Congressman Admits ObamaCare a Platform for Single Payer

[Bern80]

That's the spirit!! Let's add poor and homeless people to that too!

Now children are different.

They get all the health care they need cuz they with their easy to manipulate heads full of mush are our future.

Nah, I think kids should fend for themselves! We don't care about their education so why should we care about their health care??! It's all money we don't need to spend.

Right because, if I give you a hundred bucks you'll magically be smarter than you were before I gave you the hundred bucks.

You liberals are as inept as it gets. You know one solution to everything and one solution only. Throw money at it. As if that's all it takes to make children smarter or people healthier.

 

[RDD_1210]

Now children are different.

They get all the health care they need cuz they with their easy to manipulate heads full of mush are our future.

Nah, I think kids should fend for themselves! We don't care about their education so why should we care about their health care??! It's all money we don't need to spend.

Right because, if I give you a hundred bucks you'll magically be smarter than you were before I gave you the hundred bucks.

You liberals are as inept as it gets. You know one solution to everything and one solution only. Throw money at it. As if that's all it takes to make children smarter or people healthier.

Couldn't agree more! The only way to fix everything is to disband the government and have them stop taxing us for useless services that obviously do nothing for society. It's fun to go to extremes!

 

[Bern80]

Nah, I think kids should fend for themselves! We don't care about their education so why should we care about their health care??! It's all money we don't need to spend.

Right because, if I give you a hundred bucks you'll magically be smarter than you were before I gave you the hundred bucks.

You liberals are as inept as it gets. You know one solution to everything and one solution only. Throw money at it. As if that's all it takes to make children smarter or people healthier.

Couldn't agree more! The only way to fix everything is to disband the government and have them stop taxing us for useless services that obviously do nothing for society. It's fun to go to extremes!

Looks stupid when you see someone else doing what you do doesn't it? You started it, dude. Either you believe what you say about the right despite the lack of evidence for it, or you're knowingly exagerrating which is pretty pointless. Pick one.

 

[RDD_1210]

Right because, if I give you a hundred bucks you'll magically be smarter than you were before I gave you the hundred bucks.

You liberals are as inept as it gets. You know one solution to everything and one solution only. Throw money at it. As if that's all it takes to make children smarter or people healthier.

Couldn't agree more! The only way to fix everything is to disband the government and have them stop taxing us for useless services that obviously do nothing for society. It's fun to go to extremes!

Looks stupid when you see someone else doing what you do doesn't it? You started it, dude. Either you believe what you say about the right despite the lack of evidence for it, or you're knowingly exagerrating which is pretty pointless. Pick one.

Damn right it looks stupid. But it happens on this site every day in every thread. Trying to be rational is so 20th century. This is the age of extreme ideas and ignorant opinions. This way is a lot easier and much more entertaining.

 

[Bern80]

Couldn't agree more! The only way to fix everything is to disband the government and have them stop taxing us for useless services that obviously do nothing for society. It's fun to go to extremes!

Looks stupid when you see someone else doing what you do doesn't it? You started it, dude. Either you believe what you say about the right despite the lack of evidence for it, or you're knowingly exagerrating which is pretty pointless. Pick one.

Damn right it looks stupid. But it happens on this site every day in every thread. Trying to be rational is so 20th century. This is the age of extreme ideas and ignorant opinions. This way is a lot easier and much more entertaining.

I consider it the age of gross lack of introspective objectivity. Where no one has the audacity to challenge whether or not it's their opinion that happens to be the ignorant one. For example one would have to be rather ignorant to believe a single payer system will somehow warp space and time to a place where the rules of basic economics no longer apply and perfect harmony will be brought to the health care industry.

 

[RDD_1210]

Looks stupid when you see someone else doing what you do doesn't it? You started it, dude. Either you believe what you say about the right despite the lack of evidence for it, or you're knowingly exagerrating which is pretty pointless. Pick one.

Damn right it looks stupid. But it happens on this site every day in every thread. Trying to be rational is so 20th century. This is the age of extreme ideas and ignorant opinions. This way is a lot easier and much more entertaining.

I consider it the age of gross lack of introspective objectivity. Where no one has the audacity to challenge whether or not it's their opinion that happens to be the ignorant one. For example one would have to be rather ignorant to believe a single payer system will somehow warp space and time to a place where the rules of basic economics no longer apply and perfect harmony will be brought to the health care industry.

Sometimes economics aren't the most important consideration.

