Problems With Socialized Medicine & Government Healthcare

[sangha]

It's a good thing single payer requires neither of those things, not that you care about the truth

Other than the minor detail of it being essentially a monopoly. Those always work out well for the consumer.

I'm not surprised to see you confuse single payer with a monopoly. After all, you're the one who confused deficits with debt.

SP systems have many providers. There's only one payer, but many providers. We'll just add "monopoly" to the List of Things Bern Does Not Understand

 

[sangha]

That's just not true, but we're used to nonsense coming from the right. If a nation tries to build a successful health care system, then by definition, it is a "govt solution" and not a "free market". The fact is, the free market has no interest in providing health care to all of our citizens. The free market only treats those it can make a profit on. A call for free market solutions is nothing more than a call to let poor people die.

The free market is nothing more than an agreement between two parties for service. You're right a free market solution is not going to treat people that can't pay for service. Even a fool like you ought to see why that can't work out very well for those providing the service. So there needs to be some form of government solution that takes care of those that cant help themselves. I don't have a problem with that.

Bern is so dishonest, he can't admit that he has denounced "govt solutions" for health care. Now, he's going to pretend that he likes "govt solutions"

The right assumes, incorrectly, that health care must be a "private business" (The wingnuts also lke to make up terms when they argue)

Of course it doesn't have to be. Private business is simply more efficient at effectively deliverying service than government is. They have a financial incentive to do things as efficiently as possible. Government does not (cause deficits are no big deal). They establish the a true market value for service that is typically lower than government, because government payment of anything is a subsidy which inflates the price of services.

Wingnuts have to believe this is true. There is no force strong enough, and no fact clear enough, to convince the narrow minded wingnuts that govt does some things much better than the private sector does.

For example, even you admit that the govt is best suited for providing care to the poor....except when you deny it, as you just did (ie "Private business is simply more efficient at effectively deliverying service than government is")

The facts clearly show that govt run Single Payer systems provide better care than the private market can, and they do so at a lower cost.

And only selfish libs think they are entitled to life saving treatment, but the person who provided it is not entitled to be compensated for it.

Since you're happy to lie about what you think, it's not surprising to see you lie about what others think.

Let's see what we have here. A statement saying I put words in your mouth, preceded by a statement putting words in my mouth. You may now add hypocrite to your many distinctions.

Clarify it for me then. What should the avg. life saving trip to the emergency cost you?

So after telling us what "libs" thinks, you think you have any credibility to complain about others putting words in your mouth?

Again lower cost TO THE CONSUMER. Since the consumers don't want to pay with the service providers are demanding the difference is subsidized by the government and the government is finding out in nations like France it doesn't have the money to cover the difference, which is why they are having to cut back on the oh so wonderful benefits your utopia single payer system provides.

bern can't help but repeat his lie, so I'll repeat the truth:

The French health care system has LOWER COSTS FOR EVERYONE and provides better quality health care

And yet, despite your "persuasive" argument, you can't identify one nation with a single payer system that has seen its cost rise faster than costs have risen in the US. For all your blather about how a single payer increases costs, every single nation with a single payer plan pays less for health care than the US.

Because whether a system is public or private is of course the only variable that determines the cost of services.

bern can't defend his argument. he can only repeat it. I wonder if he realizes how stupid he sounds when he argues that one variable (ie public or private) determines the cost of services.

If you were interested in the truth, you would see that those nations with a single payer solution have fewer problems and provide better care at a lower cost for ALL their citizens. Since you're not interested in the truth, you will continue to insist that Frances' health care system cost more than the US' and that single payer systems cost more than what we have now in the US (ie the most expensive health care system in the history of the world)

Of course that's what you think.

No, that is what I know. That's why I can name examples and it's why you can't.

You think that because being a typical liberal you of course will assume no responsibility for your role in the problem. The individuals role in the problem where this nation is concerned is that most of us are not very healthy. Not because of our health care system, but because of the health choices we make. You're being truly naive if you don't think that plays a role in how much our nation spens on health care. It's also another reason why it probably isn't a great idea to absolve people of even more responsibility for taking care of themselves.

