Single-payer HC plan IS the answer......

[Markle]

SIckness should not lead to bankruptcy.

It does not, the report written by Elizabeth Warren has been proven bogus. You know that as well but it just doesn't fit your pathetic agenda.

 

[Markle]

More I would say. You pay over the odds for what you have now. Cut out all the parasites and have a proper health service that is open to all regardless of wealth. Its the Christian way to do it

Please show us all where in the Holy Bible we are told that it is grand for the government steal from its citizens to give to those chosen by the government.

 

[Markle]

So the U S has problems, basically. Single payer would just be cheaper, with less risks.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, ACA isn't single payer, is it? It's a system which just carries on with the whole "throw money at insurance companies" thing.

And what makes you think "single-payer", in the US, would be any different?

Well the first problem, main problem, problem that needs to be sorted before all else, is the problem of how people vote. Sort that out and maybe there would be a system that isn't.

Unlikely. Medicare is the go-to model for how to do single payer in the US, right? Do you think it's free of for-profit insurance companies? Think again.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.

You say it's unlikely that the way people vote changes the way things happen, but the Germans get to vote twice, once in FPTP and once PR and FPTP is negative voting, and 10% more people vote for the main two parties in FPTP than they do in PR.

What happens when people vote PR is that they feel free to vote for those they think will represent them, there's more choice. This means representatives are representing the people, and not special interests otherwise people will move to another party.

This means that politics becomes more voter centered.

 

[dblack]

Well, ACA isn't single payer, is it? It's a system which just carries on with the whole "throw money at insurance companies" thing.

And what makes you think "single-payer", in the US, would be any different?

Well the first problem, main problem, problem that needs to be sorted before all else, is the problem of how people vote. Sort that out and maybe there would be a system that isn't.

Unlikely. Medicare is the go-to model for how to do single payer in the US, right? Do you think it's free of for-profit insurance companies? Think again.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.

You say it's unlikely that the way people vote changes the way things happen, but the Germans get to vote twice, once in FPTP and once PR and FPTP is negative voting, and 10% more people vote for the main two parties in FPTP than they do in PR.

What happens when people vote PR is that they feel free to vote for those they think will represent them, there's more choice. This means representatives are representing the people, and not special interests otherwise people will move to another party.

This means that politics becomes more voter centered.

That's all a good thing actually. I'm very much in favor of changing the voting system. I'm a contributing supporter of FairVote.org

I'm just saying more representative voting won't change the nature of "single payer". It's still throwing money at the insurance companies.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, ACA isn't single payer, is it? It's a system which just carries on with the whole "throw money at insurance companies" thing.

And what makes you think "single-payer", in the US, would be any different?

Well the first problem, main problem, problem that needs to be sorted before all else, is the problem of how people vote. Sort that out and maybe there would be a system that isn't.

Unlikely. Medicare is the go-to model for how to do single payer in the US, right? Do you think it's free of for-profit insurance companies? Think again.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.

You say it's unlikely that the way people vote changes the way things happen, but the Germans get to vote twice, once in FPTP and once PR and FPTP is negative voting, and 10% more people vote for the main two parties in FPTP than they do in PR.

What happens when people vote PR is that they feel free to vote for those they think will represent them, there's more choice. This means representatives are representing the people, and not special interests otherwise people will move to another party.

This means that politics becomes more voter centered.

That's all a good thing actually. I'm very much in favor of changing the voting system. I'm a contributing supporter of FairVote.org

I'm just saying more representative voting won't change the nature of "single payer". It's still throwing money at the insurance companies.

That's good, but you're one of the few. Most people are told what to think, and they just accept that they like the system.

Actually I think the way govt works changes the nature of healthcare. Look at Europe and see the different ways of making it work. The UK's system has been around since the end of WW2, and not changed much, but in Germany and France they've made it work better and it doesn't involve throwing money at insurance companies.

 

[dblack]

And what makes you think "single-payer", in the US, would be any different?

