Vermont Going To Single Payer By 2017. Kicking Health Insurance Companies Out

[Mertex]

Every person should have access to good care no matter what their economic standing. So if the ACA doesn't work, then present something better. Just endure that a poor person has the same exact access to the best doctors as a billionaire does. That should be a guarantee.

Why ?

Because economics is a man made entity. We invented money, some people are saying because you have more of this man made entity you deserve to life more than someone else.

The Christian Right are believing in a false god no more better than the golden calf.

Why is it right that a single stockbroker deserves life more than a guy hold two jobs supporting his family of three kids.

I am sorry but while our capitalist model has advantages don't confuse it as being perfect in a god like way.

So while you complain society can be fair and equitable, some believe that society that look after each other are more advanced than ones that don't. Look at human rights, pollution....

Universal Healthcare is a hallmark of higher functioning society.

Hhhhmmmm.....

So which is the tail and which is the dog ?

And let's address this question. If you were to look at two systems, one with equal access and one with unequal access....stay with me.....and the worst care in the unequal system was still better than the best care in the equal system.....

Which would be better ?

Just answer the question. Don't deflect.

Yeah, just answer the question, because you know that your question is biased.

The United States might have had some of the best care, but only the very rich could access that best care.....so your analogy falls flat on its face. The poor people had to settle for going to the ER in order to get help....most of the time too late, but I know, you don't care about the poor people. There's your answer.

How was it biased ? It was a hypothetical.

Because obviously people are going to choose better over less than better. But it is obvious that you are referring to the previous system in the United States, where the access was unequal, and trying to imply that the best care in the equal system (ACA) is worse...........but it isn't. The unequal system was only good to those that could afford the best care either through high insurance premiums or just outright paying for it.......most affordable insurances didn't cover many illnesses/problems, and insurance companies were able to disqualify people based on their idea of pre-existing conditions, causing many people to not be able to get treatment. How in the hell is that better.

There was no analogy you dipshit. It was a question.

A stupid question by a stupid person who is trying to make a point but is failing miserably.

 

[Mertex]

Read on....

Vermont has the 3rd highest quality of life.

People are just beating down the doors to get in.

They have a whopping 3 electoral votes.

So, your only concern is how many electoral votes a state has? Very telling.

Can be any more stupid ?

Why would I want to be as stupid as you?

Quality of life......seems nobody's flocking there as near as I can tell.

Are you that ignorant, to think that because everyone doesn't move there their quality of life is not 3rd in the nation? Where do you live? Mississippi? Arkansas? Tennessee? W.Virginia?

Maybe the metrics are nothing anyone really cares about. Ever think of that ?

Well duh, there are many things people consider before moving to another state.....ever think of that?

Of course not.

You're the one making the stupid assumption.

You just come to this board to show us what a moron you are.

No, I come to this board to show morons like you that you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[hipeter924]

Under a single-payer system, there is no role for health insurance companies such as Aetna and Cigna as the government pays all the medical bills. Many hope that the United States will implement a single-payer system.

Obviously they haven't lived under a Single Payer system, as without private hospitals and insurers there is no way for people to escape waiting lists or for the government to fund private clinics (when there is not enough capacity nearby)

And they will experience delays in treatment and more needless deaths, just like European countries and the VA.
Why anyone thinks this is an advance is beyond me.

The bordering states around Vermont are going to get an influx of medical professionals.

Single payer systems always pay below the market value for services. What doctor, nurse, or other professional will willingly take a 50% or more cut in compensation?

Not true, in fact the reverse as usually there are health services unions. Also general bureaucracy and regulations add costs to the system. But all in all you don't see it as it collectively paid through income taxes, payroll taxes or levies - and no government is going to advertise government waste if I wants another term.

Not true? Have you been living in a cave?

There is a growing trend among doctors and other healthcare providers to stop accepting medicaid/medicare because they pay well below common acceptable scale.

In a state where everyone is on the single payer, a lower scale than the rest of the private sector, healthcare professionals will flee for better environments.

Medicare/Medicaid ≠ complete UHC system.

Also OECD stats disagree. The quality of American healthcare ranks well below nations with UHC: http://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/Briefing-Note-UNITED-STATES-2014.pdf

 

[The Rabbi]

Under a single-payer system, there is no role for health insurance companies such as Aetna and Cigna as the government pays all the medical bills. Many hope that the United States will implement a single-payer system.

Obviously they haven't lived under a Single Payer system, as without private hospitals and insurers there is no way for people to escape waiting lists or for the government to fund private clinics (when there is not enough capacity nearby)

And they will experience delays in treatment and more needless deaths, just like European countries and the VA.
Why anyone thinks this is an advance is beyond me.

The bordering states around Vermont are going to get an influx of medical professionals.

Single payer systems always pay below the market value for services. What doctor, nurse, or other professional will willingly take a 50% or more cut in compensation?