 

[Bern80]

Damn right it looks stupid. But it happens on this site every day in every thread. Trying to be rational is so 20th century. This is the age of extreme ideas and ignorant opinions. This way is a lot easier and much more entertaining.

I consider it the age of gross lack of introspective objectivity. Where no one has the audacity to challenge whether or not it's their opinion that happens to be the ignorant one. For example one would have to be rather ignorant to believe a single payer system will somehow warp space and time to a place where the rules of basic economics no longer apply and perfect harmony will be brought to the health care industry.

Sometimes economics aren't the most important consideration.

I assume you are referring to the consideration of being compassionate. You can call it cliche all day if you want. The road to tyranny and loss of freedom is well paved with compassionate intentions and many things that sound compassionate on their face like "oh we just gotta make sure everyone has cheap health care, and just doing is so much more important than HOW we do it we shouldn't even talk about it cause it's so mean." But upon closer examination they end up being quite detrimental and costly to society at large.

Single payer sounds nice if your singular myopic goal is to make things cheap, but it will increase the cost of services, it will not improve and probably will hurt of the supply of resources and doctors, and will cost society financially more in the long run, it will be yet another discouragement for people to take responsibility for themselves which also weakens society in the long run.

 

[RDD_1210]

I consider it the age of gross lack of introspective objectivity. Where no one has the audacity to challenge whether or not it's their opinion that happens to be the ignorant one. For example one would have to be rather ignorant to believe a single payer system will somehow warp space and time to a place where the rules of basic economics no longer apply and perfect harmony will be brought to the health care industry.

Sometimes economics aren't the most important consideration.

I assume you are referring to the consideration of being compassionate. You can call it cliche all day if you want. The road to tyranny and loss of freedom is well paved with compassionate intentions and many things that sound compassionate on their face like "oh we just gotta make sure everyone has cheap health care, and just doing is so much more important than HOW we do it we shouldn't even talk about it cause it's so mean." But upon closer examination they end up being quite detrimental and costly to society at large.

Single payer sounds nice if your singular myopic goal is to make things cheap, but it will increase the cost of services, it will not improve and probably will hurt of the supply of resources and doctors, and will cost society financially more in the long run, it will be yet another discouragement for people to take responsibility for themselves which also weakens society in the long run.

How about this. You believe what you want, and I'll stick to what I believe. Have a great day!

 

[mudwhistle]

Nah, I think kids should fend for themselves! We don't care about their education so why should we care about their health care??! It's all money we don't need to spend.

Right because, if I give you a hundred bucks you'll magically be smarter than you were before I gave you the hundred bucks.

You liberals are as inept as it gets. You know one solution to everything and one solution only. Throw money at it. As if that's all it takes to make children smarter or people healthier.

Couldn't agree more! The only way to fix everything is to disband the government and have them stop taxing us for useless services that obviously do nothing for society. It's fun to go to extremes!

Sounds like a plan.

It sure would get rid of the debt in a hurry.

 

[rightwinger]

We should just set up two classes of hospitals

One for the rich, the other for everyone else

 

[RDD_1210]

We should just set up two classes of hospitals

One for the rich, the other for everyone else

We're getting close to that now.

 

[Bern80]

Sometimes economics aren't the most important consideration.

I assume you are referring to the consideration of being compassionate. You can call it cliche all day if you want. The road to tyranny and loss of freedom is well paved with compassionate intentions and many things that sound compassionate on their face like "oh we just gotta make sure everyone has cheap health care, and just doing is so much more important than HOW we do it we shouldn't even talk about it cause it's so mean." But upon closer examination they end up being quite detrimental and costly to society at large.

Single payer sounds nice if your singular myopic goal is to make things cheap, but it will increase the cost of services, it will not improve and probably will hurt of the supply of resources and doctors, and will cost society financially more in the long run, it will be yet another discouragement for people to take responsibility for themselves which also weakens society in the long run.

How about this. You believe what you want, and I'll stick to what I believe. Have a great day!

Had enough have ya? Sure you're more than welcome to remain blissfully ignorant of basic economics.

 

[RDD_1210]

I assume you are referring to the consideration of being compassionate. You can call it cliche all day if you want. The road to tyranny and loss of freedom is well paved with compassionate intentions and many things that sound compassionate on their face like "oh we just gotta make sure everyone has cheap health care, and just doing is so much more important than HOW we do it we shouldn't even talk about it cause it's so mean." But upon closer examination they end up being quite detrimental and costly to society at large.