Well the first problem, main problem, problem that needs to be sorted before all else, is the problem of how people vote. Sort that out and maybe there would be a system that isn't.

Unlikely. Medicare is the go-to model for how to do single payer in the US, right? Do you think it's free of for-profit insurance companies? Think again.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.

You say it's unlikely that the way people vote changes the way things happen, but the Germans get to vote twice, once in FPTP and once PR and FPTP is negative voting, and 10% more people vote for the main two parties in FPTP than they do in PR.

What happens when people vote PR is that they feel free to vote for those they think will represent them, there's more choice. This means representatives are representing the people, and not special interests otherwise people will move to another party.

This means that politics becomes more voter centered.

That's all a good thing actually. I'm very much in favor of changing the voting system. I'm a contributing supporter of FairVote.org

I'm just saying more representative voting won't change the nature of "single payer". It's still throwing money at the insurance companies.

That's good, but you're one of the few. Most people are told what to think, and they just accept that they like the system.

It's a growing movement, with some notable progress: (Ranked-choice voting is still alive in Maine — and here’s why it matters). But again, I don't think it really solves the problem with implementing single payer in the US.

Actually I think the way govt works changes the nature of healthcare. Look at Europe and see the different ways of making it work. The UK's system has been around since the end of WW2, and not changed much, but in Germany and France they've made it work better and it doesn't involve throwing money at insurance companies.

Europe is different because the voters are different. They don't have the aversion to socialism that exists here in the US. I think that aversion to socialism is actually a good thing, but regardless of whether you agree, it's still real. Even if you are able to get majority support for single payer, a sizable minority will fight it tooth and nail. And as soon as the political winds change, they will undermine it and try to pull it back toward a free market. That's exactly what's happening now with ACA.

The problem with this back and forth thrashing between capitalism and socialism is that it leaves us in an unholy middle-ground where we get the worst of both worlds. We have all the downsides of authoritarian government combined with the greed of the profit-motivated corporations. Single payer would be a perpetual political football, and our health care would be up for grabs with every election.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well the first problem, main problem, problem that needs to be sorted before all else, is the problem of how people vote. Sort that out and maybe there would be a system that isn't.

Unlikely. Medicare is the go-to model for how to do single payer in the US, right? Do you think it's free of for-profit insurance companies? Think again.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.

You say it's unlikely that the way people vote changes the way things happen, but the Germans get to vote twice, once in FPTP and once PR and FPTP is negative voting, and 10% more people vote for the main two parties in FPTP than they do in PR.

What happens when people vote PR is that they feel free to vote for those they think will represent them, there's more choice. This means representatives are representing the people, and not special interests otherwise people will move to another party.

This means that politics becomes more voter centered.

That's all a good thing actually. I'm very much in favor of changing the voting system. I'm a contributing supporter of FairVote.org

I'm just saying more representative voting won't change the nature of "single payer". It's still throwing money at the insurance companies.

That's good, but you're one of the few. Most people are told what to think, and they just accept that they like the system.

It's a growing movement, with some notable progress: (Ranked-choice voting is still alive in Maine — and here’s why it matters). But again, I don't think it really solves the problem with implementing single payer in the US.

Actually I think the way govt works changes the nature of healthcare. Look at Europe and see the different ways of making it work. The UK's system has been around since the end of WW2, and not changed much, but in Germany and France they've made it work better and it doesn't involve throwing money at insurance companies.

Europe is different because the voters are different. They don't have the aversion to socialism that exists here in the US. I think that aversion to socialism is actually a good thing, but regardless of whether you agree, it's still real. Even if you are able to get majority support for single payer, a sizable minority will fight it tooth and nail. And as soon as the political winds change, they will undermine it and try to pull it back toward a free market. That's exactly what's happening now with ACA.

The problem with this back and forth thrashing between capitalism and socialism is that it leaves us in an unholy middle-ground where we get the worst of both worlds. We have all the downsides of authoritarian government combined with the greed of the profit-motivated corporations. Single payer would be a perpetual political football, and our health care would be up for grabs with every election.