Not true, in fact the reverse as usually there are health services unions. Also general bureaucracy and regulations add costs to the system. But all in all you don't see it as it collectively paid through income taxes, payroll taxes or levies - and no government is going to advertise government waste if I wants another term.

Not true? Have you been living in a cave?

There is a growing trend among doctors and other healthcare providers to stop accepting medicaid/medicare because they pay well below common acceptable scale.

In a state where everyone is on the single payer, a lower scale than the rest of the private sector, healthcare professionals will flee for better environments.

Medicare/Medicaid ≠ complete UHC system.

Also OECD stats disagree. The quality of American healthcare ranks well below nations with UHC: http://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/Briefing-Note-UNITED-STATES-2014.pdf

Health profiles are not the same as health care.
Geez, can we stop with these fallacies once and for all? WHo cares that people in France live longer or are less obese? This isnt France. This isnt Germany. Our populations, histories, culture and lifestyles are completely different. We might as well compare ourselves to Bolivia, Indonesia and Guinea.

 

[hipeter924]

Under a single-payer system, there is no role for health insurance companies such as Aetna and Cigna as the government pays all the medical bills. Many hope that the United States will implement a single-payer system.

Obviously they haven't lived under a Single Payer system, as without private hospitals and insurers there is no way for people to escape waiting lists or for the government to fund private clinics (when there is not enough capacity nearby)

And they will experience delays in treatment and more needless deaths, just like European countries and the VA.
Why anyone thinks this is an advance is beyond me.

The bordering states around Vermont are going to get an influx of medical professionals.

Single payer systems always pay below the market value for services. What doctor, nurse, or other professional will willingly take a 50% or more cut in compensation?

Not true, in fact the reverse as usually there are health services unions. Also general bureaucracy and regulations add costs to the system. But all in all you don't see it as it collectively paid through income taxes, payroll taxes or levies - and no government is going to advertise government waste if I wants another term.

Not true? Have you been living in a cave?

There is a growing trend among doctors and other healthcare providers to stop accepting medicaid/medicare because they pay well below common acceptable scale.

In a state where everyone is on the single payer, a lower scale than the rest of the private sector, healthcare professionals will flee for better environments.

Medicare/Medicaid ≠ complete UHC system.

Also OECD stats disagree. The quality of American healthcare ranks well below nations with UHC: http://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/Briefing-Note-UNITED-STATES-2014.pdf

Health profiles are not the same as health care.
Geez, can we stop with these fallacies once and for all? WHo cares that people in France live longer or are less obese? This isnt France. This isnt Germany. Our populations, histories, culture and lifestyles are completely different. We might as well compare ourselves to Bolivia, Indonesia and Guinea.

It isn't a 'fallacy' but a statistical tool.

You're the one arguing here that a system can't work that doesn't exist, whilst stating that UHC doesn't work or is less efficient even though it works quite effectively in other countries - and with much better results.

That's the real fallacy, your ideologically driven assumptions about a system you know nothing about - as it doesn't exist yet.

Edit: If you were a 'liberal' you would be arguing against a fully private health system with just as much narrow-mindedness. Because that doesn't exist either.

 

[RKMBrown]

U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries - Forbes

If you want another source, most studies say about the same thing. I'm aware the WHO methodology is flawed, but surely a flawed source is better than none at all.
The US might have the best health care in the world for millionaires, but overall we do not at all- and we do spend the most of any country, even Forbes (a right-wing publication if ever there was one) says that is universally accepted.

Again, the ratings are low simply because "universal health care coverage" is a major factor.
Look at how well people fare once they've been diagnosed, the only meaningful measure, and the US is far and away the best healthcare system.

The reason for the universal thing, is that the US had a very effective way of removing the high risk patients from getting insurance.

It is easy for you to say 95% of all people are happy with our health system, the other 5% are sick

WTF does insurance have to do with health care? Do you not understand the difference? Do we or do we not have health care for the poor in the form of medicaid and chips? This is a YES OR NO question.

You have healthcare but it is not universal. It is also not comprehensive...

Actually your question is so poorly put I would recommend that you study a little on the topic and comapre health systems worldwode before you enter a subject like this which goes a bit above your head.

Liar. No Americans go without health care.. thus is "universal." Still further our health care is "more" comprehensive than euro weenie health care. WTF do universal and comprehensive mean to you, ya dipshit?

Nothing goes above my head, my reflexes are too quick.

 

[The Rabbi]

Under a single-payer system, there is no role for health insurance companies such as Aetna and Cigna as the government pays all the medical bills. Many hope that the United States will implement a single-payer system.

Obviously they haven't lived under a Single Payer system, as without private hospitals and insurers there is no way for people to escape waiting lists or for the government to fund private clinics (when there is not enough capacity nearby)

The bordering states around Vermont are going to get an influx of medical professionals.

