Economy grows for the third straight quarter

[Immanuel]

Like I said, you read it, you have no rebuttal, and you can do nothing but pontificate without any source, even though I gave another source for the explanation of single payer.

Single-Payer Republican - Conservative Approach

Then I take it you actually did decide to defend your position which is all that I asked.

I have not yet read it. I made the decision that if you had the balls to come back to the thread... something that I very much doubted, I was going to reply just as I did. I simply scrolled down to the bottom, hit quote and made my statement that I wasn't going to read your whiny assed bullshit if you could not defend your point of view.

And you called me a mind reader? You say you know that I read it. What kind of an idiot are you?

Definitely an idiot... that we can all see.

Immie

I don't believe you for an instant!

Ask me if I ******* care, you moron.

You have proven yourself to be a whiny assed partisan cry baby of the likes of drsmith. I don't ******* care if you believe me or not.

Immie

 

[edthecynic]

Then I take it you actually did decide to defend your position which is all that I asked.

I have not yet read it. I made the decision that if you had the balls to come back to the thread... something that I very much doubted, I was going to reply just as I did. I simply scrolled down to the bottom, hit quote and made my statement that I wasn't going to read your whiny assed bullshit if you could not defend your point of view.

And you called me a mind reader? You say you know that I read it. What kind of an idiot are you?

Definitely an idiot... that we can all see.

Immie

I don't believe you for an instant!

Ask me if I ******* care, you moron.

You have proven yourself to be a whiny assed partisan cry baby of the likes of drsmith. I don't ******* care if you believe me or not.

Immie

You care alright! If you really didn't care you wouldn't have replied.

 

[Immanuel]

Well Stuttering LimpTard, read it and find out.

Of course, based on your past behavior, you've already read it and can't counter it so in your typical dishonesty you pretend not to have read it.

Sorry, All I have seen from you is whiny assed shit.

No, I did not read it. Prior to that you didn't have the balls to actually defend your whiny ass and quite frankly, I doubt you have grown any in the last ten minutes.

If you don't have the ******* balls to come out and defend your position, I'm not going to waste my time reading your whining posts.

Immie

Like I said, you read it, you have no rebuttal, and you can do nothing but pontificate without any source, even though I gave another source for the explanation of single payer.

Single-Payer Republican - Conservative Approach

Thank you! You proved my point with your link as partisan as it is. That "single payer" that is described in the animation is the ******* government.. That is exactly what we have been talking about and that is exactly the problem with this system. It is government run. That is the entire problem.

The government collects via taxes our money and then distributes it to private medical providers. In the meantime they eliminate the private health insurers. Do you have any idea what that will do to unemployment?

Another problem is that this means that the government gets to determine how much they will pay medical providers as well as how much they will charge us for the "privilege" of them being the ******* middle man. Only problem is that we don't have any ******* recourse in regards to how much the government taxes us.

The fact that the site claims to be "republicansforsinglepayer.org" doesn't mean they ARE Republican and neither does it mean that they are not extremely left wing. Nor does it mean that I respect them, because I don't respect Republicans anymore than I respect Democrats.

Single Payer is government run! Period! Single Payer is the Obama Administration attempting to force the next Social Security fiasco on us.

Maybe you should have listened to your own link before you gave it to me, because it proved my point.

However, I will commend you for this fact, you did finally attempt to defend your position, that was in fact, all I asked you to do. At least you did finally grow enough balls to actually try to make a case.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

I don't believe you for an instant!

Ask me if I ******* care, you moron.

You have proven yourself to be a whiny assed partisan cry baby of the likes of drsmith. I don't ******* care if you believe me or not.

Immie

You care alright! If you really didn't care you wouldn't have replied.

Wrong,

But, you know what I do care about?

I care about having the discussion about single payer health care.

I have my beliefs about the system which I have presented here. I don't expect you or anyone else to agree with me. That should be why we have these discussions. That should be why we are here.

Immie

 

[edthecynic]

Ask me if I ******* care, you moron.

You have proven yourself to be a whiny assed partisan cry baby of the likes of drsmith. I don't ******* care if you believe me or not.

