How To Achieve Single Payer Health Care

[dblack]

That's the ticket

Let people pay for their own healthcare without the gummit or their employers' help.

That's the most important thing to change to get us back to sanity regarding health care.

Yeah. That works everywhere its used. Great plan.

Yep. But the problem is, if people think they can get out of paying for it, they'll be all over it. As long as we have smarmy politicians willing to promise something for nothing, we'll have idiots falling for it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That's the ticket

Let people pay for their own healthcare without the gummit or their employers' help.

That's the most important thing to change to get us back to sanity regarding health care.

Yeah. That works everywhere its used. Great plan.

Don't think we don't all know that you define "doesn't work" as "isn't the way I want it to be", which I can assure you is not a standard ANYONE here is measuring by.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Did it ever occur to the OP that juuuuust maybe if we eliminated all these freeloading Welfare, cheating, stealing Democrat/Socialist laws then maybe we wouldn't have such a health care mess on our hands?
.
.

Dude, he started this thread assuming that single-payer healthcare is something we WANT to "achieve", so I'm gonna say a lot of things haven't occurred to him.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That's the ticket

Let people pay for their own healthcare without the gummit or their employers' help.

That's the most important thing to change to get us back to sanity regarding health care.

Yeah. That works everywhere its used. Great plan.

chickens. We can barter with chickens. Africa here we come.

Yeah man. And unskilled people have no right to get cancer anyway. That shit is for rich folk!

If you two lovebirds are going to sit around stroking each other because it's the only way you can make statements without being mocked and out-debated, maybe you should take it somewhere private.

 

[dblack]

Did it ever occur to the OP that juuuuust maybe if we eliminated all these freeloading Welfare, cheating, stealing Democrat/Socialist laws then maybe we wouldn't have such a health care mess on our hands?
.
.

Dude, he started this thread assuming that single-payer healthcare is something we WANT to "achieve", so I'm gonna say a lot of things haven't occurred to him.

Did either of you read the OP?

 

[bendog]

That's the ticket

Let people pay for their own healthcare without the gummit or their employers' help.

That's the most important thing to change to get us back to sanity regarding health care.

Yeah. That works everywhere its used. Great plan.

chickens. We can barter with chickens. Africa here we come.

Yeah man. And unskilled people have no right to get cancer anyway. That shit is for rich folk!

Let em die in the gutter, it's God's will and the gop way.

 

[bendog]

That's the ticket

Let people pay for their own healthcare without the gummit or their employers' help.

That's the most important thing to change to get us back to sanity regarding health care.

Yeah. That works everywhere its used. Great plan.

chickens. We can barter with chickens. Africa here we come.

Yeah man. And unskilled people have no right to get cancer anyway. That shit is for rich folk!

If you two lovebirds are going to sit around stroking each other because it's the only way you can make statements without being mocked and out-debated, maybe you should take it somewhere private.

Clown, you have no interest in actually solving the access to HC issue. You and your "ilk" have ceded all responsibility to the progressives. You are joke and I will treat you as such.

 

[dblack]

Clown, you have no interest in actually solving the access to HC issue. You and your "ilk" have ceded all responsibility to the progressives. You are joke and I will treat you as such.

What exactly is the "access to HC issue"? Can we dispense with the euphemisms and speak clearly about what problem we're trying to solve?

 

[Cecilie1200]

That's the most important thing to change to get us back to sanity regarding health care.

Yeah. That works everywhere its used. Great plan.

chickens. We can barter with chickens. Africa here we come.

Yeah man. And unskilled people have no right to get cancer anyway. That shit is for rich folk!

If you two lovebirds are going to sit around stroking each other because it's the only way you can make statements without being mocked and out-debated, maybe you should take it somewhere private.

Clown, you have no interest in actually solving the access to HC issue. You and your "ilk" have ceded all responsibility to the progressives. You are joke and I will treat you as such.

If this is your idea of a mind-reading act, don't quit your day job.

And don't try to talk to me about what I do and don't care about, ass napkin. When I want to hear from you about your worldview asserted as reality - or when I want to hear from you at all - I'll wave a Snausage over your nose.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Clown, you have no interest in actually solving the access to HC issue. You and your "ilk" have ceded all responsibility to the progressives. You are joke and I will treat you as such.

What exactly is the "access to HC issue"? Can we dispense with the euphemisms and speak clearly about what problem we're trying to solve?

Sure. He's talking about the government giving everyone everything they want, without them having to lift their lazy asses off the couch to do anything for it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Clown, you have no interest in actually solving the access to HC issue. You and your "ilk" have ceded all responsibility to the progressives. You are joke and I will treat you as such.

What exactly is the "access to HC issue"? Can we dispense with the euphemisms and speak clearly about what problem we're trying to solve?

Sure. He's talking about the government giving everyone everything they want, without them having to lift their lazy asses off the couch to do anything for it.