Single payer sounds nice if your singular myopic goal is to make things cheap, but it will increase the cost of services, it will not improve and probably will hurt of the supply of resources and doctors, and will cost society financially more in the long run, it will be yet another discouragement for people to take responsibility for themselves which also weakens society in the long run.

How about this. You believe what you want, and I'll stick to what I believe. Have a great day!

Had enough have ya? Sure you're more than welcome to remain blissfully ignorant of basic economics.

Enough of talking to you? Yes, we've been through this in how many threads now? You're not getting what I am saying and you think I'm not getting what you're saying, so what's the point?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I consider it the age of gross lack of introspective objectivity. Where no one has the audacity to challenge whether or not it's their opinion that happens to be the ignorant one. For example one would have to be rather ignorant to believe a single payer system will somehow warp space and time to a place where the rules of basic economics no longer apply and perfect harmony will be brought to the health care industry.

Sometimes economics aren't the most important consideration.

I assume you are referring to the consideration of being compassionate. You can call it cliche all day if you want. The road to tyranny and loss of freedom is well paved with compassionate intentions and many things that sound compassionate on their face like "oh we just gotta make sure everyone has cheap health care, and just doing is so much more important than HOW we do it we shouldn't even talk about it cause it's so mean." But upon closer examination they end up being quite detrimental and costly to society at large.

Single payer sounds nice if your singular myopic goal is to make things cheap, but it will increase the cost of services, it will not improve and probably will hurt of the supply of resources and doctors, and will cost society financially more in the long run, it will be yet another discouragement for people to take responsibility for themselves which also weakens society in the long run.

I haven't found anything that shows government can run anything more cost efficient either, it's the liberals "grand illusion" of things. Neither is there anything that shows the government can do a better job at providing for the American people, just look at how the Federal Government handled spending under the Stimulus Bill:

Congress.org - Letter to Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland): $228,000 per job saved or created.

Obama stimulus slush fund cost taxpayers $821B versus the estimated $787B. Based on the jobs created or saved, it equates to $228,000 per.

I don't know any construction worker, or employee benefiting from the stimulus, posted as making that kind of salary. Now the $821B figure above reflects a CBO increase to the overall cost of the Stimulus from $787 BILLION to $821 BILLION. The left isn't concerned with the facts of how government likes to waste money, they just want their "entitlement" no matter the cost of what such a program will bring. Those that support a government run system, should make the sacrifices in their own paychecks in support of one . . . . say 15% to start?
Billion.Illinois Review: CBO raises its stimulus cost estimate, again

 

[Immanuel]

And with Single Payer Health Insurance, note it is not health care as it does nothing in regards to the service providers, I suspect we will have in the neighborhood of 25% unemployment as all the people who are currently employed by those evil health insurance companies will suddenly be out of jobs... thank you Democrats.

Immie

 

[Bern80]

How about this. You believe what you want, and I'll stick to what I believe. Have a great day!

Had enough have ya? Sure you're more than welcome to remain blissfully ignorant of basic economics.

Enough of talking to you? Yes, we've been through this in how many threads now? You're not getting what I am saying and you think I'm not getting what you're saying, so what's the point?

You tell me. Because it seems you've said multiple times you're not totally thrilled with Obamacare, but gosh darnit at least we did something. Am I close? Cause it seems you are far more concerned about the doing something now, that something that will work in the long term. Economics, not me, says your ideas WILL NOT WORK.

 

[Flopper]

Single payer is a far better system than the Obamacare, socialized medicine, or private insurance. There would be no need for the mandatory insurance requirements. Health insurance company profits and overhead, about 25% are eliminated. Businesses would no longer have the cost of providing health insurance for employees.

I believe a single payer system in the US is very unlikely. Just as in the pass, the insurance companies will control enough congressman to insurance it's defeat.

 

[Bern80]

Single payer is a far better system than the Obamacare, socialized medicine, or private insurance. There would be no need for the mandatory insurance requirements. Health insurance company profits and overhead, about 25% are eliminated. Businesses would no longer have the cost of providing health insurance for employees.

Really the only benefit of single payer is simplifying things. The reality is it's people saying I would rather not have to take responsibility financially for my health care. I would rather just pay a tax and have government deal with it. THAT is why our nation is getting weaker and weaker. Because more and more people simply would rather not take responsibility for themselves.