Immie

You care alright! If you really didn't care you wouldn't have replied.

Wrong,

But, you know what I do care about?

I care about having the discussion about single payer health care.

I have my beliefs about the system which I have presented here. I don't expect you or anyone else to agree with me. That should be why we have these discussions. That should be why we are here.

Immie

No you don't! You don't care that there is a difference between "single payer" and "nationalized health care." You just want to pontificate that they are the same so you can rationalize your hate for Obama. You fool no one.

 

[Immanuel]

Hey Michael, did you run off?

I have some more information from your website that proves my point about this being a nationalized health insurance plan. By the way, did you even read your link? I can't believe how lucky I was that you gave it to me, because it says exactly what I have been saying all along!

Thank you! Thank you!! Thank you!!!

Here check this out:

[ame=http://www.grahamazon.com/sp/how.php]How Would It Work | Single-Payer: Answers and Facts about Health Care for All[/ame]

Single-payer national health insurance would provide health insurance coverage for everyone in the United States (the US currently has about 45 million uninsured), alter the way businesses pay for health care, modify how doctors are paid, how hospitals calculate their costs and budgets, and how much prescription drugs cost in the United States. Let's look at a couple of stories from average patients and health care workers to give a couple examples of how a single-payer system might work in the United States. Then we'll break it down by group by group--and give an overview of how patients, physicians, businesses, hospitals, and insurance companies would end up in the single-payer world.

Then next page:

[ame=http://www.grahamazon.com/sp/how2.php]How Would It Work | Single-Payer: Answers and Facts about Health Care for All[/ame]

Patients

Patients would have access to all medically necessary care, including doctor visits, hospital care, prescriptions, mental health services, nursing home care, rehab, home care, eye care and dental care. (Sorry, "medically-necessary" doesn't cover cosmetic surgery or botox injections.) Patients would have their complete choice of doctors, cheaper prescription drugs, and no bills for health care.

I wonder if Abortion services will be added to that fray before all is said and done... oh, wait, of course it will because we have legalized abortion in this country and since the government will be paying all medical expenses, abortion will have to be covered so no more worry about public funding of abortions. We will simply have to accept that that is the way things are!

More from this page:

Doctors

Most primary care physician doctors' incomes would stay about the same (when Canada passed its health care reform, salaries actually went up). Specialists' incomes would decrease, but doctors' own costs would be decreased, too: they could spend less on office staff and employees that work on insurance claims, as well as the health insurance for those workers.

Great! Now our medical professionals will be working for the government and the government will be dictating to them their wages. Wait a minute? I thought you said they would stay private. Private physicians should have the right to set their own fees don't you think?

Edit: Oh Man, I'm rereading this checking for spelling etc and I just noticed that about less office staff and employees... um, might I mention the unemployment office again?

Medical Students

Medical students would graduate with significantly less medical debt, if the single-payer plan mimicked the Canadian system. Many students cite debt (currently averaging around $90,000) as a reason they do not enter the field they truly want to enter.

Oh great, now the government will be telling the Universities what they can charge for medical school too!

Hospitals

Hospitals would all be converted to non-profit status, after a one-time payment to investors (several of the largest for-profit hospital chains have paid billions of dollars to defrauding Medicare recently). Hospital billing would be virtually eliminated. Instead, hospitals would receive an annual lump-sum payment from the single-payer to cover its expenses—a "global budget." A separate budget would cover such expenses as hospital expansion, the purchase of technology, marketing, etc. Hospitals would no longer close because of unpaid bills.

Okay, you told me everything would remain private. Were you lying to me? Because this sounds to me like they become government entities not non-profit organizations.

Businesses

Businesses would see the single-payer system decrease their health costs and remove the burden of administering health insurance for their employees. They would gain the competitive advantage that Canada and other countries have from decreased health costs per worker, and wouldn't need to worry about health care cost increases every year--the single-payer system helps control costs much better than the current system does.

OUCH!!! Son of a *****!!! You know what I see here? Payroll taxes. Someone has to pay for this and it will have to be you and me. You know what? Many employees have 100% of their health insurance paid by employers... think they are going to like having 100% of their health insurance taxes yanked from their pay checks?

edit: You know what else I see here? The single payer system helps control costs much better than the current system does... know what that means? Doctors wages will be controlled by the government too.