Well, the current system won't allow it because those with money don't want it to happen and they control government, don't they? Why do you think other healthcare gets in where there is PR? Where more sensible governing takes place?

Yes, Europe is different because the voters are different. They're different because of the different CHOICE they have.

Again, Germany.

Two very different elections.

Here's the first election.

The CDU/CSU ended up with 236 seats.
The SPD 58 seats
Die Linke 4 seats
Alliance/The Greens 1 seat


So, the CDU has a massive majority. Massive. They control everything, they can do everything they want, if people want to bribe the govt, they know who to go to. The people spoke, they wanted the CDU/CSU in power, right?

Well no.

Here's the second election

The CDU/CSU have 311 seats
The SPD have 193 seats
Die Linke have 64 seats
Alliance/The Greens have 63 seats

All of a sudden the CDU/CSU don't have a majority. Almost, but not quite. 316 would have been a majority. So they had to form a coalition. The SPD and CDU/CSU formed a coalition. The CDU couldn't do whatever they wanted, they had to work with others.

These two elections happened at the SAME TIME on the SAME DAY with the SAME PEOPLE voting. The difference was the attitude of the voters with their vote.

Did it have an impact on what happened afterwards? Yes, of course. A coalition govt has to be more responsible, more willing to cooperate with the other side, and this will lead to better politics.

Now, what happens in the US is that everyone's fighting each other. If they have a majority they can push through what they want, like now, if not then they end up doing all sorts of silly games and diluting what they've got until it's pointless. The US system doesn't work.

 

[dblack]

Yes, Europe is different because the voters are different. They're different because of the different CHOICE they have.

So you're saying the only reason the US doesn't tilt socialist is because of the voting system? I'd suggest you have some things to learn about our history and culture.

Now, what happens in the US is that everyone's fighting each other. If they have a majority they can push through what they want, like now, if not then they end up doing all sorts of silly games and diluting what they've got until it's pointless. The US system doesn't work.

Agreed. But still, fixing this won't convert Americans into socialists. Over time, it could happen. But if you look at the minor parties currently excluded by our 'two-party system', libertarians are way ahead of socialists. In fact, one of the reasons I support FairVote is that I think it would help the Libertarian party move us away from socialism.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, Europe is different because the voters are different. They're different because of the different CHOICE they have.

So you're saying the only reason the US doesn't tilt socialist is because of the voting system? I'd suggest you have some things to learn about our history and culture.

Now, what happens in the US is that everyone's fighting each other. If they have a majority they can push through what they want, like now, if not then they end up doing all sorts of silly games and diluting what they've got until it's pointless. The US system doesn't work.

Agreed. But still, fixing this won't convert Americans into socialists. Over time, it could happen. But if you look at the minor parties currently excluded by our 'two-party system', libertarians are way ahead of socialists. In fact, one of the reasons I support FairVote is that I think it would help the Libertarian party move us away from socialism.

Well, the reality is the political system in the US favors the right massively. They get more presidential voting power than they get voters. The last two Republican presidents have gotten in with less votes than their opponents.

This is fact.

However the US system is open to abuse massively. Corruption, legitimized corruption at that and supported by the people. The voting system doesn't allow people to change parties, doesn't allow their own views to come out, it forces the voters to conform to the system.

In Germany you have a choice. There are plenty of parties to choose from. 2013 was a strange year where only 5 parties got into parliament. Usually there's like 7. Other countries have more. The US, with 300 million people plus manages to get two parties, and this is more or less uniform across the country.

If you want to vote socialist, who do you vote for? The Democrats, because you know the Democrats either win or lose, and if they lose the Republicans are in. Negative voting.

So, whatever the Republicans or Democrats decide, is what policy is, and unless you're in the middle, it makes not much difference. If people want socialized healthcare, they vote Democrats, regardless of whether it's on their platform or not. Usually it isn't. So, you don't get socialized healthcare either way.