OK, so you didn't read it. He's clearly advocating for a free market solution. Maybe the headline fooled you.

Yeah, I was talking here about Bendog, not the OP.

 

[dblack]

Clown, you have no interest in actually solving the access to HC issue. You and your "ilk" have ceded all responsibility to the progressives. You are joke and I will treat you as such.

What exactly is the "access to HC issue"? Can we dispense with the euphemisms and speak clearly about what problem we're trying to solve?

Sure. He's talking about the government giving everyone everything they want, without them having to lift their lazy asses off the couch to do anything for it.

OK, so you didn't read it. He's clearly advocating for a free market solution. Maybe the headline fooled you.

Yeah, I was talking here about Bendog, not the OP.

Jeez.. I can't read. Sorry.

 

[bendog]

Clown, you have no interest in actually solving the access to HC issue. You and your "ilk" have ceded all responsibility to the progressives. You are joke and I will treat you as such.

What exactly is the "access to HC issue"? Can we dispense with the euphemisms and speak clearly about what problem we're trying to solve?

You seriously are trying to ask that in regards to Obamacare. I think you are more or less an ideologue on the issue of HC, although not unpleasant. If you seriouslty thing HC is all hunky doorey, then fine. But the fact is that the system of employer sponsored HC broke down with globalism and shrinking profit margins. If your replacement is that workers should just pay out of pocket, with declining wages, then you are the best friend of those who prefer sphc

 

[dblack]

What exactly is the "access to HC issue"? Can we dispense with the euphemisms and speak clearly about what problem we're trying to solve?

You seriously are trying to ask that in regards to Obamacare. I think you are more or less an ideologue on the issue of HC, although not unpleasant. If you seriouslty thing HC is all hunky doorey, then fine. But the fact is that the system of employer sponsored HC broke down with globalism and shrinking profit margins. If your replacement is that workers should just pay out of pocket, with declining wages, then you are the best friend of those who prefer sphc

Yeah, I'm serious. There's no point in discussing a solution to a problem if we don't have a common understanding of what the problem is. It's not a trick question.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Clown, you have no interest in actually solving the access to HC issue. You and your "ilk" have ceded all responsibility to the progressives. You are joke and I will treat you as such.

What exactly is the "access to HC issue"? Can we dispense with the euphemisms and speak clearly about what problem we're trying to solve?

Sure. He's talking about the government giving everyone everything they want, without them having to lift their lazy asses off the couch to do anything for it.

OK, so you didn't read it. He's clearly advocating for a free market solution. Maybe the headline fooled you.

Yeah, I was talking here about Bendog, not the OP.

Jeez.. I can't read. Sorry.

S'okay. I'm doing this in between stuff at work myself, so I'm not always the most focused poster on the board.

 

[Doc1]

Clown, you have no interest in actually solving the access to HC issue. You and your "ilk" have ceded all responsibility to the progressives. You are joke and I will treat you as such.

What exactly is the "access to HC issue"? Can we dispense with the euphemisms and speak clearly about what problem we're trying to solve?

You seriously are trying to ask that in regards to Obamacare. I think you are more or less an ideologue on the issue of HC, although not unpleasant. If you seriouslty thing HC is all hunky doorey, then fine. But the fact is that the system of employer sponsored HC broke down with globalism and shrinking profit margins. If your replacement is that workers should just pay out of pocket, with declining wages, then you are the best friend of those who prefer sphc

Just be patient, the ACA is doing it's job. The system is collapsing and Single Payer will be here soon.

 

[healthmyths]

Clown, you have no interest in actually solving the access to HC issue. You and your "ilk" have ceded all responsibility to the progressives. You are joke and I will treat you as such.

What exactly is the "access to HC issue"? Can we dispense with the euphemisms and speak clearly about what problem we're trying to solve?

The "problem" is what? "Health care crisis"? There never was until Obama's desire for single payer came into abbreviated reality with ACA.

Let's put some stakes in the ground...(or on the grill for those of us non-snowflakes!)
A) Costs is that the issue? Costs to whom? Ultimately the consumer but before ACA the private market i.e. non-group was doing ok. "Pre-existing conditions" were being managed
by states and group insurance covered that. BUT as insurance actuaries will attest... eliminating "pre-existing conditions" exclusions has been a real show stopper.
One of Obama’s big selling points for his healthcare plan was that insurance companies wouldn’t be able to deny coverage to those with preexisting conditions. This sounds great in the public square but doesn’t always work well in reality.

Currently, the government forces insurance companies to cover people but doesn’t offer them assistance when their costs exceed their revenues. If an insurance company doesn’t think it will make money, it will pull out faster than Donald Trump says something ill-advised.
7 Reasons Why Your Insurance Premiums Are Rising Faster Than Your Salary - Life Insurance Post

B) Services provided today versus 40 years ago... There were NO MRIs. No CAT scans. Today daily use and wow the Chinese are going transplant a human head!
Two surgeons in China developing a method to transplant a human head

What does 40 years ago and head transplants and MRIs have in common? COST MONEY!!!