I have never insisted that France's health care system costs more than hours. All I have maintained is that they are having difficulty sustaining a level of service with their model. A model you believe to be the cure all to our health care issues. Health care costs are not rising in just the U.S. They're rising for everyone, including France.

The French system provides better care at a lower cost. You support paying more for less. You are so deluded, you think we can only afford health care by using the most expensive system in the world.

 

[Bern80]

It's a good thing single payer requires neither of those things, not that you care about the truth

Other than the minor detail of it being essentially a monopoly. Those always work out well for the consumer.

I'm not surprised to see you confuse single payer with a monopoly. After all, you're the one who confused deficits with debt.

SP systems have many providers. There's only one payer, but many providers. We'll just add "monopoly" to the List of Things Bern Does Not Understand

Well what would a monopoy of the insurance industry be? It would be just one health insurance company that was the only provider of plans. Thus they would be the only payer of services. They would be the SINGLE payer, smart guy. The only difference between that monoply and a single payer system is instead the single payer is government. So yes you idiot it is a monopoly. Of course there are still many providers of services under SP. there are still all kinds of hospitals. Under SP the only 'insurance company' that pays those providers is government. THAT is a monopoly on health care coverage, idiot.

 

[Bern80]

Bern is so dishonest, he can't admit that he has denounced "govt solutions" for health care. Now, he's going to pretend that he likes "govt solutions"

I don't really see what the point would be in me lieing about what I believe. I know you like to repeat that a lot, but it's a nonsensical argument. My belief is pretty simple. The government should play a role in health care for the purpose of helping those that can not help themselves. That is a legitimate role of government in any society. Where health care is concerned that goal does NOT require that government take over the entire industry, be the single payer, or make everyone buy health insurance. What other UHC countries have shown is is that they simply can't afford to do that. They let the citizens pay what they think is fair. The providers tell government what their services cost and low and behold government can't afford it.

Wingnuts have to believe this is true. There is no force strong enough, and no fact clear enough, to convince the narrow minded wingnuts that govt does some things much better than the private sector does.

Then go have debate with the wingnuts. I have never contended that there aren't some things government should and does do a better job of providing. Providing services to people that can't pay for them would be one of them.

The facts clearly show that govt run Single Payer systems provide better care than the private market can, and they do so at a lower cost.

No the facts don't show that. Private health insurance is not the only free market means of paying for healthcare there is. There are many other models that simply have not been tried, thus you are in no position to state that the free market is incapable of doing a better job than government.

bern can't help but repeat his lie, so I'll repeat the truth:

The French health care system has LOWER COSTS FOR EVERYONE and provides better quality health care

Everyone huh? How does it reduce the cost of an x-ray machine. How does reduce the cost of drug R&D.

bern can't defend his argument. he can only repeat it. I wonder if he realizes how stupid he sounds when he argues that one variable (ie public or private) determines the cost of services.

My god your reading comprehension is poor. Either that or you just don't get sarcasm when you hear it.

The French system provides better care at a lower cost. You support paying more for less. You are so deluded, you think we can only afford health care by using the most expensive system in the world.

And their costs are going up, and what government will pay for is going down. They have the 2nd most expensive system in the world idiot. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of government solutions.

 

[Christopher]

...our system provides the same level of care as third world nations like Cuba, and at twice the price!!

...Cuba provides better health care than the US does, and at less that half the price.

One lie leads to another for you. Of course, the following two statements you made conflict one another. Makes it easy to point out compulsive liars. So, which is it? Is our system the SAME LEVEL of care or does Cuba provide BETTER care?

Still claiming that others are living in wingnut world. From my perspective, the one living in wingnut world is yourself, since you seem to think we can make an apples to apples comparison between Cuba's health care system and our own.

 

[30x90]

It's over 2000 pages.

NO ONE knows what's really in it or how it will "work". Only the blindest partisan would claim that it is "good" for the country.

 

[sangha]

Other than the minor detail of it being essentially a monopoly. Those always work out well for the consumer.

I'm not surprised to see you confuse single payer with a monopoly. After all, you're the one who confused deficits with debt.