Health Insurance Industry

The health insurance industry would be mostly eliminated--only organizations that actually employed doctors (like Kaiser Permanente in California) would be allowed to continue to operate. One single-payer bill would provide one percent of funding for retraining displaced insurance workers during its first few years of implementation.

And now for the real killer! What did I say a couple of posts ago about unemployment for employees of health insurers? There it is, my friend. Everyone of them lose their jobs. We are not just talking about CEO's, CFO's, COO's we are talking about the whole ******* kit and kaboodle!!!

Oh, but get that last sentence!!!!

One single-payer bill would provide one percent of funding for retraining displaced insurance workers during its first few years of implementation.

One of the bills provides for this? WHAT ABOUT THE OTHERS!!!

Next page please:

[ame=http://www.grahamazon.com/sp/how3.php]How Would It Work | Single-Payer: Answers and Facts about Health Care for All[/ame]

Okay. You got me. I lied. Please forgive me. Most blueprints suggest that the US would have regional payers--so, maybe a Western, Mountain, South, Midwest, South, and Northeast payer. Each would be responsible for a certain number of states, and each would still work with the others, so that if you live in California and take a trip to Atlanta, you're still covered. These payers would handle their states' paperwork and payments, and would get their money from the federal government, who would collect all the money to begin with.

Wholly shit! Didn't you say this wasn't government run? Here let me spell it out for you:

These payers would handle their states' paperwork and payments, and would get their money from the federal government, who would collect all the money to begin with.

My God... that could not be any clearer, could it?

Next page:

[ame=http://www.grahamazon.com/sp/financing.php]Single-Payer Financing | Single-Payer: Answers and Facts about Health Care for All[/ame]

Luckily there's already plenty of money in the health care system. The US spends double what most other countries spend on health care, and Americans still have shorter lifespans, and 45 million people still go uninsured every year. Many financing schemes exist. Hundreds of billions of dollars could potentially be saved in administrative costs, which would far exceed the amount needed to insure everyone in the United States. Put most simply, the money that businesses currently pay for health care would go to the single-payer; this would make up most of the money needed.

Uh Oh, I was wrong, this guy doesn't plan on paying for this with payroll taxes. He is proposing additional taxes on business my guess is he is including small businesses that can't afford it in the first place although he doesn't say that.

Uh Oh, wait a minute there is that nice little catch phrase there:

this would make up most of the money needed.

If you ask me, that is pretty scarrrrryyyyyyyyy!!! Where is the rest of it going to come from? Payroll Taxes? Are we going to start with a 1% payroll tax like we did with Social Security and now we are at 6.2% and probably going to increase again in the future?

Okay next page:

Cost/Financing/Funding

Won't this bankrupt us?
Health care coverage is already subsidized heavily by federal, state, and local taxes. In fact, fully 64% of health care spending is already from taxes. Employers would pay a small payroll tax, but this tax would be instead of paying health care premiums like most employers pay now. Most employers that currently offer health insurance would actually save money. Small businesses will no longer be at a disadvantage in obtaining good health coverage for their employees and thus competing for the best employees.

Okay for the record, I won't link the page about the author, but he said he is a Medical Student. I highly doubt he has (or had at the time he wrote this) any business experience. Yet he is preaching that business will save money. First, I don't buy that at all. Politicians will tell you that... they rarely come through with those kinds of promises.

edit: Do you realize that not all employees take health insurance benefits even when offered? Some have spouse or parents who cover them, some simply can't afford the amount they would have to have deducted from their pay checks so chose not to. That being said, businesses don't have to cover 100% of their employees coverage now and they don't have to cover 100% of their employees, but under this system they will have to pay for every employee. I like his "most employers that currently offer health insurance will pay less". That is an unsubstantiated claim. They will have to cover 100% of their employees AND their families even those who would not have taken coverage because their spouse covers them. Then we have those employers who simply can't afford to offer any benefits at all. Tough shit for them right?