Single payer systems always pay below the market value for services. What doctor, nurse, or other professional will willingly take a 50% or more cut in compensation?

Not true, in fact the reverse as usually there are health services unions. Also general bureaucracy and regulations add costs to the system. But all in all you don't see it as it collectively paid through income taxes, payroll taxes or levies - and no government is going to advertise government waste if I wants another term.

Not true? Have you been living in a cave?

There is a growing trend among doctors and other healthcare providers to stop accepting medicaid/medicare because they pay well below common acceptable scale.

In a state where everyone is on the single payer, a lower scale than the rest of the private sector, healthcare professionals will flee for better environments.

Medicare/Medicaid ≠ complete UHC system.

Also OECD stats disagree. The quality of American healthcare ranks well below nations with UHC: http://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/Briefing-Note-UNITED-STATES-2014.pdf

Health profiles are not the same as health care.
Geez, can we stop with these fallacies once and for all? WHo cares that people in France live longer or are less obese? This isnt France. This isnt Germany. Our populations, histories, culture and lifestyles are completely different. We might as well compare ourselves to Bolivia, Indonesia and Guinea.

It isn't a 'fallacy' but a statistical tool.

You're the one arguing here that a system can't work that doesn't exist, whilst stating that UHC doesn't work or is less efficient even though it works quite effectively in other countries - and with much better results.

That's the real fallacy, your ideologically driven assumptions about a system you know nothing about - as it doesn't exist yet.

You keep missing the point here: Vermont studied the possibilities and determined it wouldnt work. There's your system right there.
You havent shown UHC works anywhere. You post fallacious data points tht proves nothing mroe than different populations have different health profiles. In addition all the European sytems are hemorrhaging money and desperately making changes to accomodate it.

 

[Listening]

Every person should have access to good care no matter what their economic standing. So if the ACA doesn't work, then present something better. Just endure that a poor person has the same exact access to the best doctors as a billionaire does. That should be a guarantee.

Why ?

If you have to ask why, then you are way too uninformed to even be discussing it.

It is for the betterment of everyone in the country, that's why.

So is making everyone wear sunscreen.

When you can give a grown up answer...I'll be here.

You don't comprehend grown up answers.....you'd be fine if those without healthcare contracted contagious diseases and passed them on, because that wouldn't affect you, right?

I know a grown up answer and that is not you.

And no, I wouldn't.

At the same time, I am not real thrilled with the number of fatties running around who will eventually need insulin, knee and hip replacements.

 

[Listening]

Yep. And this is exactly what I've been stumping for for years.

It's nice of them to have given the insurance companies several (more) years to get their affairs in order. Though they have seen this coming a long long way off. We are after all the last nation willing to strap the disappearing and vital middle class and working classes' (and businesses') income with the equivalent of a second mortgage in health payment burdens each month while seriously questioning "what happened to all the consumer power in this country?". Where is all my company's profits this year??? Der...duh...

Like a nation of Idiocracy, we all have failed basic economics.

You missed the memo that single payer is dead. If it cant work in Vermont it can't work anywhere.

It COULD work in Vermont. It's up to Vermont.

What is noted is that taxes would have had to have been increased substantially.

I don't know what the final accounting would be, but the governor saw an issue with costs.

And so he scrapped it for now.

No, it was simply not feasible. The costs were astronomic. And VT is a fairly low cost state witha relatively healthy population. Imagine that in say Michigan or Florida.

Please read what I said.

It COULD work....it might destroy their economy in the process...but it COULD work.

If they all want to pay higher taxes, run businesses off, etc. etc. etc.

I just checked the date on the OP article. It's over six months old.

It seems "Goosed (and liking it)" is a bit behind the times.

It could work if they destroy their economy=not working. THey might implement it, is probably what you mean. But work? Never. Even libs figured that one out.

I'll go with that.

 

[Listening]

Obviously they haven't lived under a Single Payer system, as without private hospitals and insurers there is no way for people to escape waiting lists or for the government to fund private clinics (when there is not enough capacity nearby)
Not true, in fact the reverse as usually there are health services unions. Also general bureaucracy and regulations add costs to the system. But all in all you don't see it as it collectively paid through income taxes, payroll taxes or levies - and no government is going to advertise government waste if I wants another term.

Not true? Have you been living in a cave?

There is a growing trend among doctors and other healthcare providers to stop accepting medicaid/medicare because they pay well below common acceptable scale.

In a state where everyone is on the single payer, a lower scale than the rest of the private sector, healthcare professionals will flee for better environments.

Medicare/Medicaid ≠ complete UHC system.