SP systems have many providers. There's only one payer, but many providers. We'll just add "monopoly" to the List of Things Bern Does Not Understand

Well what would a monopoy of the insurance industry be? It would be just one health insurance company that was the only provider of plans. Thus they would be the only payer of services. They would be the SINGLE payer, smart guy. The only difference between that monoply and a single payer system is instead the single payer is government. So yes you idiot it is a monopoly. Of course there are still many providers of services under SP. there are still all kinds of hospitals. Under SP the only 'insurance company' that pays those providers is government. THAT is a monopoly on health care coverage, idiot.

How funny is it that you have to ask what a monopoly is, only to give an answer and get it wrong?

A monopoly is when one company controls the supply of a good or service to such an extent that they can set the price. In SP systems, medical care (ie the "service") is provided by thousands of "providers" (ie doctors and other health care professionals) so there is no monopoly and SP system allow for private for profit insurers, so there's no monopoly on insurance either.

So no, you idiot. There is no monopoly

 

[sangha]

Bern is so dishonest, he can't admit that he has denounced "govt solutions" for health care. Now, he's going to pretend that he likes "govt solutions"

I don't really see what the point would be in me lieing about what I believe. I know you like to repeat that a lot, but it's a nonsensical argument. My belief is pretty simple. The government should play a role in health care for the purpose of helping those that can not help themselves. That is a legitimate role of government in any society. Where health care is concerned that goal does NOT require that government take over the entire industry, be the single payer, or make everyone buy health insurance. What other UHC countries have shown is is that they simply can't afford to do that. They let the citizens pay what they think is fair. The providers tell government what their services cost and low and behold government can't afford it.

bern will continue to claim that the nations with UHC are more expensive than the US, even though that has been proven to be untrue. For some reason that bern refuses to explain, he continues to argue that we can't afford to pay less for better health care

And he has to lie again about the premiums in UHC nations (ie "They let the citizens pay what they think is fair")

Wingnuts have to believe this is true. There is no force strong enough, and no fact clear enough, to convince the narrow minded wingnuts that govt does some things much better than the private sector does.

Then go have debate with the wingnuts. I have never contended that there aren't some things government should and does do a better job of providing. Providing services to people that can't pay for them would be one of them.

I am debating a wingnut. You are incoherent. One minute you're complaining that people are getting health care they can't pay for because they govt pays for it. Now you're complaining that people aren't getting free health care. That's what happens when you argue both for and against "govt solutions"

No the facts don't show that. Private health insurance is not the only free market means of paying for healthcare there is. There are many other models that simply have not been tried, thus you are in no position to state that the free market is incapable of doing a better job than government.

Actually, the facts show that EVERY nation with UHC pays less for health care than the US, and many provide better care.

And there are no untried "models". Once again, you're relying on myths and not facts. That's why you can't actually cite any of these mythical "models"

Everyone huh? How does it reduce the cost of an x-ray machine. How does reduce the cost of drug R&D.

Yes, everyone. By reducing the profit of health insurers

bern can't defend his argument. he can only repeat it. I wonder if he realizes how stupid he sounds when he argues that one variable (ie public or private) determines the cost of services.

My god your reading comprehension is poor. Either that or you just don't get sarcasm when you hear it.

Sarcasm doesn't work for people like you who argue both sides of an issue.

The French system provides better care at a lower cost. You support paying more for less. You are so deluded, you think we can only afford health care by using the most expensive system in the world.

And their costs are going up, and what government will pay for is going down. They have the 2nd most expensive system in the world idiot. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of government solutions.

Ahh, love the way you promote "govt solutions" to provide care to the poor. Just a minute ago, you were all for that. But now, once again, you're against "govt solutions"

There's nothing funnier than a liar who can't keep track of his lies

 

[sangha]

...our system provides the same level of care as third world nations like Cuba, and at twice the price!!

...Cuba provides better health care than the US does, and at less that half the price.

One lie leads to another for you. Of course, the following two statements you made conflict one another. Makes it easy to point out compulsive liars. So, which is it? Is our system the SAME LEVEL of care or does Cuba provide BETTER care?

Still claiming that others are living in wingnut world. From my perspective, the one living in wingnut world is yourself, since you seem to think we can make an apples to apples comparison between Cuba's health care system and our own.

