Single Payer Healthcare = Raise Standard of Living & Liberty

[Wry Catcher]

If people want to make bad choices, that is their choice. You do not have any right to tell someone else how to live. Just like I have no right to tell someone else how to live. That is because we are Americans, we live a 'free' country - or at least we did. So **** off and live however you choose to live and I will live how I choose. Otherwise we are not free. There is a price to pay for freedom. That price is that not everyone will want to live like you do. That's the trouble with ******* liberals, they think they have some right to tell the rest of us what to do. You are wrong. Live with it.

Also, we can't ******* afford it you jackass.

we cant afford to allow people to make bad decisions. if you have a catastrophic injury with no insurance, who do you think pays the bill? We would not have to worry about the irreseponsible if we just forced individuals to be responsible by government mandate. Now you **** off, you miserable little tickterd.

/
**** off and live in a socialist country then. Idiot boy.

Umm, don't you choose to live in a socialist country dwiddle dumb? Or, have I again confused you with dwiddle dumber or dwiddle dumber II?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Hint hint, the United States Military is the one of the most violent, oppressive, and anti-freedom institutions in the history of the world.

Uhhhhhh....no shit you libtard *****.....the military's job is WAR and protecting the rights of scumbags like you who do nothing but ***** and complain about how messed up your pathetic existence is!!!! I WISH you lived in a Jakarta slum.....then you'd shut your pie hole.

 

[California Girl]

we cant afford to allow people to make bad decisions. if you have a catastrophic injury with no insurance, who do you think pays the bill? We would not have to worry about the irreseponsible if we just forced individuals to be responsible by government mandate. Now you **** off, you miserable little tickterd.

/
**** off and live in a socialist country then. Idiot boy.

Umm, don't you choose to live in a socialist country dwiddle dumb? Or, have I again confused you with dwiddle dumber or dwiddle dumber II?

I live in the UK, Why Crapper.... one with this holy grail of healthcare. I have private insurance - because their system is shit. Oh, and yesterday, research was published about the vast number of hospitals in the UK that are failing. Yep, that's what we want..... if we're really ******* stupid, like you are - apparently.

 

[frazzledgear]

Why so many people are upset with the idea of a National Single Payer Healthcare? Some would say it is a national takeover of healthcare. Some would say it would increase taxes. Fine, it is a national takeover of healthcare and my taxes would increase: so the tradeoff I would always have healthcare for the rest of my life.

Let us think about the possible benefit with a Single Payer Healthcare with my wages with my employer or possible employer. With someone working or not working, everyone has a Single Payer Healthcare. Therefore, someone that is making thousands of dollars or working at McDonalds have the same level of healthcare.

Right now, people stay with their employer because they cannot afford to lose their company insurance policy. Right now, women that are in a loveless marriage feel they have to stay with their husband because of their husbands company insurance. If everyone has a Single Payer Healthcare Insurance, everyone has more liberated to quit their job to venture to a new employer or become self employed that only creates new business and employment. If everyone has a Single Payer Healthcare Insurance, women and with some men, will feel they have greater liberty to get a divorce.

Therefore, a Single Payer Healthcare System would increase LIBERTY and increase the Standard of Living because employers would have to increase wages to keep their workers from leaving or starting their own business.

I don't even know where to begin with the utter GARBAGE you wrote. Freedom isn't whether you FEEL "free" to readily change jobs or not without any consideration of the pros and cons of a job change including a change in benefits. And I don't know a SINGLE person staying in a loveless marriage for HEALTH INSURANCE benefits! Oh sure, in an era where our divorce rate has never been higher and more children being raised in one parent households - people staying in loveless marriages has become a real social problem. Get real.

Even your claim that people tend to stay with jobs they don't like for their insurance is just more of your own made up BULLSHIT. People today average 10.5 jobs between ages 18-38, changing jobs on average every 2 years until well into middle age. So they can't be all that tied to a job they hate after all -because of this paralyzing FEAR about health insurance. Except they aren't paralyzed into staying into a hated job at all. People can and DO change jobs more frequently today than at any time in the past and if it takes until middle age to find the best fit for their talent, skills and interests - people will DO THAT. You bother to actually check the statistics before making these dumb claims? Your claims about what is and is not true are just made up bullshit that clearly come from your own personal bias (stuck in that loveless marriage yourself or what) but are NOT based on any statistics or reality.