Also OECD stats disagree. The quality of American healthcare ranks well below nations with UHC: http://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/Briefing-Note-UNITED-STATES-2014.pdf

Health profiles are not the same as health care.
Geez, can we stop with these fallacies once and for all? WHo cares that people in France live longer or are less obese? This isnt France. This isnt Germany. Our populations, histories, culture and lifestyles are completely different. We might as well compare ourselves to Bolivia, Indonesia and Guinea.

It isn't a 'fallacy' but a statistical tool.

You're the one arguing here that a system can't work that doesn't exist, whilst stating that UHC doesn't work or is less efficient even though it works quite effectively in other countries - and with much better results.

That's the real fallacy, your ideologically driven assumptions about a system you know nothing about - as it doesn't exist yet.

You keep missing the point here: Vermont studied the possibilities and determined it wouldnt work. There's your system right there.
You havent shown UHC works anywhere. You post fallacious data points tht proves nothing mroe than different populations have different health profiles. In addition all the European sytems are hemorrhaging money and desperately making changes to accomodate it.

It is amazing we don't hear more about Tenncare.

It has been some time since I checked, but it was still in business when I paid attention to it.

They opened up enrollment and got a deluge of people.

The only way they survived was kicking a bunch of people off of the roles (don't know what the criteria was).

 

[hipeter924]

Obviously they haven't lived under a Single Payer system, as without private hospitals and insurers there is no way for people to escape waiting lists or for the government to fund private clinics (when there is not enough capacity nearby)
Not true, in fact the reverse as usually there are health services unions. Also general bureaucracy and regulations add costs to the system. But all in all you don't see it as it collectively paid through income taxes, payroll taxes or levies - and no government is going to advertise government waste if I wants another term.

Not true? Have you been living in a cave?

There is a growing trend among doctors and other healthcare providers to stop accepting medicaid/medicare because they pay well below common acceptable scale.

In a state where everyone is on the single payer, a lower scale than the rest of the private sector, healthcare professionals will flee for better environments.

Medicare/Medicaid ≠ complete UHC system.

Also OECD stats disagree. The quality of American healthcare ranks well below nations with UHC: http://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/Briefing-Note-UNITED-STATES-2014.pdf

Health profiles are not the same as health care.
Geez, can we stop with these fallacies once and for all? WHo cares that people in France live longer or are less obese? This isnt France. This isnt Germany. Our populations, histories, culture and lifestyles are completely different. We might as well compare ourselves to Bolivia, Indonesia and Guinea.

It isn't a 'fallacy' but a statistical tool.

You're the one arguing here that a system can't work that doesn't exist, whilst stating that UHC doesn't work or is less efficient even though it works quite effectively in other countries - and with much better results.

That's the real fallacy, your ideologically driven assumptions about a system you know nothing about - as it doesn't exist yet.

You keep missing the point here: Vermont studied the possibilities and determined it wouldnt work. There's your system right there.
You havent shown UHC works anywhere. You post fallacious data points tht proves nothing mroe than different populations have different health profiles. In addition all the European sytems are hemorrhaging money and desperately making changes to accomodate it.

An attempt at UHC wasn't ever implemented in Vermont, and the jury is still out over whether it won't be implemented in 2017.

It isn't 'fallacious' as it is OECD data on OECD countries, which is usually derived from official stats of OECD nations. It just happens that the best performers have some form of UHC, and it isn't just OECD stats pointing that out: U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries - Forbes

1. United Kingdom
2. Switzerland
3. Sweden
4. Australia
5. Germany & Netherlands (tied)
7. New Zealand & Norway (tied)
9. France
10. Canada
11. United States

The most notable way the U.S. differs from other industrialized countries is the absence of universal health insurance coverage. Other nations ensure the accessibility of care through universal health systems and through better ties between patients and the physician practices that serve as their medical homes. The Commonwealth Fund “Mirror, Mirror On The Wall — 2014 Update”

So what is more likely? A grand international 'socialist' conspiracy to create fake data on the US, or that the US healthcare system is worse performing on a per capita basis?

Edit: I wonder if you have ever used the healthcare system of another country. I have personal experience in using two UHC systems and the US healthcare system, and thus can compare them from personal experience as well.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Not true? Have you been living in a cave?

There is a growing trend among doctors and other healthcare providers to stop accepting medicaid/medicare because they pay well below common acceptable scale.

In a state where everyone is on the single payer, a lower scale than the rest of the private sector, healthcare professionals will flee for better environments.

Medicare/Medicaid ≠ complete UHC system.

Also OECD stats disagree. The quality of American healthcare ranks well below nations with UHC: http://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/Briefing-Note-UNITED-STATES-2014.pdf

Health profiles are not the same as health care.
Geez, can we stop with these fallacies once and for all? WHo cares that people in France live longer or are less obese? This isnt France. This isnt Germany. Our populations, histories, culture and lifestyles are completely different. We might as well compare ourselves to Bolivia, Indonesia and Guinea.

It isn't a 'fallacy' but a statistical tool.