Well it doesn't matter that Socialists are behind Libertarians. The reality is that choice is what should matter. How people vote doesn't reflect the views of the people, it reflects the views of the two main parties who are controlled by the rich who don't want to see their cash cows given up.

 

[dblack]

Well, the reality is the political system in the US favors the right massively. They get more presidential voting power than they get voters. The last two Republican presidents have gotten in with less votes than their opponents.

This is fact.

Agreed. But that's irrelevant to the decision between free markets and socialism. ie - you seem to be assuming libertarians are "right" and will benefit, or lose out, based on the same criteria. We're radically different. I've never voted Republican. Probably never will.

However the US system is open to abuse massively. Corruption, legitimized corruption at that and supported by the people. The voting system doesn't allow people to change parties, doesn't allow their own views to come out, it forces the voters to conform to the system.

In Germany you have a choice. There are plenty of parties to choose from. 2013 was a strange year where only 5 parties got into parliament. Usually there's like 7. Other countries have more. The US, with 300 million people plus manages to get two parties, and this is more or less uniform across the country.

If you want to vote socialist, who do you vote for? The Democrats, because you know the Democrats either win or lose, and if they lose the Republicans are in. Negative voting.

So, whatever the Republicans or Democrats decide, is what policy is, and unless you're in the middle, it makes not much difference. If people want socialized healthcare, they vote Democrats, regardless of whether it's on their platform or not. Usually it isn't. So, you don't get socialized healthcare either way.

I hear you. Libertarians are in exactly the same, albeit diametrically opposed, boat. If people want free markets, they (most of them, anyway) vote Republican, despite the fact that the Republicans never deliver. That's why I think it's reasonably valid to look at the performance of third parties as indication of how things would go, relatively, if the voting system were opened up.

Well it doesn't matter that Socialists are behind Libertarians. The reality is that choice is what should matter. How people vote doesn't reflect the views of the people, it reflects the views of the two main parties who are controlled by the rich who don't want to see their cash cows given up.

It matters if you're claiming that changing the voting system would usher in a viable single payer program. I doubt it would. But I agree we should change the voting system. At least then we'd find out.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, the reality is the political system in the US favors the right massively. They get more presidential voting power than they get voters. The last two Republican presidents have gotten in with less votes than their opponents.

This is fact.

Agreed. But that's irrelevant to the decision between free markets and socialism. ie - you seem to be assuming libertarians are "right" and will benefit, or lose out, based on the same criteria. We're radically different. I've never voted Republican. Probably never will.

However the US system is open to abuse massively. Corruption, legitimized corruption at that and supported by the people. The voting system doesn't allow people to change parties, doesn't allow their own views to come out, it forces the voters to conform to the system.

In Germany you have a choice. There are plenty of parties to choose from. 2013 was a strange year where only 5 parties got into parliament. Usually there's like 7. Other countries have more. The US, with 300 million people plus manages to get two parties, and this is more or less uniform across the country.

If you want to vote socialist, who do you vote for? The Democrats, because you know the Democrats either win or lose, and if they lose the Republicans are in. Negative voting.

So, whatever the Republicans or Democrats decide, is what policy is, and unless you're in the middle, it makes not much difference. If people want socialized healthcare, they vote Democrats, regardless of whether it's on their platform or not. Usually it isn't. So, you don't get socialized healthcare either way.

I hear you. Libertarians are in exactly the same, albeit diametrically opposed, boat. If people want free markets, they (most of them, anyway) vote Republican, despite the fact that the Republicans never deliver. That's why I think it's reasonably valid to look at the performance of third parties as indication of how things would go, relatively, if the voting system were opened up.

Well it doesn't matter that Socialists are behind Libertarians. The reality is that choice is what should matter. How people vote doesn't reflect the views of the people, it reflects the views of the two main parties who are controlled by the rich who don't want to see their cash cows given up.

