died and left his family in debt to the tune of $400,000.00. If only he had lived a little longer, he might have been helped with Obamacare. Ron Paul is rich. $400,000.00 is nothing to him. Republicans are fucking themselves when they turn away health care. Hope they enjoy their bankruptcy.

 

[dblack]

So, I'd like to throw this out there again - for those of you insisting that health care is something government should provide: why shouldn't they also provide the rest of life's necessities?

The usual justification for the notion that health care should be a 'right' is based on the idea that the health care is required for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". If that's the reasoning, then why wouldn't food, clothing, shelter, etc.... also be considered 'rights'? Shouldn't government also be responsible for providing these?

Please. Ron Paul's campaign manager died and left his family in debt to the tune of $400,000.00. If only he had lived a little longer, he might have been helped with Obamacare. Ron Paul is rich. $400,000.00 is nothing to him. Republicans are fucking themselves when they turn away health care. Hope they enjoy their bankruptcy.

So, just another feint and dodge, eh? The thing is, you say you don't want a government that takes care of all of our needs - ala communism - yet you refuse to express any limits on what government does. That's not the only reason I don't take your views seriously, but it's way up on the list. Until you can answer the question I've posed (or at least try), your desire to see government take over health care is in no way differentiated from totalitarian government in communist regimes.

I suspect you won't answer the question, perhaps because you really do want to see pervasive caretaker government and the dependency that entails - and simply don't want to admit it.

 

[JimH52]

Medical bills are the number one cause of bankruptcy. How come Republicans feel we don't pay enough?

The next President, whether it is Obama, Romney, or Gingrich will be very limited as to what they can changes with the HC law. If they begin taking away some of the benefits, they and their party will pay dearly.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Watching the Republican debate on CNN, all three said that if you buy insurance that's part of a big group, then can keep your insurance even if you lose your job.

HELLO! That was Single Payer which Republicans vehemently opposed.

WTF?

I am pretty sure they are actually talking about COBRA, which has been the law since 1985.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Dr. Ron Paul is not for gubmint run socialized (i.e. "single payer") medical care.

Liar.

Ron Paul said you should buy private health care. Because if you get your insurance through the company you work at, if you lose your job, you could lose your health care. He said one answer is to be part of a large group which would bring down the cost of insurance. That is what a "single payer" system is. A large group.

If there is a "large group" someone has to manage it. If not the government, then who? Health care companies? Oh wait. They're the reason medical bills are the number one cause of bankruptcy.

Actually, single payer is government paying for everything. Did Paul say that, or did he say that, if you buy your insurance from something other than your employer you will be better off?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Until they support HR 676........ they are still for the medical insurance industry = grab your wallets!


Improved Medicare Single Payer Insurance for All is one substantial part of the solution.

- Easy to Implement: Medicare has been in existence since 1966, it provides
healthcare to those 65 and older, and satisfaction levels are high. The
structure is already in place and can be easily expanded to cover everyone.

- Simple: One entity – established by the government – would handle billing
and payment at a cost significantly lower than private insurance companies.
Private insurance companies spend about 31% of every healthcare dollar on
administration. Medicare now spends about 3%.

- Real Choice: An expanded and improved Medicare for All would provide
personal choice of doctors and other healthcare providers. While financing
would be public, providers would remain private. As with Medicare, you choose
your doctor, your hospital, and other healthcare providers.

- State and Local Tax Relief: Medicare for All would assume the costs of
healthcare delivery, thus relieving the states and local governments of the
cost of healthcare, including Medicaid, and as a result reduce State and
local tax burdens.

- Expanded coverage: Would cover all medically necessary healthcare
services – no more rationing by private insurance companies. There would be
no limits on coverage, no co-pays or deductibles, and services would include
not only primary and specialized care but also prescription drugs, dental,
vision, mental health services, and long-term care.

- Everyone In, Nobody Out: Everyone would be eligible and covered. No
longer would doctors ask what insurance you have before they treat you.

- No More Overpriced Private Health Insurance: Medicare for All would
eliminate the need for private health insurance companies who put profit
before healthcare, unfairly limit choice, restrict who gets coverage, and
force people into bankruptcy.

- Lower Costs: Most people will pay significantly less for healthcare.
Savings will be achieved in reduced administrative costs and in negotiated
prices for prescription drugs.