You're the one arguing here that a system can't work that doesn't exist, whilst stating that UHC doesn't work or is less efficient even though it works quite effectively in other countries - and with much better results.

That's the real fallacy, your ideologically driven assumptions about a system you know nothing about - as it doesn't exist yet.

You keep missing the point here: Vermont studied the possibilities and determined it wouldnt work. There's your system right there.
You havent shown UHC works anywhere. You post fallacious data points tht proves nothing mroe than different populations have different health profiles. In addition all the European sytems are hemorrhaging money and desperately making changes to accomodate it.

An attempt at UHC wasn't ever implemented in Vermont, and the jury is still out over whether it won't be implemented in 2017.

It isn't 'fallacious' as it is OECD data on OECD countries, which is usually derived from official stats of OECD nations. It just happens that the best performers have some form of UHC, and it isn't just OECD stats pointing that out: U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries - Forbes

1. United Kingdom
2. Switzerland
3. Sweden
4. Australia
5. Germany & Netherlands (tied)
7. New Zealand & Norway (tied)
9. France
10. Canada
11. United States

The most notable way the U.S. differs from other industrialized countries is the absence of universal health insurance coverage. Other nations ensure the accessibility of care through universal health systems and through better ties between patients and the physician practices that serve as their medical homes. The Commonwealth Fund “Mirror, Mirror On The Wall — 2014 Update”

So what is more likely? A grand international 'socialist' conspiracy to create fake data on the US, or that the US healthcare system is worse performing on a per capita basis?

The fact that Vermont workers would see income taxes rise some 20 percentage points caused the governor to scrap the plan. Which was at best pie in the sky in the first place.
Without implementation of confiscatory taxes, single payer is just plain unaffordable.

 

[hipeter924]

Medicare/Medicaid ≠ complete UHC system.

Also OECD stats disagree. The quality of American healthcare ranks well below nations with UHC: http://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/Briefing-Note-UNITED-STATES-2014.pdf

Health profiles are not the same as health care.
Geez, can we stop with these fallacies once and for all? WHo cares that people in France live longer or are less obese? This isnt France. This isnt Germany. Our populations, histories, culture and lifestyles are completely different. We might as well compare ourselves to Bolivia, Indonesia and Guinea.

It isn't a 'fallacy' but a statistical tool.

You're the one arguing here that a system can't work that doesn't exist, whilst stating that UHC doesn't work or is less efficient even though it works quite effectively in other countries - and with much better results.

That's the real fallacy, your ideologically driven assumptions about a system you know nothing about - as it doesn't exist yet.

You keep missing the point here: Vermont studied the possibilities and determined it wouldnt work. There's your system right there.
You havent shown UHC works anywhere. You post fallacious data points tht proves nothing mroe than different populations have different health profiles. In addition all the European sytems are hemorrhaging money and desperately making changes to accomodate it.

An attempt at UHC wasn't ever implemented in Vermont, and the jury is still out over whether it won't be implemented in 2017.

It isn't 'fallacious' as it is OECD data on OECD countries, which is usually derived from official stats of OECD nations. It just happens that the best performers have some form of UHC, and it isn't just OECD stats pointing that out: U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries - Forbes

1. United Kingdom
2. Switzerland
3. Sweden
4. Australia
5. Germany & Netherlands (tied)
7. New Zealand & Norway (tied)
9. France
10. Canada
11. United States

The most notable way the U.S. differs from other industrialized countries is the absence of universal health insurance coverage. Other nations ensure the accessibility of care through universal health systems and through better ties between patients and the physician practices that serve as their medical homes. The Commonwealth Fund “Mirror, Mirror On The Wall — 2014 Update”

So what is more likely? A grand international 'socialist' conspiracy to create fake data on the US, or that the US healthcare system is worse performing on a per capita basis?

The fact that Vermont workers would see income taxes rise some 20 percentage points caused the governor to scrap the plan. Which was at best pie in the sky in the first place.
Without implementation of confiscatory taxes, single payer is just plain unaffordable.

Single Payer isn't the same as UHC: Universal Coverage Is Not Single Payer Healthcare - Forbes

It’s easy – often politically expedient – to lump universal health coverage (UHC) and “Single Payer” together, but they are not the same thing.
Here in the U.S., one big reason for the confusion is that we’re the only (industrialized) country that doesn’t have UHC. What we have here in the U.S. is called SHC – selective health coverage.

While other countries debate (and then implement) different funding mechanisms, they all start with UHC – which is less about how healthcare is funded and focuses more on who has access to healthcare.

Another reason for the confusion (intentional or otherwise) is that by definition, a single payer system is universal coverage. The reverse, however, is not true. There are several different ways (other than single payer) to fund UHC.

Also keep in mind that US Federal taxes would still be collected for the ACA system they aren't using, and they would still have to deal with Federal regulations, so it is hardly surprising that more costs would be involved.