And what about those employers that don't and can't cover their employees health insurance? Touch F'ing shit for them, right?

For the record, a lot of business have been dropping or severely reducing their health care coverage because they can't afford it now. But, come the single payer system... tough shit.

Hehe, look at that page, there is a section entitled "free market" here is the full quote from that section:

Free Market


back to top

That is it. It is blank. Is that because the "free market" is dead under this system? Hell yes it is.

Government Control/Socialized Medicine

A national health service would have the efficiency of the Post Office, the bureaucracy of the IRS, and the compassion of the Army. You really want that?
Governments do some things better than others--so do corporations. Medicare is the most efficient health care system in the US, with administration costs about 20% of the average HMO's administration costs. And if you think there's no such thing as corporate bureaucracy, you've probably never had a problem with your HMO. Ask anyone who has. Any system is going to have some red tape. But it's a matter of having *one* system of red tape, or 50 different ones. And government's not all bad. Government has provided us with public libraries, the GI Bill, Social Security, police and fire protection, the Do-Not-Call list, emergency services, national parks... there's bad, sure, but that doesn't mean you can just ignore the good.

Oh boy!!! Am I going to have fun with this section!!!!

First I do agree, the government got the "Do-Not-Call list" thing right. Was that under Bush or Clinton? I can't remember.

This guy is a liberal government flunky if I have ever seen one.

Medicare the most efficient system in the US. I suppose it has some pluses, but I can't think of any. I do know that there is suppose to be a hell of a lot of Medicare fraud out there committed by physicians because they don't get paid what they think they should be getting paid. So, you are proposing to increase this problem?

Red tape? He has a point there... except that under this system, if the government tells you no, then you don't have any choice at all... you are simply SCREWED.

Physician Income

Wouldn't physicians make much less money in this system?
Most physicians would make less gross money, but the same net amount. Because the system would have much simpler billing (there's only one form to fill out), physicians would have much smaller costs, too. Canadian physicians make similar amounts to what US physicians make; specialists generally make less, but medical school is much less expensive and debt-ridden in Canada than it is in the US. Physician income is also much more stable in Canada, where the government is required to pay physicians within 30 days of the bill, or interest is charged to the government. (And surprisingly, when Saskatchewan, the first province to enact national health insurance act in Canada, started its program in 1963, physician incomes increased by 35% the next year.)
back to top

We're back to the idea of physicians being employees of the federal government... maybe not legally, but certainly effectively they will be employees of the federal government. Some may like that, some may not. Working for the federal government has some great benefits... but, since they are not actually employees of the federal government per se, they probably won't get those benefits. They will simply have to take what ever the government wants to give to them. I wonder if they will be allowed to form a union like say the Air Traffic Controllers?

I'm sorry, I simply don't trust the government to compensate them fairly especially when the shit hits the fan in regards to the National Debt.

Here is once again the last three sections of the page all blank:

Taxes


back to top
Technology


back to top
The Uninsured

I wonder does he want to tell us there will be no taxes? I doubt it... wait, he already said employers would pay MOST of the costs... most means not all... that means someone else is going to have to pick up the rest of the costs. You don't think it will be the political parties themselves do you? No, of course not, that is right you and I will pay for it.

Technology? Blank? Why? Truthfully, I don't think advances in technology is going to stop completely. But, I do wonder what the net effect will be and how will corporations that develop such technology be compensated for their R & D? Gotta wonder about that.

The Uninsured also blank.

There is one very good thing about a Single Payer Health Care System. That is that it is universal... (hmm, should I comment on that or not, no, I will refrain) There will not be any uninsured any longer. That is a good thing. I never said it was entirely bad. There are some good things that could come out of a Single Payer Universal Health Care System. Personally, besides the fact that there would no longer be any un (or under) insured people, I like the ease of not being billed for services and simply going to the doctor when I need to... um, as long as the right wing fear mongering about long waits for services in Canada are nothing more than fear mongering.

I'm sure you are wondering what happened to me... this link you provided was JUST TO ******* GOOD TO PASS UP.

Thank you so much for your assistance. I'm not sure I would have discovered this gift without your help.

