Problems With Socialized Medicine & Government Healthcare

[Nighthawk62]

Be careful what you wish for. Check this out!

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4f-rftBek8[/ame]

 

[blastoff]

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.

Oops...never mind...

 

[Nighthawk62]

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.

Oops...never mind...

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?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Be careful what you wish for. Check this out!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4f-rftBek8

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!!)



*

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s47XSeX7qLc&feature=related[/ame]
*
Tommy Douglas

*
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1p5Y_W49MCA[/ame]

(BTW....THANKS!! for the opener.

)​

 

[Greenbeard]

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.

Oops...never mind...

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?

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.

 

[Bern80]

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.

Oops...never mind...

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?

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.

 

[antagon]

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.

 

[Common Sense]

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.

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)

 

[Greenbeard]

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.

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.

 

[Meister]

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.

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)

I don't think there are too many conservatives that believed Bush was a conservative. He sure didn't govern our country that way.

 

[antagon]

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.

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 see what you're saying about the NHS

with over 80 million covered under our existing single payer systems, it is undoubtedly one of the largest in the world. it is scaled to double in the next couple decades without an expansion of entitlement. are we even considering a solution which is remotely plausible if we venture to expand entitlement, or moreover cover the entire population through a single payer system?

why debate a total pipe-dream i say. can you support how such a system covering all americans is remotely feasible? we'll talk about desirability if you can.

 

[Common Sense]

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.

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)

I don't think there are too many conservatives that believed Bush was a conservative. He sure didn't govern our country that way.

very true, but he preached conservationism and then he skewed the lines and philosophy of being a conservative. in some ways he redefined what it meant. but do you see my point? we put a conservative in the white house and it caused more problems than it solved.

 

[Meister]

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)

I don't think there are too many conservatives that believed Bush was a conservative. He sure didn't govern our country that way.

very true, but he preached conservationism and then he skewed the lines and philosophy of being a conservative. in some ways he redefined what it meant. but do you see my point? we put a conservative in the white house and it caused more problems than it solved.

I see your point.....but he was a CINO. Conservative In Name Only.

 

[Common Sense]

I don't think there are too many conservatives that believed Bush was a conservative. He sure didn't govern our country that way.

very true, but he preached conservationism and then he skewed the lines and philosophy of being a conservative. in some ways he redefined what it meant. but do you see my point? we put a conservative in the white house and it caused more problems than it solved.

I see your point.....but he was a CINO. Conservative In Name Only.

the only issue i see with conservatives today is that they have yet to offer up any substantial ideas to do what they propose. i.e. reduce spending and cut the deficit. (both of which i agree need to be done) for the last 2 years they have simply been the party of "No" and people bought into this ridiculous idea of being against everything instead of trying for compromise. that and i also fail to see conservative fighting for the middle and lower classes. examples - the bush tax cuts vs. unemployment benefits

conservative law makers want to extend the bush tax cuts on the top 2% of money earns. this is projected to add approx $700B to the deficit. but at the same time they preach cutting the deficit. they also do not want to extend the unemployment benefits for the long term unemployed. this says to me that those who are struggling to each and keep a roof over their head are less important than millionaires and billionaires. now i understand that simply empowering people to not work is not solution to our economic recovery. but i was part of the long term unemployed and it was only because of unemployment benefits that i survived. it still is extremely difficult to find a job. but i fail to see where giving more money to the top income earners at the expense of those at the bottom benefits the whole.

when it comes to cutting spending and cutting the deficit i hear even fewer answer. it is a widely known fact that medicare, medicaid, social security, defense and interest on the debt make up approx 85% of the federal budget. that leaves 15% of the total budget left. even if we cut out that entire 15% we still dont make a dent in the deficit. so the cuts have to come from somewhere. but no one want to touch medicare, medicaid, social security or defense. its a cluster fuck in my mind. its the preach one thing to get elected and do another thing once in office. (now some liberals are guilty of this too)

so how does this rant relate to health care. well the law may not have been perfect in anyone eyes. but it is a start in the right direction in terms of getting something done. if we continued to do nothing as a lot of conservative suggest, the system would have gotten simply worse and more people would have been pushed out of the system putting eventually more pressure on the government.

i think conservatives missed a huge opportunity here to try and compromise as opposed to just saying no to everything. there were many common ground ideas that could have been a good place to start. but they chose to be united in simply saying no.

i would much rather be part of a party whos is for doing "something" than doing nothing.

 

[Greenbeard]

with over 80 million covered under our existing single payer systems, it is undoubtedly one of the largest in the world. it is scaled to double in the next couple decades without an expansion of entitlement. are we even considering a solution which is remotely plausible if we venture to expand entitlement, or moreover cover the entire population through a single payer system?

why debate a total pipe-dream i say. can you support how such a system covering all americans is remotely feasible? we'll talk about desirability if you can.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean why you talk of plausibility and feasibility: political or practical implementation? As you pointed out we already have two very different single-payer models in place: one state-based and heavily reliant on the private sector, and one federally administered. Each has more beneficiaries than Canada has people. If it's a question of scalability, I don't think that's a fundamental obstacle. Certainly there are some basic questions of design that would have to be answered: would a single-payer system be federally administered (and thus act like an expanded version of Medicare) or should it be run by individual states (and act like a much better funded expansion of Medicaid)? Canada's single-payer system is administered at the provincial level, so in that sense it looks a bit more like Medicaid than (our) Medicare.

