If Universal Healthcare is a Bad Idea...

[Norman]

The answer is history... The social security scare works many ways. The liberal media is going to attack anyone who even mentions reforming these terrible programs.

How is having seven different systems a good idea? How does that allow for an efficient system? Specifically?

The GOP has no problem with it.
.

We need the freedom to pay for our health care as we see fit, not a 'system'.

Well, as long as you're okay with also paying for people who can't afford it.

Including those who are sicker than they would have been if they had access to preventive and diagnostic services.

Because we definitely all are.
.

Freedom means the freedom to also not pay for those people.

If you're paying premiums, you're paying for them. It's just like what raising the minimum wage would do to prices.
.

The person was talking about hypothetical system...

 

[dblack]

I'm not for true Single Payer. What I'd like to see - and given what's been happening I may end up getting what I want - is to expand the already-functioning Medicare / Medicare Advantage / Medicare Supplement system to all. A blend of public and private, and a massive monkey off the backs of American employers.

So, the "public option"? The problem with that is that it's still insurance. Insurance is a bad idea for poor people. It's a bad idea for anyone as a means of paying for basic expenses. But that's how we're trying to use it. It would be far better to just give them the money. This leaves them in a position to make real value decisions when buying health care. Which will drive innovation and bring prices down.

This actually isn't as much about compassion with me. Yes, I think an advanced civilization should be better than leaving people out of health care access, but this is economic as much as anything else to me. This current system is a ridiculous mess, fraught with insane inefficiencies that I listed.

And this gets to the core of where I part ways with liberals. I quite like the fact that they are compassionate. What bothers me is their zeal for using the state to 'mold' society into something they see as 'better'. I don't want government on a mission to build a better world. I want a government that protects our freedom to build the kind of world we want, in voluntary cooperation, and not via legal mandate.

 

[Mac1958]

I'm not for true Single Payer. What I'd like to see - and given what's been happening I may end up getting what I want - is to expand the already-functioning Medicare / Medicare Advantage / Medicare Supplement system to all. A blend of public and private, and a massive monkey off the backs of American employers.

So, the "public option"? The problem with that is that it's still insurance. Insurance is a bad idea for poor people. It's a bad idea for anyone as a means of paying for basic expenses. But that's how we're trying to use it. It would be far better to just give them the money. This leaves them in a position to make real value decisions when buying health care. Which will drive innovation and bring prices down.

This actually isn't as much about compassion with me. Yes, I think an advanced civilization should be better than leaving people out of health care access, but this is economic as much as anything else to me. This current system is a ridiculous mess, fraught with insane inefficiencies that I listed.

And this gets to the core of where I part ways with liberals. I quite like the fact that they are compassionate. What bothers me is their zeal for using the state to 'mold' society into something they see as 'better'. I don't want government on a mission to build a better world. I want a government that protects our freedom to build the kind of world we want, in voluntary cooperation, and not via legal mandate.

No, this isn't the "public option", it's not another part of the menu among other options. This would be expanding the already-functioning Medicare public/private partnership to all. The Medicare/public portion would be a foundational piece for everyone, and then we'd all have a menu of options from which we could choose made up of a range Medicare Supplements and Medicare Advantage plans offered by private insurance companies.

Yeah, I'm not into the notion of government molding much of anything. What I want is an efficient, effective health care system. I'd bet that what I describe would not only be an improvement, but that we'd also see other countries who are currently struggling with Single Payer do it too.

Go to YouTube and look up Medicare Supplements and Medicare Advantage plans. You might be pleasantly surprised.
.

 

[dblack]

I'm not for true Single Payer. What I'd like to see - and given what's been happening I may end up getting what I want - is to expand the already-functioning Medicare / Medicare Advantage / Medicare Supplement system to all. A blend of public and private, and a massive monkey off the backs of American employers.

So, the "public option"? The problem with that is that it's still insurance. Insurance is a bad idea for poor people. It's a bad idea for anyone as a means of paying for basic expenses. But that's how we're trying to use it. It would be far better to just give them the money. This leaves them in a position to make real value decisions when buying health care. Which will drive innovation and bring prices down.

