Discussion in 'Healthcare/Insurance/Govt Healthcare' started by Nighthawk62, Nov 23, 2010.
Be careful what you wish for. Check this out!
Problems? What problems? If there were problems all kinds of companies, unions, etc. would be pestering the White House for waivers to get out from under the ObamaCare scheme.
I believe you are very mistaken. If we went with "Single Payer" like many Libtards want to do, the government would be the one and only company shoppe in town! ... What good would a "waiver" do you then?
Gee....I guess what's required, would be....the "conservative"-option (i.e. taking-his-word for all this).....or, the logical-option (i.e. reference some ACTUAL CANADIANS!!)
(BTW....THANKS!! for the opener. )
Under a single-payer system, companies and unions wouldn't be responsible for providing health insurance to anyone. If the way we do things seems more complicated than single-payer, that's because it is. Substantially.
You know there are more ways to keep unions and companies from having to deal with insurance if that is really your goal right?
I don't get why you people are so narrow minded. The only solution that seems to enter into your heads for any problem is government, government, government. It isn't like us conservatives and liberatarians don't want health care to be more affordabe and available to those that need it. The solution is the issue.
Our government is going to have the same problem and probably worse that every other country trying to do this is having including the beloved France. Don't get me wrong, how it is practiced is actually pretty good. The issue is the French governmetn can't pay for it. They are going in debt because of it. And we should all know by now what happens if you do that for too long.
i'm with bern on this one. the idea that the US could operate a quality single-payer is at once a solution to a problem we don't have and the destruction of a superior system of health care provision.
one of the major issues with a single payer system is the debasement of quality and coverage of care. an even greater issue is the extreme cost obligation. we're not talking about the NHS, we're talking about covering 6-7 times as many people in vastly larger jurisdiction in hundreds of times the hospitals.
there will not be a single payer system in the US. it is too extreme a U-turn to be sprung on our health infrastructure and simply would never happen while we are a democracy.
the problem that i see with conservative and libertarians saying the smaller government is the solution is simple. looks at what happened in the recent past under George W Bush.
When Clinton left office we had a substantially large government, a budget surplus, higher taxes and an economic boom. (FactCheck.org: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?) these are not made up ideas, this are actual facts. . no one will disagree with that. Bush took the conservative philosophy and applied it to the nation. he said he wanted to reduce the size of government but he actually oversaw the largest increase in the size of government in histiory, he lowered taxes on the wealthy and implemented massive deregulation of the banking system. this in combination with starting 2 wars in which we were spending $1B a day to fund erased all the surplus we had and drove the country into a recession.
so when i heard conservative say less government less government is the answer, its extremely hard to believe anything they say. the evidence points to them not wanting less government, but actually wanting more, but only if it leads to more money going towards the wealthy and less regulation so they can make more profit. so in some ways government intervention needs to take place in the beginning to get things started. this doesnt mean that their power and influence cant be scaled back at a later date. but a lot of the conservative argument is the idea of trickle down economics. that being if we give more money to the upper class and business owners, eventually this money will trickle down to the middle and lower class. we as we have seen this doesnt happen. the income gap between the wealthy and the middle class has increased dramatically. and now the top 2% of society control 90% of the wealth. people are greedy by nature. we all want more for ourselves and whats best for our family. but when we liberals start wanting to look at solving a problem for the whole, we get labeled as socialists.
someone else on one of these threads said it really well. when you think of socialist ideas dont attribute that mean communism. (it simply means to benefit society as a whole instead of only small parts of that society)
The NHS is not the correct comparison here. The NHS is actually nationalized health care, where providers are essentially an arm of government. Single-payer, on the other hand, can mean as little as having a tax- (not premium-) financed system with a single set of procedure codes and a single claims form that private providers have to fill out. Of course there are implications to that--the single payer can use payment (as some payers do now, to a lesser effect) to impact delivery system organization, reward best practices, and overcome the provider leverage that overprices individual procedures. But those aren't bugs, those are one of the primary arguments in favor of such a system.
I don't think there are too many conservatives that believed Bush was a conservative. He sure didn't govern our country that way.
Separate names with a comma.