Just like your claim that under a universal health care system our standard of living would rise. ROFL! Oh please tell us all where THAT became reality. And while you are at it, show us the country where it resulted in businesses paying their employees MORE to keep them from leaving and they ended up with MORE money in their pocket after government take over of health care than they had before! LOVE to see that one too so we can all just skip this step and just move there immediately! Ending up better off financially AFTER government takeover of health care is your own personal delusion and FANTASY but one not grounded in reality. Employers don't respond to government takeover of health care with pay raises for fear people will suddenly start quitting their jobs left and right and go WHERE? - and suggesting they would is RIDICULOUS. It becomes more difficult to keep a small business operating profitably because the taxes on small business are so high under such systems. It means more business go UNDER, has never once resulted in the creation of MORE businesses and has only resulted in higher unemployment. What REALLY happens under such systems has been seen to be true time and again -the standard of living immediately stalls out and after a couple of decades under nationalized health care it starts to DECLINE. Their economy very shortly becomes stagnant and unemployment rates remain pretty much stuck in the double digits. Health care costs under a government system SKY ROCKET -always. Which means government keep returning to take very more of your money to pay for that and will leave you with LESS money than you had before. Lots less. More direct and hidden taxes than you ever paid in your life and less of your money in YOUR pocket. And less every year than you had the year before as taxes just keep rising to pay for the terrible system that results under nationalized health care.

Do you spend half your paycheck on your health care now? Feel this great NEED to do so? Because that is what all of us will end up paying in direct and hidden taxes in short order all so government can "provide" it for you. Even though the overwhelming and vast majority can provide it for themselves at MUCH less cost RIGHT NOW. You and everyone else will end up paying FAR more in taxes for a MUCH worse system than exists now with the problems even more difficult or impossible to fix since they become institutionalized. When it comes to health care, the proprosed "cure" is FAR worse than ANY of the problems we have right now. Eventually the system will collapse under its own weight, waste and ineffeciency. France is dealing with that looming reality and trying to figure out how to privatize more of their system to counter the never ending sky rocketing costs of their system right now. Even while dolts like you insist we imitate their system that is already proving it WILL collapse! WTF more do you need to see when every example in existence only PROVES it doesn't work, will result in only RUINING our health care system entirely - and will not do what proponents claim it will.

The problems in systems like the UK are so well known no one in their right mind would want to follow them. People have paid for that suck ass system with their HEALTH, their life expectancy and quality of life. And yet THAT is what you are so willing to trade your freedoms for -all while pretending you would not.

The standard of living is NOT improved in nations with government run health care. Clearly you haven't a clue how that happens. In order for people to improve their standard of living, it requires that PEOPLE have the discretionary funds to be able to PAY for that higher standard of living. But to pay for a government run health care system, government takes the bulk of the average person's money, FAR more than he would have voluntarily chosen to spend on health care in the first place, FAR more than he pays now -and leaves that person with LESS money in his pocket and more likely to have difficult making ends meet. No longer enough to pay for a higher standard of living. A little bit of fact checking would have told you there hasn't been any real growth in the standard of living in countries with government run health care. In fact, in those countries, their "middle class" person has significantly less living space than our POOR in most major cities and our poor compare quite favorably with their middle class overall.

Government run businesses, social programs and entitlements are never done cheaper than the private sector, never done on budget, never result in improved costs or performance - and only guarantee a significantly higher levels of institutionalized waste and fraud than would exist in the private sector -which means it will ALWAYS cost the people far more. It is why Medicare and Medicaid are BROKE and those were just to cover SOME people. Medicare is a system a person has paid into all their working life and will not draw any benefit until retirement -but its BROKE. A system that was SUPPOSED to be a self-sustaining, client-paid for insurance policy and it didn't work. So somehow it makes sense to you mental giants who place no value on your own real freedoms -that it will all work out fine if everyone is put on that system? ROFL You do realize that the bills in consideration in Congress strip Medicare of BILLIONS in order to provide insurance coverage to people who are younger, healthier and wealthier and overall in far less need of health care, right? Which means Medicare must deny services to the elderly and disabled that they are able to get now -but would no longer receive under a government run system for everyone. Instead of a system that focuses on improving life expectancy and quality of life at the same time for those who have spent their lifetime contributing to society, it would be forced to focus on the very people who DON'T need the most health care and will never equal the contributions to society by the elderly until they too are elderly! The VERY people who will forfeit the most are the ones who contributed the most to society and the ones who most NEED health care -with government now denying them access to it. Thereby forcing the elderly to forfeit both life expectancy AND quality of life. Just like they do in the UK already where mortality rates for a slew of conditions and diseases are rising at an embarrassing rate, reversing years of decline previously. There are so many examples to prove we should avoid at all costs a government take over of an entire industry and 1/6th of our economy -that it shouldn't need to be repeated to anyone of any intelligence. But the parasites who have convinced themselves they can get a free ride at the expense of someone else just keep coming out of the woodwork, don't they? It is possible to specifically address the problems in our existing system -without destroying the entire system for everyone else who are all satisfied with how it works for them and able to provide for their own health insurance. If the vast majority can provide for themselves, then government has NO business doing it for them and thereby encouraging people to be LESS self reliant and independent.