This actually isn't as much about compassion with me. Yes, I think an advanced civilization should be better than leaving people out of health care access, but this is economic as much as anything else to me. This current system is a ridiculous mess, fraught with insane inefficiencies that I listed.

And this gets to the core of where I part ways with liberals. I quite like the fact that they are compassionate. What bothers me is their zeal for using the state to 'mold' society into something they see as 'better'. I don't want government on a mission to build a better world. I want a government that protects our freedom to build the kind of world we want, in voluntary cooperation, and not via legal mandate.

No, this isn't the "public option", it's not another part of the menu among other options. This would be expanding the already-functioning Medicare public/private partnership to all. The Medicare/public portion would be a foundational piece for everyone, and then we'd all have a menu of options from which we could choose made up of a range Medicare Supplements and Medicare Advantage plans offered by private insurance companies.

Yeah, I'm not into the notion of government molding much of anything. What I want is an efficient, effective health care system. I'd bet that what I describe would not only be an improvement, but that we'd also see other countries who are currently struggling with Single Payer do it too.

You might be right. But what is the justification for forcing your ideal system on others through government?

 

[Mac1958]

I'm not for true Single Payer. What I'd like to see - and given what's been happening I may end up getting what I want - is to expand the already-functioning Medicare / Medicare Advantage / Medicare Supplement system to all. A blend of public and private, and a massive monkey off the backs of American employers.

So, the "public option"? The problem with that is that it's still insurance. Insurance is a bad idea for poor people. It's a bad idea for anyone as a means of paying for basic expenses. But that's how we're trying to use it. It would be far better to just give them the money. This leaves them in a position to make real value decisions when buying health care. Which will drive innovation and bring prices down.

This actually isn't as much about compassion with me. Yes, I think an advanced civilization should be better than leaving people out of health care access, but this is economic as much as anything else to me. This current system is a ridiculous mess, fraught with insane inefficiencies that I listed.

And this gets to the core of where I part ways with liberals. I quite like the fact that they are compassionate. What bothers me is their zeal for using the state to 'mold' society into something they see as 'better'. I don't want government on a mission to build a better world. I want a government that protects our freedom to build the kind of world we want, in voluntary cooperation, and not via legal mandate.

No, this isn't the "public option", it's not another part of the menu among other options. This would be expanding the already-functioning Medicare public/private partnership to all. The Medicare/public portion would be a foundational piece for everyone, and then we'd all have a menu of options from which we could choose made up of a range Medicare Supplements and Medicare Advantage plans offered by private insurance companies.

Yeah, I'm not into the notion of government molding much of anything. What I want is an efficient, effective health care system. I'd bet that what I describe would not only be an improvement, but that we'd also see other countries who are currently struggling with Single Payer do it too.

You might be right. But what is the justification for forcing your ideal system on others through government?

We as a society agree to have various laws, requirements and statutes in place for all of us to maintain an orderly, dynamic, properly-functioning civilization. The question is finding a place of equilibrium with which we can agree those laws are a net positive.

Yes, sure as hell, government and reliance on government can go too far. For example, Single Payer would be going too far in my estimation. And if your argument has to do with the "slippery slope", yeah, I can see that too. What I'm after, on this issue, is the best equilibrium between cost, access, choice and quality -- all within the context of where we are as a culture right now. I think this would give us the best outcome.
.

 

[Markle]

If it is such a bad idea why does it only cost half as much and covers all?

Because it covers all but not all is PAID FOR. We go further into debt.

Also, why do you want inferior care? See Canada and Great Britain.

 

[danielpalos]

But what happens if your neighbor got the stuff in the first place by screwing someone else over?

And here is revealed the whole entire problem with the left.

In your minds, anyone who is successful... doesn't deserve it! They screwed someone over! Nothing else need be considered... if you're well off, you must've fucked someone over. Period!

The REALITY is, most people are well off because they worked their asses off and they deserve everything they have. Two-thirds of all the "Top 1%" ...the most wealthy of the wealthy... came from humble backgrounds. They used a free market capitalist system of free enterprise and voluntary participation to earn their wealth. No one forced anyone to give them their money, they didn't steal the money, they didn't cheat anyone out of their money. They provided a service or product which consumers voluntarily purchased of their own accord.