There are plenty of questions like that to consider; we haven't quite reached the point where's the been much legitimate public debate on the subject and I'll admit I haven't taken the time to really explore the options. But I think ideally if we transitioned to single-payer, that system would truly be new, free of the outcomes of various idiosyncratic constraints that have shaped the existing public programs over the past 45 years. It's questionable whether that's possible, though, because there's always an element of path dependence to these kinds of policy changes. It's more difficult to fundamentally replace a system that people have known all their lives than is it to build on parts of the existing system (particularly parts that virtually everyone expects to be covered by eventually). And that's why single-payer advocates seem to think in terms of transitioning Medicare to serve all citizens.

 

[sangha]

Be careful what you wish for. Check this out!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4f-rftBek8

Right wingers hate single payer because nations with single payer have a lower infant mortality rate.

In wingnut world, that's a problem

In the real world, the Americans spend more for health care than anyone else in the world, and in return, we get care that ranks in the middle of the pack, in the neighborhood of third world nations like Cuba. In wingnut world, fixing this would cause "problems"

 

[Meister]

Be careful what you wish for. Check this out!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4f-rftBek8

Right wingers hate single payer because nations with single payer have a lower infant mortality rate.

In wingnut world, that's a problem

In the real world, the Americans spend more for health care than anyone else in the world, and in return, we get care that ranks in the middle of the pack, in the neighborhood of third world nations like Cuba. In wingnut world, fixing this would cause "problems"

Different standards for different countries, yet Sangha would like you to believe everone is on a even playing field.

 

[Common Sense]

Be careful what you wish for. Check this out!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4f-rftBek8

Right wingers hate single payer because nations with single payer have a lower infant mortality rate.

In wingnut world, that's a problem

In the real world, the Americans spend more for health care than anyone else in the world, and in return, we get care that ranks in the middle of the pack, in the neighborhood of third world nations like Cuba. In wingnut world, fixing this would cause "problems"

Different standards for different countries, yet Sangha would like you to believe everone is on a even playing field.

how can you use different standards as the only comparison tool? these are the statistics:

How does US healthcare compare to the rest of the world? | News | guardian.co.uk

now granted these stats are a few years old, but when you have to spend more money than the rest of the world, to cover a smaller percent of your population, you know that something is broken.

we rank in the bottom half in life expectancy amongst all these nations. spends nearly twice as much per person on health care costs, and we cover less of the population as a percentage than most of the rest of the world. yeah, we have the perfect system in place. yay for capitalism!

 

[Meister]

Right wingers hate single payer because nations with single payer have a lower infant mortality rate.

In wingnut world, that's a problem

In the real world, the Americans spend more for health care than anyone else in the world, and in return, we get care that ranks in the middle of the pack, in the neighborhood of third world nations like Cuba. In wingnut world, fixing this would cause "problems"

Different standards for different countries, yet Sangha would like you to believe everone is on a even playing field.

how can you use different standards as the only comparison tool? these are the statistics:

How does US healthcare compare to the rest of the world? | News | guardian.co.uk

now granted these stats are a few years old, but when you have to spend more money than the rest of the world, to cover a smaller percent of your population, you know that something is broken.

we rank in the bottom half in life expectancy amongst all these nations. spends nearly twice as much per person on health care costs, and we cover less of the population as a percentage than most of the rest of the world. yeah, we have the perfect system in place. yay for capitalism!

I'll take just one example with child mortality rate. The US counts still births as part of the child mortality rate where there are other countries don't count it.
I will give you one more with life expectancy rates. There is a lot of things that come into play with this one. Traffic accidents, Guns, life style, obesity, and our diverse culture of people. The black man has a lower life expectancy than a white man, not because of different healthcare, but because they have a tendency for higher hypertention related deaths, and heart ailments. This all comes into play no matter what type of healthcare we have.

 

[Common Sense]

Different standards for different countries, yet Sangha would like you to believe everone is on a even playing field.

how can you use different standards as the only comparison tool? these are the statistics:

How does US healthcare compare to the rest of the world? | News | guardian.co.uk

now granted these stats are a few years old, but when you have to spend more money than the rest of the world, to cover a smaller percent of your population, you know that something is broken.

we rank in the bottom half in life expectancy amongst all these nations. spends nearly twice as much per person on health care costs, and we cover less of the population as a percentage than most of the rest of the world. yeah, we have the perfect system in place. yay for capitalism!

I'll take just one example with child mortality rate. The US counts still births as part of the child mortality rate where there are other countries don't count it.
I will give you one more with life expectancy rates. There is a lot of things that come into play with this one. Traffic accidents, Guns, life style, obesity, and our diverse culture of people. The black man has a lower life expectancy than a white man, not because of different healthcare, but because they have a tendency for higher hypertention related deaths, and heart ailments. This all comes into play no matter what type of healthcare we have.

you can still take the overall average for the population and apply the argument here. we still rank lower than the rest of the world (on average) in the majority of these categories.