If government controls your health care, it controls YOU and just as has happened in other countries, government will only increasingly use the pretext of trying to keep costs down as the means of controlling you and denying you REAL freedom. (Better learn what your REAL freedoms are so you can recognize when you have lost them.) Right down to punishing you for refusing to eat, go or do what it is government has decided is in the best interests of the faceless masses and without regard to what YOU think is in YOUR best interests. And when you need it the most consistently and reliably, will turn around and deny you health care even if it means forcing you to die prematurely. The only way to save costs in a government run system is to deny those who NEED it the services most needed to prolong life and improve quality of life -all for those who had been able to provide for their own health insurance all along and so those who don't NEED it will be encouraged to over utilize it and thereby over burden the system. Maybe for people like you it really does cost you all your REAL freedoms along with your health, life expectancy and quality of life before you understand what it is you have bargained away and at such a cheap cost. But I doubt even that would do it. People like you are the true parasites of a free nation. The ones constantly insisting that real freedom means being "free" of the burden of running your own life and having to decide how to take care of and provide for YOURSELF. That true "freedom" means government takes that burden over for you out of the goodness of its nonexistent heart -and will even pretend it is getting some other schmuck to foot the bill for it. And because you consider taking care of YOURSELF a terrible burden you shouldn't have to bear, you assume everyone else thinks so too so you have no problem demanding they forfeit their freedoms along with your own.

You are clearly willing to sell off your own liberty and freedom and pretty damn cheaply too given the true price that will be paid. But you not only have NO RIGHT to sell off MINE or that of all future generations when previous generations went out of the way to avoid selling off the freedoms of their ancestors -but HOW DARE YOU TRY TO PRESSURE ME TO DO SO or give others this stupid phony lecture about your delusional vision of life under a more totalitarian government! NOT YOUR CHOICE to decide I must forfeit my own freedom just because YOU place such little value on your own.

 

[California Girl]

Hospital watchdogs have come under fresh pressure to intervene to protect patient safety, after research found 12 trusts are "significantly underperforming".

The latest analysis by the Dr Foster organisation also identified 27 trusts with unusually high mortality rates - totalling 5,000 more deaths than expected.

More hospitals 'shamed' over patient care - Yahoo! News UK

 

[frazzledgear]

Get real....The two are nowhere near analogous.

And the Fed money monopoly is, to a great extent, responsible for the financial mess we're currently in.

If you cannot come up with better examples, we'll just assume you don't have any.

Better examples, every time in the history of the republic that an increase in universal rights or universal benefits to the American citizens and others within the United States of American has increased personal liberty.

The first ten amendments, the civil war amendments, Amendment 17 with the election of Senators by popular vote, Amendment 19 with the Women’s Suffrage, the Amendment 23 with the Presidential vote for the District of Columbia, Amendment 24 with the Poll Tax being banned and Amendment 26 with the voting age set at eighteen years of age. Even the acts of Congress, with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act with other actions of Congress of the United States of America to increase Liberty.

The federal government is not evil, as it has checks and balances with the people during the time of a election. You say the monetary system with the money is in a mess. Well then, since it is run by the government then vote or run for political office. Now if the monetary system is run by a business or businesses then you cannot vote or do anything.