Socialism HAS to instigate class warfare... it's the ONLY way Socialism can be sold to the masses! You have to convince people that no one can be successful unless they are cheating, stealing, taking advantage of the less fortunate. Your mind is polluted with this propaganda.

The right wing still believes in "fairy tales"?

According to PolitiFact and others, in 2011 the 400 wealthiest Americans "have more wealth than half of all Americans combined."[22][23] Inherited wealth may help explain why many Americans who have become rich may have had a "substantial head start".[24][25] In September 2012, according to the Institute for Policy Studies, "over 60 percent" of the Forbes richest 400 Americans "grew up in substantial privilege".--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States

You're quoting left-wing sources and claiming I am believing a fairy tale? Nope, you are gulping cherry-flavored propaganda.

How self-made are today’s billionaires?

Yet Forbes said that wealth in America has become far more meritocratic over time. It said that in 1984, "less than half of those on The Forbes 400 were self-made; today, 69 percent of the 400 created their own fortunes."​

Anecdotes are not, statistics.

In 2007, the top 20% wealthiest possessed 80% of all financial assets.[19] In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 35% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 51%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. In 2011, financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 43%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[20] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 35% to 37%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 88%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the top 1% and the bottom 99%.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States

 

[Markle]

I think heartless people that think nothing of life or even the quality of life in this nation should be deported to the fucking sun.

They're just nasty mother fuckers.

What country would take all those Progressives?

 

[Markle]

Tax should be fair, to be fair it requires the govt to look into what is fair, it requires all people at a similar level to be paying the same amount. Is that what you wanted to say?

Also, everyone regardless of income should pay something toward the support of the Federal Government. Also, we do away with and withholding of taxes or Social Security. Everyone writes a check for their estimated amount each quarter.

 

[Markle]

Look at Switzerland for example. Their executive is made up of 7 members. Far more sensible.

Wow, Switzerland. A country immensely wealthy and still holding money from the Nazi's stolen from the Jews prior to and during WW II plus all the money on deposit from other countries.

Find something realistic.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'm not for true Single Payer. What I'd like to see - and given what's been happening I may end up getting what I want - is to expand the already-functioning Medicare / Medicare Advantage / Medicare Supplement system to all. A blend of public and private, and a massive monkey off the backs of American employers.

So, the "public option"? The problem with that is that it's still insurance. Insurance is a bad idea for poor people. It's a bad idea for anyone as a means of paying for basic expenses. But that's how we're trying to use it. It would be far better to just give them the money. This leaves them in a position to make real value decisions when buying health care. Which will drive innovation and bring prices down.

This actually isn't as much about compassion with me. Yes, I think an advanced civilization should be better than leaving people out of health care access, but this is economic as much as anything else to me. This current system is a ridiculous mess, fraught with insane inefficiencies that I listed.

And this gets to the core of where I part ways with liberals. I quite like the fact that they are compassionate. What bothers me is their zeal for using the state to 'mold' society into something they see as 'better'. I don't want government on a mission to build a better world. I want a government that protects our freedom to build the kind of world we want, in voluntary cooperation, and not via legal mandate.

No, this isn't the "public option", it's not another part of the menu among other options. This would be expanding the already-functioning Medicare public/private partnership to all. The Medicare/public portion would be a foundational piece for everyone, and then we'd all have a menu of options from which we could choose made up of a range Medicare Supplements and Medicare Advantage plans offered by private insurance companies.

Yeah, I'm not into the notion of government molding much of anything. What I want is an efficient, effective health care system. I'd bet that what I describe would not only be an improvement, but that we'd also see other countries who are currently struggling with Single Payer do it too.

Go to YouTube and look up Medicare Supplements and Medicare Advantage plans. You might be pleasantly surprised.
.

I can agree with you on half of what you said.

I wasn't sure if I would be able to pass my physical last year to continue working thanks to new regulations under DumBama, so I checked into disability. I talked to the SS worker for about ten minutes. She told me if accepted for disability, I would be able to buy into Medicare after two years. The plans were only a couple hundred bucks a month and varied in price depending on what you could afford or want.