It matters if you're claiming that changing the voting system would usher in a viable single payer program. I doubt it would. But I agree we should change the voting system. At least then we'd find out.

I'm not really sure where you're making those assumptions. By the right I mean the Republicans because I'm being lazy, you don't need to explain everything in full every time. Libertarians are probably right, but not necessarily, but they get left behind with the system. They'd have seats in Congress with PR.

I'm not claiming that changing the system would automatically have single payer. I'm saying without changing the system you won't get single payer.

 

[threader]

Now that even the slow-witted Trump has admitted that "who knew that health care reform would be so hard"........it is time for democrats to use the single-payer option as the benchmark of what we must enact have a BETTER and CHEAPER health care insurance plan to cover EVERYBODY (remember that it was Trump who listed those 3 factors that I've place in caps as the reason for voting for him.)

The rest of the civilized planet has long adopted the single-payer system.....and the option has proven cheaper with other countries' citizens having longer lives and less morbidity.

Who would LOSE under such a single payer system???
Insurance companies' CEOs and their board members.

Who would WIN under such a single payer system???
ALL of us.....

Very interesting. Now to get the sheep to jump over the fence.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Single payer answers the question, "what's the quickest way for progressives to turn the USA into Venezuela?"

 

[Mindful]

Well, the reality is the political system in the US favors the right massively. They get more presidential voting power than they get voters. The last two Republican presidents have gotten in with less votes than their opponents.

This is fact.

Agreed. But that's irrelevant to the decision between free markets and socialism. ie - you seem to be assuming libertarians are "right" and will benefit, or lose out, based on the same criteria. We're radically different. I've never voted Republican. Probably never will.

However the US system is open to abuse massively. Corruption, legitimized corruption at that and supported by the people. The voting system doesn't allow people to change parties, doesn't allow their own views to come out, it forces the voters to conform to the system.

In Germany you have a choice. There are plenty of parties to choose from. 2013 was a strange year where only 5 parties got into parliament. Usually there's like 7. Other countries have more. The US, with 300 million people plus manages to get two parties, and this is more or less uniform across the country.

If you want to vote socialist, who do you vote for? The Democrats, because you know the Democrats either win or lose, and if they lose the Republicans are in. Negative voting.

So, whatever the Republicans or Democrats decide, is what policy is, and unless you're in the middle, it makes not much difference. If people want socialized healthcare, they vote Democrats, regardless of whether it's on their platform or not. Usually it isn't. So, you don't get socialized healthcare either way.

I hear you. Libertarians are in exactly the same, albeit diametrically opposed, boat. If people want free markets, they (most of them, anyway) vote Republican, despite the fact that the Republicans never deliver. That's why I think it's reasonably valid to look at the performance of third parties as indication of how things would go, relatively, if the voting system were opened up.

Well it doesn't matter that Socialists are behind Libertarians. The reality is that choice is what should matter. How people vote doesn't reflect the views of the people, it reflects the views of the two main parties who are controlled by the rich who don't want to see their cash cows given up.

It matters if you're claiming that changing the voting system would usher in a viable single payer program. I doubt it would. But I agree we should change the voting system. At least then we'd find out.

I'm not really sure where you're making those assumptions. By the right I mean the Republicans because I'm being lazy, you don't need to explain everything in full every time. Libertarians are probably right, but not necessarily, but they get left behind with the system. They'd have seats in Congress with PR.

I'm not claiming that changing the system would automatically have single payer. I'm saying without changing the system you won't get single payer.

Why would you want single payer?

 

[nat4900]

Very interesting. Now to get the sheep to jump over the fence.

Were Trump to decide to adopt the single payer system (as he once advocated) ...the "sheep" or better known as, the Trump cult-members, would actually flip and comply; probably claiming that such is what they wanted all along (such is the low mentality and hypocrisy of cult members.)

 

[healthmyths]

Very interesting. Now to get the sheep to jump over the fence.