Umm, Cuba rates #31 internationally. The US is #32. Ergo, Cuba's care is about the same or slightly better than the US. I'll let you choose which you prefer (ie "the same" or "better") I'm not a nitpicker like you, so I'll keep referring to it as I choose.

And international comparisons of health care systems is not an impossible task, contrary to the limited understanding you demonstrate in your last paragraph

 

[Bern80]

How funny is it that you have to ask what a monopoly is, only to give an answer and get it wrong?

A monopoly is when one company controls the supply of a good or service to such an extent that they can set the price. In SP systems, medical care (ie the "service") is provided by thousands of "providers" (ie doctors and other health care professionals) so there is no monopoly and SP system allow for private for profit insurers, so there's no monopoly on insurance either.

So no, you idiot. There is no monopoly

Your intellectual dishonesty know no boundaires does it?

Yes moron it is. You're intellectual dishonesty is boundless. The peopel aren't purchasing services directly from doctors and hospitals so your contention that there are many providers is irrelevant. What people are purchasing is a coverage policy from an insurance company. Then the insurance company pays the providers. So idiot, just as it would be a monopoly if there was just one company that owned every hospital in the country, it would also be a monopoly if there is only one entity being paid by the consumers to cover their health care costs and it doesn't matter if that entity is a private business or government. A monopoly on coverage is a monopoly on coverage.

 

[Bern80]

...our system provides the same level of care as third world nations like Cuba, and at twice the price!!

...Cuba provides better health care than the US does, and at less that half the price.

One lie leads to another for you. Of course, the following two statements you made conflict one another. Makes it easy to point out compulsive liars. So, which is it? Is our system the SAME LEVEL of care or does Cuba provide BETTER care?

Still claiming that others are living in wingnut world. From my perspective, the one living in wingnut world is yourself, since you seem to think we can make an apples to apples comparison between Cuba's health care system and our own.

Umm, Cuba rates #31 internationally. The US is #32. Ergo, Cuba's care is about the same or slightly better than the US. I'll let you choose which you prefer (ie "the same" or "better") I'm not a nitpicker like you, so I'll keep referring to it as I choose.

And international comparisons of health care systems is not an impossible task, contrary to the limited understanding you demonstrate in your last paragraph

IF you actually think it's credible to cite that bogus WHO report I suppose..........

 

[BrianH]

Problems with socialized medicine.

FRONTLINE: sick around the world | PBS

Now were we to adapt one of the systems in this presentation, consider the social implications. Note that no one goes bankrupt because of medical bills in these nations. Think of how this would ruin your day when you could not feel superior to the family being turned out into the street on your block because the daddy had the audacity to have his factory shut down and moved overseas, and he was stupid enough to let someone in the family get sick after that.

Think of the enjoyment you would miss watching an old couple trying to decide between food and the drugs that keep them alive.

Ah yes, the problems of socialized medicine.

You lefties keep proving my point. There are all kinds of variables that determine whether a health care system is a quality system. You libs define a quality health care system by just one of those variables. Cost to the consumer. Low cost to the consumer = good health care system in the world of the lib. Nothing else matters.

bern is so uninterested in the truth that he will continue to repeat this lie in order to pretend that the US has the best health care and nations with single payer systems have bad health care systems. bern must be so proud that our system provides the same level of care as third world nations like Cuba, and at twice the price!!

The SOCIALIST "govt solution" used by the SOCIALIST govt of Cuba provides better health care than the US does, and at less that half the price. bern likes paying twice as much for inferior health care.

The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems

U.S.= 37; Cuba = 39 according to the World Health Organization....

 

[Christopher]

...our system provides the same level of care as third world nations like Cuba, and at twice the price!!

...Cuba provides better health care than the US does, and at less that half the price.

One lie leads to another for you. Of course, the following two statements you made conflict one another. Makes it easy to point out compulsive liars. So, which is it? Is our system the SAME LEVEL of care or does Cuba provide BETTER care?

Still claiming that others are living in wingnut world. From my perspective, the one living in wingnut world is yourself, since you seem to think we can make an apples to apples comparison between Cuba's health care system and our own.