You clearly do not understand the origins of rights or what is involved in any of them. Rights do not EVER involve the services of another human being -they involve what you as an individual may choose to DO that government is forbidden from interfering with or punishing you in any way for not exercising that right as government would prefer you did. Rights are those ACTS you choose to take that are safeguarded from government control. How does the demand for government to provide all health care insurance fit in with that? Simply calling it a "right" doesn't make it one -and rights are NEVER provided by government. It is government that is forbidden from interfering with your rights, it doesn't GIVE them to you.

Pretending there is a "right" to health care is really saying you believe people have the right to the services of another human being and no such right exists in this country ever since slavery was banned! Just because someone chose a career whose services you have decided to value above all other services changes nothing. You still have no right to demand government provide you with those services any more than if you decided to overly value the services of a hair dresser and think that simply valuing it means government should make it a "right" for all to the services of a hair dresser. There is no such right just because a service happens to be highly valued by some or because some chose a different career from your own - and some jackass wants to insist that means it must be a "right". You can't "increase personal liberties" by declaring the services of some Americans to be so valued that everyone else has a "right" to them because in reality you have just made slaves of those who perform those services. NOT "liberated" them. Might want to check out how all that personal liberating worked out for the overworked, overburdened, overwhelmed doctors and other health care professionals in the UK.

You will NOT expand personal liberties with universal health care and in fact can only insure that the people have only become the slaves of government where more of the wages THEY worked to earn are forfeited to government which will lay claim to them in ever rising direct and hidden taxes. You paid for your own health care before and will pay even MORE for it under a government run system -but with one BIG difference. You must dance to the government's tune to receive the benefit you already paid for. All that personal liberation must explain why so many Canadians come to the US to get the medical care they are either denied entirely or denied in a timely fashion, right?

In our Constitution our rights were that which WE THE PEOPLE claimed for ourselves, none of which involve the services of another human being - and then forbid government from interfering with them on threat that WE THE PEOPLE would take down our government and replace it with another if it failed to abide by the Constitution written for the benefit of WE THE PEOPLE and not some totalitarian nanny government. Any idea what that part REALLY means? It is why those elected to office and those in the military take an oath to defend our Constitution and an oath to defend our country -but NEVER EVER take an oath to defend our government. The founders knew good and well and even feared the day might come when they were not one and the same. Power was intended to remain in the hands of WE THE PEOPLE -not with government which only exists to do OUR BIDDING as our servant. Not so that those who happen to hold office at the time can try to make us the slaves of government and ram what they want down our throats against our will and then force us to foot the bill for it.

Your trust in government regardless of who is in power is touching but revoltingly and even dangerously naive. Government is NEVER trustworthy and the belief that a large powerful government is fine and dandy as long as those in power are from the party you happen to prefer is more than dumb. It is dangerous. The only way to restrain those you don't trust with power is to prevent ANYONE from having that kind of power. Those in power will inevitably seek to expand their power and control in order to STAY in power - and history has proved that the best way to safeguard our freedoms is by constantly keeping this natural desire of those in government to expand their power and control over us -in CHECK. The failure to do so always results in the forfeiture of rights and all too often has proven to have terrible and even lethal results for thousands and even millions.

Power corrupts and the bigger and more powerful a government is, the more you are guaranteed your government IS corrupt. Power is seductive and the desire to keep it ends up becoming the primary concern of those serving in government and NOT what is in the nation's best interests. These 2,000+ page "health care reform" atrocities under consideration in Congress that have NOTHING to do with health, care or reform and EVERYTHING to do with the expansion of government and claiming more power for those in government at the expense of WE THE PEOPLE is a perfect case in point.

 

[2Parties]

Uhhhhhh....no shit you libtard *****.....the military's job is WAR and protecting the rights of scumbags like you who do nothing but ***** and complain about how messed up your pathetic existence is!!!! I WISH you lived in a Jakarta slum.....then you'd shut your pie hole.

Cool dude.

 

[2Parties]

In our Constitution our rights were that which WE THE PEOPLE claimed for ourselves, none of which involve the services of another human being - and then forbid government from interfering with them on threat that WE THE PEOPLE would take down our government and replace it with another if it failed to abide by the Constitution written for the benefit of WE THE PEOPLE and not some totalitarian nanny government. Any idea what that part REALLY means? It is why those elected to office and those in the military take an oath to defend our Constitution and an oath to defend our country -but NEVER EVER take an oath to defend our government. The founders knew good and well and even feared the day might come when they were not one and the same. Power was intended to remain in the hands of WE THE PEOPLE -not with government which only exists to do OUR BIDDING as our servant. Not so that those who happen to hold office at the time can try to make us the slaves of government and ram what they want down our throats against our will and then force us to foot the bill for it.