 

[Listening]

Edit: I wonder if you have ever used the healthcare system of another country. I have personal experience in using two UHC systems and the US healthcare system, and thus can compare them from personal experience as well.

I don't want to

Health profiles are not the same as health care.
Geez, can we stop with these fallacies once and for all? WHo cares that people in France live longer or are less obese? This isnt France. This isnt Germany. Our populations, histories, culture and lifestyles are completely different. We might as well compare ourselves to Bolivia, Indonesia and Guinea.

It isn't a 'fallacy' but a statistical tool.

You're the one arguing here that a system can't work that doesn't exist, whilst stating that UHC doesn't work or is less efficient even though it works quite effectively in other countries - and with much better results.

That's the real fallacy, your ideologically driven assumptions about a system you know nothing about - as it doesn't exist yet.

You keep missing the point here: Vermont studied the possibilities and determined it wouldnt work. There's your system right there.
You havent shown UHC works anywhere. You post fallacious data points tht proves nothing mroe than different populations have different health profiles. In addition all the European sytems are hemorrhaging money and desperately making changes to accomodate it.

An attempt at UHC wasn't ever implemented in Vermont, and the jury is still out over whether it won't be implemented in 2017.

It isn't 'fallacious' as it is OECD data on OECD countries, which is usually derived from official stats of OECD nations. It just happens that the best performers have some form of UHC, and it isn't just OECD stats pointing that out: U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries - Forbes

1. United Kingdom
2. Switzerland
3. Sweden
4. Australia
5. Germany & Netherlands (tied)
7. New Zealand & Norway (tied)
9. France
10. Canada
11. United States

The most notable way the U.S. differs from other industrialized countries is the absence of universal health insurance coverage. Other nations ensure the accessibility of care through universal health systems and through better ties between patients and the physician practices that serve as their medical homes. The Commonwealth Fund “Mirror, Mirror On The Wall — 2014 Update”

So what is more likely? A grand international 'socialist' conspiracy to create fake data on the US, or that the US healthcare system is worse performing on a per capita basis?

The fact that Vermont workers would see income taxes rise some 20 percentage points caused the governor to scrap the plan. Which was at best pie in the sky in the first place.
Without implementation of confiscatory taxes, single payer is just plain unaffordable.

Single Payer isn't the same as UHC: Universal Coverage Is Not Single Payer Healthcare - Forbes

It’s easy – often politically expedient – to lump universal health coverage (UHC) and “Single Payer” together, but they are not the same thing.
Here in the U.S., one big reason for the confusion is that we’re the only (industrialized) country that doesn’t have UHC. What we have here in the U.S. is called SHC – selective health coverage.

While other countries debate (and then implement) different funding mechanisms, they all start with UHC – which is less about how healthcare is funded and focuses more on who has access to healthcare.

Another reason for the confusion (intentional or otherwise) is that by definition, a single payer system is universal coverage. The reverse, however, is not true. There are several different ways (other than single payer) to fund UHC.

Also keep in mind that US Federal taxes would still be collected for the ACA system they aren't using, and they would still have to deal with Federal regulations, so it is hardly surprising that more costs would be involved.

Right. So Obamacare has screwed a state.

Nobody on the left really cares.

After all states are only good for enforcing Jim Crow laws.

 

[Listening]

Not true? Have you been living in a cave?

There is a growing trend among doctors and other healthcare providers to stop accepting medicaid/medicare because they pay well below common acceptable scale.

In a state where everyone is on the single payer, a lower scale than the rest of the private sector, healthcare professionals will flee for better environments.

Medicare/Medicaid ≠ complete UHC system.

Also OECD stats disagree. The quality of American healthcare ranks well below nations with UHC: http://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/Briefing-Note-UNITED-STATES-2014.pdf

Health profiles are not the same as health care.
Geez, can we stop with these fallacies once and for all? WHo cares that people in France live longer or are less obese? This isnt France. This isnt Germany. Our populations, histories, culture and lifestyles are completely different. We might as well compare ourselves to Bolivia, Indonesia and Guinea.

It isn't a 'fallacy' but a statistical tool.

You're the one arguing here that a system can't work that doesn't exist, whilst stating that UHC doesn't work or is less efficient even though it works quite effectively in other countries - and with much better results.

That's the real fallacy, your ideologically driven assumptions about a system you know nothing about - as it doesn't exist yet.

You keep missing the point here: Vermont studied the possibilities and determined it wouldnt work. There's your system right there.
You havent shown UHC works anywhere. You post fallacious data points tht proves nothing mroe than different populations have different health profiles. In addition all the European sytems are hemorrhaging money and desperately making changes to accomodate it.

An attempt at UHC wasn't ever implemented in Vermont, and the jury is still out over whether it won't be implemented in 2017.