Umm, Cuba rates #31 internationally. The US is #32. Ergo, Cuba's care is about the same or slightly better than the US. I'll let you choose which you prefer (ie "the same" or "better") I'm not a nitpicker like you, so I'll keep referring to it as I choose.

And international comparisons of health care systems is not an impossible task, contrary to the limited understanding you demonstrate in your last paragraph

Which ranking are you even referring to, and what metrics does it use for ranking? The ranking I've seen puts the US at 37 and Cuba at 39.

Please list what makes Cuba's system "better" than America's. Then describe how we can implement these "better" things in America.

 

[Bern80]

bern will continue to claim that the nations with UHC are more expensive than the US, even though that has been proven to be untrue. For some reason that bern refuses to explain, he continues to argue that we can't afford to pay less for better health care

And he has to lie again about the premiums in UHC nations (ie "They let the citizens pay what they think is fair")

You keep saying I continue to claim. So please cite for me where I EVER claimed that other nations health care is more expensive than ours.

I am debating a wingnut. You are incoherent. One minute you're complaining that people are getting health care they can't pay for because they govt pays for it. Now you're complaining that people aren't getting free health care. That's what happens when you argue both for and against "govt solutions"

And I'm debating someone who is clearly not interested in what someone is saying. You would rather attribute positions to people for the convenience of your argument. In UHC countries it is true that people are not paying what the resource actually costs. If they were there would be no deficits.

Actually, the facts show that EVERY nation with UHC pays less for health care than the US, and many provide better care.

That's a little vague and misleading. When you say nation, do you meant the nations's government, it's citizens, who EXACTLY is paying less?

And there are no untried "models". Once again, you're relying on myths and not facts. That's why you can't actually cite any of these mythical "models"

So your contention then is that every free market option has been tried and failed? Can't wait to see proof that.

Yes, everyone. By reducing the profit of health insurers

I am very sorry you don't understand basic economics and business relationships. This is just plain wrong and shows you just don't know your facts. FACT health insurance profits margins are in the single digits, so lets' pretend for a second those profits went down. Given they're in the single digits already you honestly believe that the builder of an x-ray maching is going to see that, charge a hospital less to buy one, so a doctor can bill the insurance company less to use it? You really are smoking some good stuff, aren't you. It's a lot of fun watching the ridicilous crap you're forced to tell yourself to make your argument fly.

Ahh, love the way you promote "govt solutions" to provide care to the poor. Just a minute ago, you were all for that. But now, once again, you're against "govt solutions"

There's nothing funnier than a liar who can't keep track of his lies

I have never claimed it's an all or nothing solution. I have never claimed every aspect of health care must only be provided by the free market. NEWSLFASH dip shit, a lack of reading comprhension on your part does not translate to flip flopping on my part.

 

[Christopher]

Yes, everyone. By reducing the profit of health insurers

From Factcheck, in referring to an ad trying to push the public option. I think this applies here. Pushing for a Public Plan | FactCheck.org

In 2007, national health care expenditures totaled $2.2 trillion. Health insurance profits of nearly $13 billion make up 0.6 percent of that. CEO compensation is a mere 0.005 percent of total spending.

So, how much will be saved by taking out the health insurance profits? My clarification for context is in brackets and bold font.

What if that [referring to health insurance profits] was stripped away? Well, it wouldn’t amount to a whole lot of savings for the health care system.

As a comparison, Factcheck went on:

The Government Accountability Office reported that in 2008 half of improper payments made by the federal government came from Medicare and Medicaid. The Medicare fee-for-service program had an estimated $10.4 billion in improper payments, plus Medicare Advantage doled out $6.8 billion that it shouldn’t have. Medicaid’s improper payments totaled $18.6 billion for the year. Those figures surpass the profits reaped by insurance companies and the pay their CEOs took home.

Do you honestly believe, after reading this from Factcheck, that taking away insurer's profits will help to fix our health care system? The amount savings we would get would maybe pay for a few days over an entire year.

 

[Dillon]

Problems? What problems? If there were problems all kinds of companies, unions, etc. would be pestering the White House for waivers to get out from under the ObamaCare scheme.

Oops...never mind...

hi everyone,,,
Obama care center is specifically related to dental care.A good health care center in my point of view.
I haven't listen to any problem uptil now.If the problem is as much severe.I agree with you that they all are pestering the White House.