Immie

PS I owe you a case of beer my friend... um, bullshit, I owe you a full three course meal at your favorite (and most expensive) restaurant with the lovely lady of your choice AND a case of beer. Too bad, I'm unemployed at the moment thanks to the economy. CAIO

PPS I suspect you have given up waiting for my reply. I'll make sure you see this next time you come online... Hell, I'm going to post this on its own thread later today. Your help was damned near priceless.

 

[Immanuel]

You care alright! If you really didn't care you wouldn't have replied.

Wrong,

But, you know what I do care about?

I care about having the discussion about single payer health care.

I have my beliefs about the system which I have presented here. I don't expect you or anyone else to agree with me. That should be why we have these discussions. That should be why we are here.

Immie

No you don't! You don't care that there is a difference between "single payer" and "nationalized health care." You just want to pontificate that they are the same so you can rationalize your hate for Obama. You fool no one.

Oh bull shit, Michael!!!

I ******* pontificated in post #166 which came after this quote... I would not have missed that for the world.

I can't thank you enough.

You proved it with your own link... Single payer is Nationalized Health Care. Your own link says it and I could not have said it better myself!

Oh, by the way, I don't hate Obama. Had I been willing to vote for a major party candidate, I WOULD have voted for Obama. I hate McCain! He is nothing but a political scumbag if you ask me. However, by the time the elections came around in '08 I distrusted both major parties and chose to vote third party.

When Senator Obama threw his hat in the ring, my first thought was, "now there is a man I can vote for". I actually like the man. I hated Clinton when he was elected. By the time he left, I kind of liked the man... he didn't do what I thought(strike that, knew) he was going do. I was certain he would legalize abortion on demand. He didn't and I respected him afterwards.

President Bush was the complete opposite. I practically worshiped him when he entered the office. Then we had the Halliburton No-Bid contracts. Now, I realize every President gives no-bid contracts, but do they give them to the former employer of their VP? Talk about a conflict of interest! Followed by The Patriot Act. As far as I know I am the ONLY conservative that raised a flack on the site I posted on in regards to the Patriot Act. I despised it. I kept saying what is going to happen when Hillary becomes President? That was followed by the NSA Wiretapping Scandal or was the Torture of accused (Not convicted, but accused) terrorists next? I was opposed to both of those instances. They were both very wrong in my book. As for the War on Terrorism/Iraq, I was with the President up until the point that Saddam Hussein was captured. At that point, I felt that we should get out militarily and only offer governmental support and military support should "issues" arise. We have the capability to get into the country from outside bases in a matter of minutes. Our presence there has only made things worse. Anyway, by the time he left office, I personally could not and can not name another President that I think did a worse job then he did... no, not even Jimmy Carter.

President Obama? I admit I don't like the idea of government control of the health insurance industry. Sorry, that is a fact. I don't like the free for all spending of the stimulus package, but I suspect that it was necessary. I didn't like the bail out of the financial industry... that was Bush, I think but the auto industry was Obama. I believe in the free market. I think this nation would have survived if a bank or two were gobbled up by other banks and the auto industry as well. I simply am not for nationalization of private industry. Simply put, I don't think politicians run this country well enough and they should not be allowed to run corporations either.

I fully expect that when President Obama's term comes to an end, I will have to admit that like both Clinton and Bush, I was wrong about the man, but that time is at least 2.75 years away. I know you don't believe that, but I just admitted to having been wrong about both Clinton and Bush. I have no problem doing the same with Obama.

Until that time, I am going to fight nationalization of any industry. Not because I hate Obama, but because I don't like Congress and I don't want them dictating against Capitalism.

Immie

 

[edthecynic]

Sorry, All I have seen from you is whiny assed shit.

No, I did not read it. Prior to that you didn't have the balls to actually defend your whiny ass and quite frankly, I doubt you have grown any in the last ten minutes.

If you don't have the ******* balls to come out and defend your position, I'm not going to waste my time reading your whining posts.

Immie

Like I said, you read it, you have no rebuttal, and you can do nothing but pontificate without any source, even though I gave another source for the explanation of single payer.