It isn't 'fallacious' as it is OECD data on OECD countries, which is usually derived from official stats of OECD nations. It just happens that the best performers have some form of UHC, and it isn't just OECD stats pointing that out: U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries - Forbes

1. United Kingdom
2. Switzerland
3. Sweden
4. Australia
5. Germany & Netherlands (tied)
7. New Zealand & Norway (tied)
9. France
10. Canada
11. United States

The most notable way the U.S. differs from other industrialized countries is the absence of universal health insurance coverage. Other nations ensure the accessibility of care through universal health systems and through better ties between patients and the physician practices that serve as their medical homes. The Commonwealth Fund “Mirror, Mirror On The Wall — 2014 Update”

So what is more likely? A grand international 'socialist' conspiracy to create fake data on the US, or that the US healthcare system is worse performing on a per capita basis?

Edit: I wonder if you have ever used the healthcare system of another country. I have personal experience in using two UHC systems and the US healthcare system, and thus can compare them from personal experience as well.

Still heavily weighted on Universal access.

Not much different from the WHO.

 

[hipeter924]

Edit: I wonder if you have ever used the healthcare system of another country. I have personal experience in using two UHC systems and the US healthcare system, and thus can compare them from personal experience as well.

I don't want to

It isn't a 'fallacy' but a statistical tool.

You're the one arguing here that a system can't work that doesn't exist, whilst stating that UHC doesn't work or is less efficient even though it works quite effectively in other countries - and with much better results.

That's the real fallacy, your ideologically driven assumptions about a system you know nothing about - as it doesn't exist yet.

You keep missing the point here: Vermont studied the possibilities and determined it wouldnt work. There's your system right there.
You havent shown UHC works anywhere. You post fallacious data points tht proves nothing mroe than different populations have different health profiles. In addition all the European sytems are hemorrhaging money and desperately making changes to accomodate it.

An attempt at UHC wasn't ever implemented in Vermont, and the jury is still out over whether it won't be implemented in 2017.

It isn't 'fallacious' as it is OECD data on OECD countries, which is usually derived from official stats of OECD nations. It just happens that the best performers have some form of UHC, and it isn't just OECD stats pointing that out: U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries - Forbes

1. United Kingdom
2. Switzerland
3. Sweden
4. Australia
5. Germany & Netherlands (tied)
7. New Zealand & Norway (tied)
9. France
10. Canada
11. United States

The most notable way the U.S. differs from other industrialized countries is the absence of universal health insurance coverage. Other nations ensure the accessibility of care through universal health systems and through better ties between patients and the physician practices that serve as their medical homes. The Commonwealth Fund “Mirror, Mirror On The Wall — 2014 Update”

So what is more likely? A grand international 'socialist' conspiracy to create fake data on the US, or that the US healthcare system is worse performing on a per capita basis?

The fact that Vermont workers would see income taxes rise some 20 percentage points caused the governor to scrap the plan. Which was at best pie in the sky in the first place.
Without implementation of confiscatory taxes, single payer is just plain unaffordable.

Single Payer isn't the same as UHC: Universal Coverage Is Not Single Payer Healthcare - Forbes

It’s easy – often politically expedient – to lump universal health coverage (UHC) and “Single Payer” together, but they are not the same thing.
Here in the U.S., one big reason for the confusion is that we’re the only (industrialized) country that doesn’t have UHC. What we have here in the U.S. is called SHC – selective health coverage.

While other countries debate (and then implement) different funding mechanisms, they all start with UHC – which is less about how healthcare is funded and focuses more on who has access to healthcare.

Another reason for the confusion (intentional or otherwise) is that by definition, a single payer system is universal coverage. The reverse, however, is not true. There are several different ways (other than single payer) to fund UHC.

Also keep in mind that US Federal taxes would still be collected for the ACA system they aren't using, and they would still have to deal with Federal regulations, so it is hardly surprising that more costs would be involved.

Right. So Obamacare has screwed a state.

Nobody on the left really cares.

After all states are only good for enforcing Jim Crow laws.

In the sense that regardless of the system you attempt to implement on the state level, you would still be restricted in what you can do or fund based on the existing Federal system.

 

[thereisnospoon]

And they will experience delays in treatment and more needless deaths, just like European countries and the VA.
Why anyone thinks this is an advance is beyond me.

Except more people die in the US from not receiving treatment than in Western Europe.

Another foundation premise turns to dust...

That has never been established beyond that bullshit Harvard paper study.

Whenever that roll of toilet paper (which other Harvard Professors called a "stretch") is brought up, I always ask for the names.

This was identified over a decade ago...that would translate to 1/2 million corpses. Where are the names ?

Answer: You don't have any. With work, you might produce a few...but you should easily have hundreds of thousands.

I grow tired of arguing against the Shangri-la bullshit of the left.