 

[sangha]

How funny is it that you have to ask what a monopoly is, only to give an answer and get it wrong?

A monopoly is when one company controls the supply of a good or service to such an extent that they can set the price. In SP systems, medical care (ie the "service") is provided by thousands of "providers" (ie doctors and other health care professionals) so there is no monopoly and SP system allow for private for profit insurers, so there's no monopoly on insurance either.

So no, you idiot. There is no monopoly

Your intellectual dishonesty know no boundaires does it?

Yes moron it is. You're intellectual dishonesty is boundless. The peopel aren't purchasing services directly from doctors and hospitals so your contention that there are many providers is irrelevant. What people are purchasing is a coverage policy from an insurance company. Then the insurance company pays the providers. So idiot, just as it would be a monopoly if there was just one company that owned every hospital in the country, it would also be a monopoly if there is only one entity being paid by the consumers to cover their health care costs and it doesn't matter if that entity is a private business or government. A monopoly on coverage is a monopoly on coverage.

Wrong again, you idiot. In SP systems, people choose which ins corp to get insurance from, and then the govt pays the premium. There are many ways to do this, as demonstrated by the variety of SP system in actual use in the real world (as contrasted with your mythical solutions that have never been tried)

 

[sangha]

One lie leads to another for you. Of course, the following two statements you made conflict one another. Makes it easy to point out compulsive liars. So, which is it? Is our system the SAME LEVEL of care or does Cuba provide BETTER care?

Still claiming that others are living in wingnut world. From my perspective, the one living in wingnut world is yourself, since you seem to think we can make an apples to apples comparison between Cuba's health care system and our own.

Umm, Cuba rates #31 internationally. The US is #32. Ergo, Cuba's care is about the same or slightly better than the US. I'll let you choose which you prefer (ie "the same" or "better") I'm not a nitpicker like you, so I'll keep referring to it as I choose.

And international comparisons of health care systems is not an impossible task, contrary to the limited understanding you demonstrate in your last paragraph

IF you actually think it's credible to cite that bogus WHO report I suppose..........

I know, I know...the cites you post are 100% accurate. The cites I post are "bogus"

 

[sangha]

You lefties keep proving my point. There are all kinds of variables that determine whether a health care system is a quality system. You libs define a quality health care system by just one of those variables. Cost to the consumer. Low cost to the consumer = good health care system in the world of the lib. Nothing else matters.

bern is so uninterested in the truth that he will continue to repeat this lie in order to pretend that the US has the best health care and nations with single payer systems have bad health care systems. bern must be so proud that our system provides the same level of care as third world nations like Cuba, and at twice the price!!

The SOCIALIST "govt solution" used by the SOCIALIST govt of Cuba provides better health care than the US does, and at less that half the price. bern likes paying twice as much for inferior health care.

The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems

U.S.= 37; Cuba = 39 according to the World Health Organization....

Thank you

I was wrong. The US is not #32; It's #37

And it's not one spot behind Cuba; It's two spots ahead

The wingnuts must be proud. We're #37!!!! (and we only have to pay 50% more than anyone else)

 

[BrianH]

bern is so uninterested in the truth that he will continue to repeat this lie in order to pretend that the US has the best health care and nations with single payer systems have bad health care systems. bern must be so proud that our system provides the same level of care as third world nations like Cuba, and at twice the price!!

The SOCIALIST "govt solution" used by the SOCIALIST govt of Cuba provides better health care than the US does, and at less that half the price. bern likes paying twice as much for inferior health care.

The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems

U.S.= 37; Cuba = 39 according to the World Health Organization....

Thank you

I was wrong. The US is not #32; It's #37

And it's not one spot behind Cuba; It's two spots ahead

The wingnuts must be proud. We're #37!!!! (and we only have to pay 50% more than anyone else)

I didn't post that to be proud. I just wanted to make sure we had the right numbers...and it's ridiculous that we're two spots ahead of Cuba. On the same note, Cuba is a socialist nation with far fewer people to support. I think their population is a little over 11 million. I think there's roughly 8 million people in New York City.