Single-Payer Republican - Conservative Approach

Thank you! You proved my point with your link as partisan as it is. That "single payer" that is described in the animation is the ******* government.. That is exactly what we have been talking about and that is exactly the problem with this system. It is government run. That is the entire problem.

The government collects via taxes our money and then distributes it to private medical providers. In the meantime they eliminate the private health insurers. Do you have any idea what that will do to unemployment?

Blah, Blah Blah...

However, I will commend you for this fact, you did finally attempt to defend your position, that was in fact, all I asked you to do. At least you did finally grow enough balls to actually try to make a case.

Immie

Well there you go again, after admitting that private medical providers will supply the health care, you then pontificate that they will eliminate the private providers. No proof, just LimpTard's opinion parroted by you and that settles it.

I'm STILL waiting for you to grow a pair and support LimpTard's opinions with some facts.
I won't hold my breath.

 

[edthecynic]

How Would It Work | Single-Payer: Answers and Facts about Health Care for All

Patients

Patients would have access to all medically necessary care, including doctor visits, hospital care, prescriptions, mental health services, nursing home care, rehab, home care, eye care and dental care. (Sorry, "medically-necessary" doesn't cover cosmetic surgery or botox injections.) Patients would have their complete choice of doctors, cheaper prescription drugs, and no bills for health care.

Again, as the site makes very clear, the single PAYER is NOT the PROVIDER of health care services no matter how much you pontificate otherwise. Health CARE is NOT nationalized.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A single payer system is not socialism. A single payer is not nationalization. A single payer is a cooperative run by the electorate to more fairly negotiate with the private health insurance industry for a pricing system that will not break the piggy bank yet more than adequately permit private companies to make a good profit.

 

[editec]

Sorry, All I have seen from you is whiny assed shit.

No, I did not read it. Prior to that you didn't have the balls to actually defend your whiny ass and quite frankly, I doubt you have grown any in the last ten minutes.

If you don't have the ******* balls to come out and defend your position, I'm not going to waste my time reading your whining posts.

Immie

Like I said, you read it, you have no rebuttal, and you can do nothing but pontificate without any source, even though I gave another source for the explanation of single payer.

Single-Payer Republican - Conservative Approach

Thank you! You proved my point with your link as partisan as it is. That "single payer" that is described in the animation is the ******* government.. That is exactly what we have been talking about and that is exactly the problem with this system. It is government run. That is the entire problem.

The government collects via taxes our money and then distributes it to private medical providers. In the meantime they eliminate the private health insurers. Do you have any idea what that will do to unemployment?

Another problem is that this means that the government gets to determine how much they will pay medical providers as well as how much they will charge us for the "privilege" of them being the ******* middle man. Only problem is that we don't have any ******* recourse in regards to how much the government taxes us.

The fact that the site claims to be "republicansforsinglepayer.org" doesn't mean they ARE Republican and neither does it mean that they are not extremely left wing. Nor does it mean that I respect them, because I don't respect Republicans anymore than I respect Democrats.

Single Payer is government run! Period! Single Payer is the Obama Administration attempting to force the next Social Security fiasco on us.

Maybe you should have listened to your own link before you gave it to me, because it proved my point.

However, I will commend you for this fact, you did finally attempt to defend your position, that was in fact, all I asked you to do. At least you did finally grow enough balls to actually try to make a case.

Immie

Single payer HC run by the FEDS is definitely HALF socialized.

The PAYEE is socialism.

The payed-TO part of that system is definitely CAPITALISM, however.

That is why, I say that system won't solve the problem, either, FYI.

Because unless the government forces the private HC providers to accept LESS THAN THEY DEMAND, the ultimate outcome of single payer is MORE EXPENSIVE health care costs, not less expensive.

Think about it.

Single payer universal HC increases DEMAND, but does nothing to contain costs OR to increase supply.

It's a formula for disaster.

Of course what we have now, is ALSO a formula for disaster.

 

[JakeStarkey]

editec, you have it backwards. If the school districts of Texas all permitted the state government to negotiate and pay for health insurance for the systems' employees, the cost to the state and the employees would drop like a rock.