It called science... It's tough

Genius...There is no free lunch.
Implementation of single payer in the USA would be a shock to the economic system from which recovery may not be possible.
To fully insure and provide for 320 million people PLUS any person from Mexico and Central America capable of making it across our Swiss cheese border, womb to tomb medical care would be an undertaking so gargantuan, it is unimaginable the cost to do so....

 

[hipeter924]

Medicare/Medicaid ≠ complete UHC system.

Also OECD stats disagree. The quality of American healthcare ranks well below nations with UHC: http://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/Briefing-Note-UNITED-STATES-2014.pdf

Health profiles are not the same as health care.
Geez, can we stop with these fallacies once and for all? WHo cares that people in France live longer or are less obese? This isnt France. This isnt Germany. Our populations, histories, culture and lifestyles are completely different. We might as well compare ourselves to Bolivia, Indonesia and Guinea.

It isn't a 'fallacy' but a statistical tool.

You're the one arguing here that a system can't work that doesn't exist, whilst stating that UHC doesn't work or is less efficient even though it works quite effectively in other countries - and with much better results.

That's the real fallacy, your ideologically driven assumptions about a system you know nothing about - as it doesn't exist yet.

You keep missing the point here: Vermont studied the possibilities and determined it wouldnt work. There's your system right there.
You havent shown UHC works anywhere. You post fallacious data points tht proves nothing mroe than different populations have different health profiles. In addition all the European sytems are hemorrhaging money and desperately making changes to accomodate it.

An attempt at UHC wasn't ever implemented in Vermont, and the jury is still out over whether it won't be implemented in 2017.

It isn't 'fallacious' as it is OECD data on OECD countries, which is usually derived from official stats of OECD nations. It just happens that the best performers have some form of UHC, and it isn't just OECD stats pointing that out: U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries - Forbes

1. United Kingdom
2. Switzerland
3. Sweden
4. Australia
5. Germany & Netherlands (tied)
7. New Zealand & Norway (tied)
9. France
10. Canada
11. United States

The most notable way the U.S. differs from other industrialized countries is the absence of universal health insurance coverage. Other nations ensure the accessibility of care through universal health systems and through better ties between patients and the physician practices that serve as their medical homes. The Commonwealth Fund “Mirror, Mirror On The Wall — 2014 Update”

So what is more likely? A grand international 'socialist' conspiracy to create fake data on the US, or that the US healthcare system is worse performing on a per capita basis?

Edit: I wonder if you have ever used the healthcare system of another country. I have personal experience in using two UHC systems and the US healthcare system, and thus can compare them from personal experience as well.

Still heavily weighted on Universal access.

Not much different from the WHO.

Probably because minimum cover effects the overall health of the country, and how fast disease spreads in a population.

Preventive care also weighs into how expensive a healthcare system is to run, if people have regular check ups it is more likely that health issues will be treated at their early stages rather than develop to the point people need expensive surgery.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Read on....

Vermont has the 3rd highest quality of life.

People are just beating down the doors to get in.

They have a whopping 3 electoral votes.

So, your only concern is how many electoral votes a state has? Very telling.

Can be any more stupid ?

Quality of life......seems nobody's flocking there as near as I can tell.

Maybe the metrics are nothing anyone really cares about. Ever think of that ?

Of course not.

You just come to this board to show us what a moron you are.

Mertex is about as sharp as a bowling ball

 

[hipeter924]

And they will experience delays in treatment and more needless deaths, just like European countries and the VA.
Why anyone thinks this is an advance is beyond me.

Except more people die in the US from not receiving treatment than in Western Europe.

Another foundation premise turns to dust...

That has never been established beyond that bullshit Harvard paper study.

Whenever that roll of toilet paper (which other Harvard Professors called a "stretch") is brought up, I always ask for the names.

This was identified over a decade ago...that would translate to 1/2 million corpses. Where are the names ?

Answer: You don't have any. With work, you might produce a few...but you should easily have hundreds of thousands.

I grow tired of arguing against the Shangri-la bullshit of the left.

It called science... It's tough

Genius...There is no free lunch.
Implementation of single payer in the USA would be a shock to the economic system from which recovery may not be possible.
To fully insure and provide for 320 million people PLUS any person from Mexico and Central America capable of making it across our Swiss cheese border, womb to tomb medical care would be an undertaking so gargantuan, it is unimaginable the cost to do so....

Depends who you attempt to insure. If you only insured citizens and legal residents, then it wouldn't be as much an issue. Several countries that have Single Payer don't provide 'free' healthcare to non-citizens and illegal residents.

That said, I don't see how Single Payer could work without first removing the Federal healthcare system and allowing states to determine their own healthcare system. If you try to implement an alternative system to ACA/Medicare/Medicaid in a state, you are essentially asking people in that state to pay twice.