I can't see why they don't extend the same offer for people with preexisting conditions. Preexisting conditions seems to be a major sticking point in the process. So let people with preexisting conditions buy a Medicare plan, and that would be plenty affordable for us while at the same time, taking that high-risk pool out of private insurance so they could provide lower rates to everybody else.

After all, the problem with Democrats is they want to create as many government dependents as they can. This is why not a one of them will go along with the repeal of Commie Care. But if they could exchange that Commie Care plan to put people on Medicare, a couple may go along with the idea and everybody would be happy.

 

[Markle]

In other words, social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour.

So what?

 

[Markle]

I'm not for true Single Payer. What I'd like to see - and given what's been happening I may end up getting what I want - is to expand the already-functioning Medicare / Medicare Advantage / Medicare Supplement system to all. A blend of public and private, and a massive monkey off the backs of American employers.

Where will all the money come from? How is Medicare NOT single payer? I use my old HMO with Medicare Advantage, which I love and you pay, but the government pays everyone.

 

[danielpalos]

Tax should be fair, to be fair it requires the govt to look into what is fair, it requires all people at a similar level to be paying the same amount. Is that what you wanted to say?

Also, everyone regardless of income should pay something toward the support of the Federal Government. Also, we do away with and withholding of taxes or Social Security. Everyone writes a check for their estimated amount each quarter.

sure; when you start drafting those who have the most to gain under our form of Capitalism, first.

 

[danielpalos]

In other words, social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour.

So what?

Only lousy capitalists don't view a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, as a rational choice.

 

[danielpalos]

I'm not for true Single Payer. What I'd like to see - and given what's been happening I may end up getting what I want - is to expand the already-functioning Medicare / Medicare Advantage / Medicare Supplement system to all. A blend of public and private, and a massive monkey off the backs of American employers.

Where will all the money come from? How is Medicare NOT single payer? I use my old HMO with Medicare Advantage, which I love and you pay, but the government pays everyone.

lol. Only the right wing asks that question. End the Drug War, right wingers.

 

[Markle]

sure; when you start drafting those who have the most to gain under our form of Capitalism, first.

What are you talking about? We have an all volunteer military which is working out just fine.

 

[Markle]

Only lousy capitalists don't view a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, as a rational choice.

Why should that not be left up to the states?

No supporter of an idiotic $15.00 minimum wage will tell me what the typical income is for a household where one worker earns the minimum wage. Why not?

How many households depend solely on one worker earning minimum wage?

 

[Markle]

I'm not for true Single Payer. What I'd like to see - and given what's been happening I may end up getting what I want - is to expand the already-functioning Medicare / Medicare Advantage / Medicare Supplement system to all. A blend of public and private, and a massive monkey off the backs of American employers.

Where will all the money come from? How is Medicare NOT single payer? I use my old HMO with Medicare Advantage, which I love and you pay, but the government pays everyone.

lol. Only the right wing asks that question. End the Drug War, right wingers.

You failed to answer who is going to pay for everyone to receive Medicare as it stands today. Where does the money come to pay for such coverage?

 

[Mac1958]

I'm not for true Single Payer. What I'd like to see - and given what's been happening I may end up getting what I want - is to expand the already-functioning Medicare / Medicare Advantage / Medicare Supplement system to all. A blend of public and private, and a massive monkey off the backs of American employers.

Where will all the money come from? How is Medicare NOT single payer? I use my old HMO with Medicare Advantage, which I love and you pay, but the government pays everyone.

Medicare Advantage plans are subsidized by the government, but at least you can shop around for an MA plan that best suits you. Medicare Supplement plans are not subsidized by the government, and cover pretty much everything that Medicare does not.

The bottom line at this point, is that I think conservatives would prefer this over true Single Payer and no competition, and right now Single Payer is gaining momentum. I wouldn't want that either.

Paying for it is another story. First, utilization will be MUCH lower for younger people. Something like 80% of our lifetime healthcare costs are incurred over age 65, and they're already covered. Plus we could tweak co-insurance for younger people. If all else fails, there might be another percentage or two in our Medicare tax as well. But remember, employers would no longer be burdened with these costs, and we'd look at them to make increases in pay, for example.

The answers are out there. We just need to get past the politics and start talking.
.