Were Trump to decide to adopt the single payer system (as he once advocated) ...the "sheep" or better known as, the Trump cult-members, would actually flip and comply; probably claiming that such is what they wanted all along (such is the low mentality and hypocrisy of cult members.)

I wonder if all you experts are aware that Medicare the "model" you so often tout as being how "single payer" works is really made up of :
A) 16 companies that contract with Medicare that actually pay 70% of all Medicare claims AND
What is a MAC - Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

B) Over 600 companies (most for profit!!!) that Medicare pays about $800/month per Medicare beneficiary to manage the Medicare Advantage insured. There are nearly In 2016, the majority of the 57 million people on Medicare are covered by traditional Medicare, with 31% enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan (Figure 1).
Since 2004, the number of beneficiaries enrolled in private plans has more than tripled from 5.3 million to 17.6 million in 2016.May 11, 2016
CMS1211780 - Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

 

[dblack]

Well, the reality is the political system in the US favors the right massively. They get more presidential voting power than they get voters. The last two Republican presidents have gotten in with less votes than their opponents.

This is fact.

Agreed. But that's irrelevant to the decision between free markets and socialism. ie - you seem to be assuming libertarians are "right" and will benefit, or lose out, based on the same criteria. We're radically different. I've never voted Republican. Probably never will.

However the US system is open to abuse massively. Corruption, legitimized corruption at that and supported by the people. The voting system doesn't allow people to change parties, doesn't allow their own views to come out, it forces the voters to conform to the system.

In Germany you have a choice. There are plenty of parties to choose from. 2013 was a strange year where only 5 parties got into parliament. Usually there's like 7. Other countries have more. The US, with 300 million people plus manages to get two parties, and this is more or less uniform across the country.

If you want to vote socialist, who do you vote for? The Democrats, because you know the Democrats either win or lose, and if they lose the Republicans are in. Negative voting.

So, whatever the Republicans or Democrats decide, is what policy is, and unless you're in the middle, it makes not much difference. If people want socialized healthcare, they vote Democrats, regardless of whether it's on their platform or not. Usually it isn't. So, you don't get socialized healthcare either way.

I hear you. Libertarians are in exactly the same, albeit diametrically opposed, boat. If people want free markets, they (most of them, anyway) vote Republican, despite the fact that the Republicans never deliver. That's why I think it's reasonably valid to look at the performance of third parties as indication of how things would go, relatively, if the voting system were opened up.

Well it doesn't matter that Socialists are behind Libertarians. The reality is that choice is what should matter. How people vote doesn't reflect the views of the people, it reflects the views of the two main parties who are controlled by the rich who don't want to see their cash cows given up.

It matters if you're claiming that changing the voting system would usher in a viable single payer program. I doubt it would. But I agree we should change the voting system. At least then we'd find out.

I'm not really sure where you're making those assumptions. By the right I mean the Republicans because I'm being lazy, you don't need to explain everything in full every time. Libertarians are probably right, but not necessarily, but they get left behind with the system. They'd have seats in Congress with PR.

I'm not claiming that changing the system would automatically have single payer. I'm saying without changing the system you won't get single payer.

Why would you want single payer?

It will give socialists centralized control of one of our most important needs.

 

[Redfish]

Very interesting. Now to get the sheep to jump over the fence.

Were Trump to decide to adopt the single payer system (as he once advocated) ...the "sheep" or better known as, the Trump cult-members, would actually flip and comply; probably claiming that such is what they wanted all along (such is the low mentality and hypocrisy of cult members.)

Single payer = higher taxes, poorer medical care, long waits for needed surgeries, euthanasia, fewer new drugs and treatments, and shorter lives.

But in your ignorance, you want that. You are either very stupid or very ignorant, or both.

 

[nat4900]

Single payer = higher taxes, poorer medical care, long waits for needed surgeries, euthanasia, fewer new drugs and treatments, and shorter lives.

The U.S. is number 43 in that survey on longevity.....moron !!!

Life Expectancy for Countries