Who ultimately pays for this? We the consumers!

 

[gipper]

. . . and you'll notice, everyone ignored my post, as they always do when I post about the medical health care debacle in this nation.

My sister is a top HR manager for GM. She makes trips to DC to discuss these issues, I talk with her occasionally.

Both the left and the right actually think they are going to get something for nothing, it is a laugh. The rich and the corporations are going to pay less and less over time, which means, in the end, consumers will pay more and more.

There will be no, "solutions." Folks don't want to hear this though, they want to hear that there will be solutions and that their costs will come down, or that they will rise as slow as the rest of other costs. And when they don't? They just want to blame the other party rather than economic realities.

Duh, we have a for profit healthcare system that was engineered that way at the turn of the last century. We specialize in treatments, not cures.

smh. So dumb.

ONE HR mgr at GM and she speaks for ALL HR mgrs and frankly all people?
So why don't we have JUST ONE automaker in the country, i.e. the Federal Government?
Poking fun of companies that make a profit is just ludicrous coming from her as a "top" HR Manager for GM!
Really? Let's take away GM's government assistance ok?
The final direct cost to the Treasury of the GM bailout was $11-12 billion ($10.5 billion for General Motors and $1.5 billion for former GM financing GMAC, now known as Ally)
General Motors Chapter 11 reorganization - Wikipedia
Really?

Nope.

That is not particularly my field of expertise, is it yours?

If you don't like that truth, you are free to find your own. I'm sorry if it bothers you.

If you don't' think one of the major costs that was holding back companies in the US competing with their foreign peers, you are welcome to posit something else.

Why do YOU think the American car companies needed the bailout in the first place? You are sore at them, saying oh, let's take away those car companies government assistance, you can't believe what someone from GM says, b/c that whole company needed a government bailout. . .

Well, DUH?! Why do you think that is?

B/C the foreign car companies it was competing with had all of their employees health care covered by the foreign tax payers, while our banks, tech companies and manufacturers all have to cover the health care of OUR employees, companies overseas don't.

That puts our companies at a significant disadvantage. That is all any half way educated HR person will tell you.

Competitive Disadvantage: Health Care Costs Spell Trouble for U.S. Companies

U.S. Health Care's Competitive Disadvantage

And of course, the ruling elite that make policy for the US. .

Healthcare Costs and U.S. Competitiveness

Yes actually my field of expertise IS health care! Why do you think I provided links and you didn't? I provided the sources of NOT my IDEAS but other experts that depend
on studies, economics, etc. to comprehend the issue.
There are major issues for sure and I've identified one that the actual medical community is trying to telling uneducated people that exists...known as "defensive medicine"!
And the reason 90% of responding physicians per the Jackson Health study showed practice wasteful duplicate spending is fear of lawsuits.

You never addressed that issue which affects both private and group insurance costs...defensive medicine waste.

Why are you ignoring the over $500 to $800 billion a year estimated by these physicians that are wasted due to fear of lawsuits?
You totally ignored the empirical fact that of those doctors responding to the "Defensive medicine" issue less than 50% that WERE FEDERAL physicians said they didn't practice
defensive medicine and the major reason? 1946 Federal Tort Reform Act! 1946!
So if doctors under Federal contract CAN"T be sued, they don't waste money on duplicate tests, etc. which for the vast majority of patients IS a waste!

But you never addressed that!

How can you say lawsuits are wasted, when death by doctor is one of the leading causes of death in the USA? What we need is not only a more cost effective system but one that emphasizes curing the patient, rather than making TRILLIONS of dollars ripping off the patient, and then killing the patient.

Wow what a novel way of solving the problem. Why not arrest all the doctors?
Then what?
Of course you never mentioned the millions of LIVES saved by these same ignorant doctors.
Plus what made up the "outpatient" deaths? What does that mean?
I bet you are a lawyer or have a lawyer as a relative.

Strange how with all the deaths attributed to the ignorant doctors, you forget to recognize that the life span of Americans today is 78
versus when I was born in the 40s it was 60 years.

Please explain why there are more than 72,197 people over 100 year olds today than there were in 1950 only 2,300.

Please explain how with killing off so many people these doctors are keeping people alive longer?
http://www.genealogyintime.com/GenealogyResources/Articles/how_many_people_live_to_100_page1.html

Nice deflection.

Do you deny doctors are responsible for thousands of deaths in America? ...and YOU want doctors protected from legal action. WTF!

 

[LaDexter]

One question...

How did humanity survive without socialized health care run by pompous left wing kleptocrats??

 

[g5000]

One question...

How did humanity survive without socialized health care run by pompous left wing kleptocrats??

Usually by dying before the age of 35.