There will be very little practical savings taking some supposed bite out of insurance company profits because the FACT is insurance companies aren't that profitable in the first place. Most have single digit profit margins.

What won't change is the demand on resources and single payer does not address that. Those resources are going to cost just as much after single payer is instituted as they did before. So how exactly are the providers going to collect the same amount of money as before if the cost to people and employers is supposed to go down. Government will either have to subsidize it to make up the difference and add to the debt as a result or it will have to raise taxes on everyone to cover the costs. This will also allow providers to actually raise the price of what they charge for services. That is what happens when you subsidize something. When you set a price for a service one factor in doing so is knowing what people will pay and obviously I can charge more to whom money is less of a factor, in this case government.

I believe a single payer system in the US is very unlikely. Just as in the pass, the insurance companies will control enough congressman to insurance it's defeat.

I am not a fan of the insurance system, but don't fool yourself into thinking single payer is a better one. The country can not afford yet another entitlement program.

 

[auditor0007]

Single payer is a far better system than the Obamacare, socialized medicine, or private insurance. There would be no need for the mandatory insurance requirements. Health insurance company profits and overhead, about 25% are eliminated. Businesses would no longer have the cost of providing health insurance for employees.

Really the only benefit of single payer is simplifying things. The reality is it's people saying I would rather not have to take responsibility financially for my health care. I would rather just pay a tax and have government deal with it. THAT is why our nation is getting weaker and weaker. Because more and more people simply would rather not take responsibility for themselves.

There will be very little practical savings taking some supposed bite out of insurance company profits because the FACT is insurance companies aren't that profitable in the first place. Most have single digit profit margins.

What won't change is the demand on resources and single payer does not address that. Those resources are going to cost just as much after single payer is instituted as they did before. So how exactly are the providers going to collect the same amount of money as before if the cost to people and employers is supposed to go down. Government will either have to subsidize it to make up the difference and add to the debt as a result or it will have to raise taxes on everyone to cover the costs. This will also allow providers to actually raise the price of what they charge for services. That is what happens when you subsidize something. When you set a price for a service one factor in doing so is knowing what people will pay and obviously I can charge more to whom money is less of a factor, in this case government.

I believe a single payer system in the US is very unlikely. Just as in the pass, the insurance companies will control enough congressman to insurance it's defeat.

I am not a fan of the insurance system, but don't fool yourself into thinking single payer is a better one. The country can not afford yet another entitlement program.

One thing that is a truth is that insurance companies make very low profit margins, usually under 5%. So how do they increase their profits? Answer that question, and you will begin to understand why we have such a huge problem.

 

[Greenbeard]

So how exactly are the providers going to collect the same amount of money as before if the cost to people and employers is supposed to go down.

This is the question you believe any reform proposal should answer? How we can we find ways to keep spending the exact same amount of money, year after year?

It's not hard to predict the effect of your brand of "reform" on the average person's wallet.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSPNQ82Sq4E&feature=related]Prediction[/ame]

The reality is that we need to slow the growth rate of spending by improving value (roughly understood as the quality we get for a given level of expenditures) in the health care system. And we've got a long road ahead of us on that one. But if your goal is simply to protect providers' share of a certain percentage of GDP, you've already lost.

Government will either have to subsidize it to make up the difference and add to the debt as a result or it will have to raise taxes on everyone to cover the costs. This will also allow providers to actually raise the price of what they charge for services.

That is what happens when you subsidize something. When you set a price for a service one factor in doing so is knowing what people will pay and obviously I can charge more to whom money is less of a factor, in this case government.

I'm not familiar with any single-payer proposals that involve providers retaining the tremendous power they currently have over prices. In fact, that's generally one of the primary arguments offered in favor of single payer proposals. At present, prices (i.e. reimbursement rates) are dictated by provider market power relative to payers; different payers will often be charged different reimbursement rates for a single service based on how much of the insurance market they have cornered. That isn't the case, at least with hospitals, in the only state that currently has all-payer rate-setting (i.e. common reimbursements for all payers set by the state); and in that state, they're not bent quite as far over the barrel by hospitals:

On average, Maryland hospitals charged patients 20% above the cost to treat them in 2007, compared with a national average of 182%, according to the American Hospital Association.​

If you're going to have a bilateral oligopoly, there are advantages to at least have a public entity refereeing; single-payer takes the concept further to pursue some other benefits beyond simply shifting the power to set prices away from providers.