Healthcare-NOW! - Organizing for a national, single-payer healthcare system.

Here's my question. And I've yet to see a serious answer:

If the government should be responsible for providing all of us with health care, why shouldn't they also be in charge of feeding us? Providing us with shelter and clothing?

Put out a serious question and you might get a serious answer.

That was a serious question.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Dr. Ron Paul is not for gubmint run socialized (i.e. "single payer") medical care.

Liar.

Ron Paul said you should buy private health care. Because if you get your insurance through the company you work at, if you lose your job, you could lose your health care. He said one answer is to be part of a large group which would bring down the cost of insurance. That is what a "single payer" system is. A large group.

If there is a "large group" someone has to manage it. If not the government, then who? Health care companies? Oh wait. They're the reason medical bills are the number one cause of bankruptcy.

That Liberal comedian or sports caster who said that was either lying or high. More than likely both.

"Single Payer" doesn't mean a "One Man or Woman" writes a check like when you buy insurance for your car. Single-Payer Health Insurance collects all medical fees, and then pays for all services, through a "single" government (or government-related) source.

Ron Paul's website:
Health Care*|*Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee

* Repeal ObamaCare and end its unconstitutional mandate that all Americans must carry only government-approved health insurance or answer to the IRS. * Allow purchase of health insurance across state lines.
* Provide tax credits and deductions for all medical expenses.
* Exempt those with terminal illnesses from the employee portion of payroll taxes while they are suffering from such illnesses or are incurring significant medical costs associated with their conditions.
* Give a payroll deduction to any worker who is the primary caregiver for a spouse, parent, or child with a terminal illness.
* Ensure that those harmed during medical treatment receive fair compensation while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system by providing a tax credit for “negative outcomes” insurance purchased before medical treatment.
* Guarantee that what is taken from taxpayers to pay for Medicare and Medicaid is not raided for other purposes.
* Make all Americans eligible for Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and remove government-imposed barriers to obtaining HSAs.
* Stop the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) from interfering with Americans’ knowledge of and access to dietary supplements and alternative treatments.
* Prevent federal bureaucrats from tracking every citizen’s medical history from cradle to grave by prohibiting the use of taxpayer funds for a national database of personal health information.

 

[rdean]

Dr. Ron Paul is not for gubmint run socialized (i.e. "single payer") medical care.

Liar.

Ron Paul said you should buy private health care. Because if you get your insurance through the company you work at, if you lose your job, you could lose your health care. He said one answer is to be part of a large group which would bring down the cost of insurance. That is what a "single payer" system is. A large group.

If there is a "large group" someone has to manage it. If not the government, then who? Health care companies? Oh wait. They're the reason medical bills are the number one cause of bankruptcy.

Actually, single payer is government paying for everything. Did Paul say that, or did he say that, if you buy your insurance from something other than your employer you will be better off?

That's bullshit. Government might manage it, but the people who join would pay. You guys have such a weird and unrealistic image of our government.

 

[Article 15]

Put out a serious question and you might get a serious answer.

A feint and a dodge. As expected.

It's a serious question. Your refusal to answer it says volumes.

The day that unexpected massive grocery bills and unexpected massive costs to to keep a shirt on your back starts forcing people into bankruptcy you will be posing a serious question. You aren't. You are looking at this through ideological glasses where many just see single payer as the best way to solve a legit problem.

For a guy who likes to point his finger and accuse people of being "partisan" you sure spout a lot of partisan crap in regards to your own ideology.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ron Paul said you should buy private health care. Because if you get your insurance through the company you work at, if you lose your job, you could lose your health care. He said one answer is to be part of a large group which would bring down the cost of insurance. That is what a "single payer" system is. A large group.

If there is a "large group" someone has to manage it. If not the government, then who? Health care companies? Oh wait. They're the reason medical bills are the number one cause of bankruptcy.

Actually, single payer is government paying for everything. Did Paul say that, or did he say that, if you buy your insurance from something other than your employer you will be better off?

That's bullshit. Government might manage it, but the people who join would pay. You guys have such a weird and unrealistic image of our government.

Single-payer health care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dblack]

Put out a serious question and you might get a serious answer.

A feint and a dodge. As expected.

It's a serious question. Your refusal to answer it says volumes.