The belief that government will limit itself due to a "constitution" is flat out utopian.

The Constitution created a new giant governing body that previously was non-existent that destroyed more freedoms.

 

[blu]

Hint hint, the United States Military is the one of the most violent, oppressive, and anti-freedom institutions in the history of the world.

Uhhhhhh....no shit you libtard *****.....the military's job is WAR and protecting the rights of scumbags like you who do nothing but ***** and complain about how messed up your pathetic existence is!!!! I WISH you lived in a Jakarta slum.....then you'd shut your pie hole.

the military really protects people's rights when they enforce free speech zones, beat/gas/shoot peaceful protesters, setup martial law in new orleans after katrina, breakup peaceful gatherings they don't agree with, and the large list of other things they do when they 'protect our rights'.

you really need to work on your projection and fallacy as well. assuming the guy lives a pathetic life b/c he doesn't appreciate oppression from the military makes you look pretty stupid. it also makes you seem desperate when you wish him to go somewhere else just b/c you can't debate his point.

 

[2Parties]

Don't forget all the civilians oversees who see their rights protected when their house gets a bomb dropped on it. Freedom.

 

[Chris]

Why so many people are upset with the idea of a National Single Payer Healthcare? Some would say it is a national takeover of healthcare. Some would say it would increase taxes. Fine, it is a national takeover of healthcare and my taxes would increase: so the tradeoff I would always have healthcare for the rest of my life.

Let us think about the possible benefit with a Single Payer Healthcare with my wages with my employer or possible employer. With someone working or not working, everyone has a Single Payer Healthcare. Therefore, someone that is making thousands of dollars or working at McDonalds have the same level of healthcare.

Right now, people stay with their employer because they cannot afford to lose their company insurance policy. Right now, women that are in a loveless marriage feel they have to stay with their husband because of their husbands company insurance. If everyone has a Single Payer Healthcare Insurance, everyone has more liberated to quit their job to venture to a new employer or become self employed that only creates new business and employment. If everyone has a Single Payer Healthcare Insurance, women and with some men, will feel they have greater liberty to get a divorce.

Therefore, a Single Payer Healthcare System would increase LIBERTY and increase the Standard of Living because employers would have to increase wages to keep their workers from leaving or starting their own business.

The single payer system has inherent cost savings and works pretty well.

The rest of the industrialized world uses modified versions of it, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare.

 

[frazzledgear]

In our Constitution our rights were that which WE THE PEOPLE claimed for ourselves, none of which involve the services of another human being - and then forbid government from interfering with them on threat that WE THE PEOPLE would take down our government and replace it with another if it failed to abide by the Constitution written for the benefit of WE THE PEOPLE and not some totalitarian nanny government. Any idea what that part REALLY means? It is why those elected to office and those in the military take an oath to defend our Constitution and an oath to defend our country -but NEVER EVER take an oath to defend our government. The founders knew good and well and even feared the day might come when they were not one and the same. Power was intended to remain in the hands of WE THE PEOPLE -not with government which only exists to do OUR BIDDING as our servant. Not so that those who happen to hold office at the time can try to make us the slaves of government and ram what they want down our throats against our will and then force us to foot the bill for it.

The belief that government will limit itself due to a "constitution" is flat out utopian.

The Constitution created a new giant governing body that previously was non-existent that destroyed more freedoms.

Any form of government will destroy some freedoms because absolute freedom only exists under anarchy -no laws and no government control of any kind. So the very existence of government means there is no absolute freedom. Have to go live alone in the wilderness for that. The fact that people will live in societies means they will not have absolute freedom either. In order to live side-by-side with others it means agreeing to place limits on our behavior in order to avoid inflicting AND being harmed by others. This recognition that inflicting harm risks being harmed is the very foundation for man's decision to create laws in the first place. And laws mean absolute freedom cannot exist in a society. It isn't OUR form of government that meant no absolute freedom -it is the existence of ANY kind of government that means no such thing as absolute freedom.

In our country the people merely decided how much freedom they were willing to trade off in exchange for the benefits they wanted from the existence of government -and detailed the benefits they wanted and the specific limits they placed on government.