 

[editec]

editec, you have it backwards. If the school districts of Texas all permitted the state government to negotiate and pay for health insurance for the systems' employees, the cost to the state and the employees would drop like a rock.

Certainly there are still efficiences in scale that one can create locally even with the system as it current stands.

But I was talking about what happens if we impose national single payer universal HC without also imposing cost controls.

You do realize, don't you, that in the 1950s TEXAS teachers created Blue Cross, right?

They were the most progressive organization in the USA when it comes to dealing with the HC insurance issue.

Then when they started doing well, the for profit LIFE insurance companies started cherry picking their client base, thus destorying the universiality of the group they once insured.

A damed shame that was, too.

Theirs could have been the model for a universal HC system that might have worked for the entire nation.

In that case market forces definitely worked to create what has became this tragedy of the commons we have for a HC system.

Seriously, Blue cross was a concept that was 60 year ahead of its time.

 

[JakeStarkey]

editec, you have it backwards. If the school districts of Texas all permitted the state government to negotiate and pay for health insurance for the systems' employees, the cost to the state and the employees would drop like a rock.

Certainly there are still efficiences in scale that one can create locally even with the system as it current stands.

But I was talking about what happens if we impose national single payer universal HC without also imposing cost controls.

You do realize, don't you, that in the 1950s TEXAS teachers created Blue Cross, right?

They were the most progressive organization in the USA when it comes to dealing with the HC insurance issue.

Then when they started doing well, the for profit LIFE insurance companies started cherry picking their client base, thus destorying the universiality of the group they once insured.

A damed shame that was, too.

Theirs could have been the model for a universal HC system that might have worked for the entire nation.

In that case market forces definitely worked to create what has became this tragedy of the commons we have for a HC system.

Seriously, Blue cross was a concept that was 60 year ahead of its time.

The system will work fine if all are included in the system, then the companies have to compete against each other then try to corrupt individual private groups and individuals.

The only argument, really, is from the insurance industry , which wants to continue making obscene profits by not insuring the ill. Force them to compete against each other will drop costs, improve service, and still allow the industry to make a decent living.

 

[Immanuel]

How Would It Work | Single-Payer: Answers and Facts about Health Care for All

Patients

Patients would have access to all medically necessary care, including doctor visits, hospital care, prescriptions, mental health services, nursing home care, rehab, home care, eye care and dental care. (Sorry, "medically-necessary" doesn't cover cosmetic surgery or botox injections.) Patients would have their complete choice of doctors, cheaper prescription drugs, and no bills for health care.

Again, as the site makes very clear, the single PAYER is NOT the PROVIDER of health care services no matter how much you pontificate otherwise. Health CARE is NOT nationalized.

No one ever said that the single payer was the provider of medical care. I believe you are changing your words around as I don't believe you have ever made that distinction in our discussions before and I am also certain that you know and knew what we have been discussing all along. Suddenly you are throwing "provider" in there when you know as well as I do, that we have been discussing the Health Insurance Industry for over a year. For over a year, this debate has not been about the providers of medical services (the doctors, nurses etc.) but rather health insurance. The government defined "Health Care" as "Health Insurance" in their own bill.

Another thing I believe is that I fell for your trap. You have been trying to make that point all along. You knew what I was saying and you have been trying to get me to see that there was a difference between, "medical care" and "health insurance". That was why you gave me a link that clearly stated my position and debunked the one that I thought you were making.

Well, I have always known that and I have always been discussing this system as reform of the Health Insurance Industry. Health Care Reform as passed by Congress and signed by the President has very little to do with medical care in this country. It deals with paying for it via health insurance.

There is not one thing in my comments that would lead anyone at all to the belief that the single payer is the health (aka medical) care provider. Just as Health Care Reform is not about reforming the Medical Provider Industry but rather the Health Insurance Industry, the Single Payer system is NATIONALIZED HEALTH INSURANCE. That is what I have said all along.

And that is exactly what the link you provided says.

The Single Payer system is Nationalized Health Insurance; here, in Canada, in the UK, everywhere. It is the elimination of thousands upon thousands of jobs in the US in health insurance aka health care industry.