The day that unexpected massive grocery bills and unexpected massive costs to to keep a shirt on your back starts forcing people into bankruptcy you will be posing a serious question. You aren't. You are looking at this through ideological glasses where many just see single payer as the best way to solve a legit problem.

That day is exactly why I'm asking the question. You're all citing the fact that health care is the number one cause of bankruptcy and that's why we should nationalize it. Is it always government's responsibility to "do something" about the number one cause of bankruptcy? If so, what's number two? Because once we solve health care, there will be a new number one.

The frustrating thing is, we could nationalize health care in a way that addressed the constitutional concerns. We could pass an amendment that ensured that nationalizing services was the exception and not the new rule. But by simply assuming that the general welfare and commerce clauses allow government to control anything and everything that suits the majority, we're creating a really dangerous precedent. And with the next problem we face, it will be that much easier to turn to caretaker government as the solution.

For a guy who likes to point his finger and accuse people of being "partisan" you sure spout a lot of partisan crap in regards to your own ideology.

There's nothing partisan in my argument. I don't trust the Republicans on this issue any more than I trust the Democrats. I don't see them as genuinely against the nationalization effort, and with Romney or Gingrich in particular, doubt they'll do anything to substantially change ACA. They're just pissy that they aren't running the scam.

 

[Greenbeard]

If that's the reasoning, then why wouldn't food, clothing, shelter, etc.... also be considered 'rights'? Shouldn't government also be responsible for providing these?

I take it you've missed the multiple threads bitching about SNAP and Section 8 vouchers? Federal spending on such things has existed for decades.

 

[rdean]

Actually, single payer is government paying for everything. Did Paul say that, or did he say that, if you buy your insurance from something other than your employer you will be better off?

That's bullshit. Government might manage it, but the people who join would pay. You guys have such a weird and unrealistic image of our government.

Single-payer health care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Exactly what I said:

Single-payer health care is medical care funded from a single insurance pool, run by the state.[4] Single-payer is form of monopsony: a market in which one buyer faces many sellers. Single-payer is not the same as universal health care (it is possible to have either without the other). A single-payer-universal-health-care plan for an entire population can be financed from a pool to which many parties – employees, employers, and the state – have contributed.

Managed by the government, but funded by the people.

 

[Article 15]

A feint and a dodge. As expected.

It's a serious question. Your refusal to answer it says volumes.

The day that unexpected massive grocery bills and unexpected massive costs to to keep a shirt on your back starts forcing people into bankruptcy you will be posing a serious question. You aren't. You are looking at this through ideological glasses where many just see single payer as the best way to solve a legit problem.

That day is exactly why I'm asking the question. You're all citing the fact that health care is the number one cause of bankruptcy and that's why we should nationalize it. Is it always government's responsibility to "do something" about the number one cause of bankruptcy? If so, what's number two? Because once we solve health care, there will be a new number one.

The frustrating thing is, we could nationalize health care in a way that addressed the constitutional concerns. We could pass an amendment that ensured that nationalizing services was the exception and not the new rule. But by simply assuming that the general welfare and commerce clauses allow government to control anything and everything that suits the majority, we're creating a really dangerous precedent. And with the next problem we face, it will be that much easier to turn to caretaker government as the solution.

For a guy who likes to point his finger and accuse people of being "partisan" you sure spout a lot of partisan crap in regards to your own ideology.

There's nothing partisan in my argument. I don't trust the Republicans on this issue any more than I trust the Democrats. I don't see them as genuinely against the nationalization effort, and with Romney or Gingrich in particular, doubt they'll do anything to substantially change ACA. They're just pissy that they aren't running the scam.

I specifically said that your argument is partisan in respect to your ideology. I know that you don't identify with any party.

Nationalize "food and clothing"? C'mon now. I expect the government to step in and help the most needy (like they do now) and should a famine of some sort kick in, I certainly expect the government to do what it can to alleviate the problem. But pulling the "what's next, nationalize food?" card and pointing your finger at people and calling them Commies for shrugging off your ideologically driven prods is just silly.

Your argument is a slippery slope argument and it's taken to an absurd level. That's why people won't give you a serious answer because it's an absurd ideologically driven question.

The out of control cost of healthcare in this country is a legit issue that needs to be addressed without rhetorical fart noises like "what's next, nationalize food?"

I know you are smarter than that.