It is the consolidation of all of our health insurance under the big tent of the Federal Government and that is exactly the problem. As I said, there are some good things that would come from it, but there are some very bad things as well... uncontrollable taxes is just one of those.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

A single payer system is not socialism. A single payer is not nationalization. A single payer is a cooperative run by the electorate to more fairly negotiate with the private health insurance industry for a pricing system that will not break the piggy bank yet more than adequately permit private companies to make a good profit.

You are wrong.

Read the link provided by Edthecynic. It even very clearly states that Private Health Insurance WILL be eliminated.

From the link:

Health Insurance Industry

The health insurance industry would be mostly eliminated--only organizations that actually employed doctors (like Kaiser Permanente in California) would be allowed to continue to operate. One single-payer bill would provide one percent of funding for retraining displaced insurance workers during its first few years of implementation.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Like I said, you read it, you have no rebuttal, and you can do nothing but pontificate without any source, even though I gave another source for the explanation of single payer.

Single-Payer Republican - Conservative Approach

Thank you! You proved my point with your link as partisan as it is. That "single payer" that is described in the animation is the ******* government.. That is exactly what we have been talking about and that is exactly the problem with this system. It is government run. That is the entire problem.

The government collects via taxes our money and then distributes it to private medical providers. In the meantime they eliminate the private health insurers. Do you have any idea what that will do to unemployment?

Another problem is that this means that the government gets to determine how much they will pay medical providers as well as how much they will charge us for the "privilege" of them being the ******* middle man. Only problem is that we don't have any ******* recourse in regards to how much the government taxes us.

The fact that the site claims to be "republicansforsinglepayer.org" doesn't mean they ARE Republican and neither does it mean that they are not extremely left wing. Nor does it mean that I respect them, because I don't respect Republicans anymore than I respect Democrats.

Single Payer is government run! Period! Single Payer is the Obama Administration attempting to force the next Social Security fiasco on us.

Maybe you should have listened to your own link before you gave it to me, because it proved my point.

However, I will commend you for this fact, you did finally attempt to defend your position, that was in fact, all I asked you to do. At least you did finally grow enough balls to actually try to make a case.

Immie

Single payer HC run by the FEDS is definitely HALF socialized.

The PAYEE is socialism.

The payed-TO part of that system is definitely CAPITALISM, however.

That is why, I say that system won't solve the problem, either, FYI.

Because unless the government forces the private HC providers to accept LESS THAN THEY DEMAND, the ultimate outcome of single payer is MORE EXPENSIVE health care costs, not less expensive.

Think about it.

Single payer universal HC increases DEMAND, but does nothing to contain costs OR to increase supply.

It's a formula for disaster.

Of course what we have now, is ALSO a formula for disaster.

Basically doctors will be dictated to. The government may tell them they are "private entities" but when you have no right to set your own fees and rates, make your own personal employment decisions, you are an employee.

It is socialism. It is definitely not Capitalism.

Immie

 

[PatekPhilippe]

editec, you have it backwards. If the school districts of Texas all permitted the state government to negotiate and pay for health insurance for the systems' employees, the cost to the state and the employees would drop like a rock.

and here's where you are forgetting one single thing. Hospital costs, Dr.'s fees and medical equipment costs will all remain the same. How can insurance providers survive in this kind of market? How long will their stock holders put up with minimal returns or even losses on their investments?

They won't. Insurance providers will be forced to go somewhere else or go out of business...then the Government will have to step in and provide single payer healthcare like Medicare.

I don't understand why everyone here is under the impression that all of a sudden because insurance companies are receiving less money in the form of premiums that all of a sudden the entire supply chain, employee salaries and medical fees will drop. This kind of thinking is quite naive and in fact will cause a massive explosion in government debt. All one has to do is look at the Canadian model and the UK model to see what single payer has done to their deficits and national debts. The same will happen here.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are both wrong, flatly.

 

[Immanuel]

You are both wrong, flatly.

I've presented my case with a link to back me up. And although, it is not from a source of authority, it is a from a source that presents the case as I see it. I may be wrong as you say.

You've presented your case with nothing but opinion.

I'd love to see your case supported by something more than opinion.

Immie