Part of the reason for dividing power among three branches of government that are each set at slight odds against each other was to make it more difficult for government to outright violate the contract we made with it. If one branch tried to claim more power and authority than it has in the Constitution, it not only comes at the expense of the people but also at the expense of the other two branches who jealously guard their own authorities from being encroached upon by another branch. In the event government became so powerful anyway to the point it no longer abides by this contract, the Constitution spells out the potential consequences for its failure to do so -as well as reminding people of their inherent right to destroy their own government if it fails to do their bidding. It is a declaration that violent revolution against government gone bad is ALWAYS the right of WE THE PEOPLE.

Laws cannot stop someone intent on breaking the law and the consequences for the lawbreaker only occur after the fact. Likewise no piece of paper will stop those intent on bypassing and thwarting the intent of our Constitution in order to force their will and rule upon us. But our Constitution merely spells out the consequences for that and serves to remind all future generations what no one should forget. That government is the creation of man and was created to be our servant, not our master -and as such, man always reserves the right to destroy it and start over if it won't do the job for which it was created.

Your insinuation that our Constitution created something foul, huge and instantly went about destroying freedoms as if something far worse than governments created elsewhere is patently false. The US wasn't even a main player on the world stage or had a powerful federal government until after WWll -you know, after being in a war fighting against a couple of countries intent on conquering the world and imposing their rule everywhere and all? Think you'd be enjoying more freedoms if the outcome of that war had been different? The existence of the US has prevented more wars than it has been involved in -and for those we have been involved in, just a cursory glance at how those enemies have treated their OWN people goes a long way in explaining how we ended up in those wars.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why so many people are upset with the idea of a National Single Payer Healthcare? Some would say it is a national takeover of healthcare. Some would say it would increase taxes. Fine, it is a national takeover of healthcare and my taxes would increase: so the tradeoff I would always have healthcare for the rest of my life.

Let us think about the possible benefit with a Single Payer Healthcare with my wages with my employer or possible employer. With someone working or not working, everyone has a Single Payer Healthcare. Therefore, someone that is making thousands of dollars or working at McDonalds have the same level of healthcare.

Right now, people stay with their employer because they cannot afford to lose their company insurance policy. Right now, women that are in a loveless marriage feel they have to stay with their husband because of their husbands company insurance. If everyone has a Single Payer Healthcare Insurance, everyone has more liberated to quit their job to venture to a new employer or become self employed that only creates new business and employment. If everyone has a Single Payer Healthcare Insurance, women and with some men, will feel they have greater liberty to get a divorce.

Therefore, a Single Payer Healthcare System would increase LIBERTY and increase the Standard of Living because employers would have to increase wages to keep their workers from leaving or starting their own business.

When do you wise up?

Figure out the basis of the take-over.

How's this for a 10-page bill to fix the problem:

Overview: Keep the government out of healthcare, except for legislation that accomplished the following:
1. Allow the 1300 companies to sell in every state.
2. Tort reform limiting damages to actual costs.
3. No state mandates: buy what coverage you wish.
4. Use the tax system to incentivize more into the medical field.
5. Encourage more to buy their own health insurance with tax deductibility.
6. Government step aside.
The End.

 

[2Parties]

Part of the reason for dividing power among three branches of government that are each set at slight odds against each other was to make it more difficult for government to outright violate the contract we made with it.

I made or agreed to no contract to the ruling body that laid claim to a large piece of land mass long before I was born.

In the event government became so powerful anyway to the point it no longer abides by this contract, the Constitution spells out the potential consequences for its failure to do so -as well as reminding people of their inherent right to destroy their own government if it fails to do their bidding.

How's that working out?

It is a declaration that violent revolution against government gone bad is ALWAYS the right of WE THE PEOPLE.

What does having the "right" to violently go to war with some oppressive people even mean? Does having that right, to you, justify the oppression?

Likewise no piece of paper will stop those intent on bypassing and thwarting the intent of our Constitution in order to force their will and rule upon us. But our Constitution merely spells out the consequences for that and serves to remind all future generations what no one should forget.

The belief in a Constitution and government in general has created so much havoc in this world. The belief that some humans need to have special privileges and that some humans should be able to violate the rights/freedoms of others for the sake of everyone else is flat out collectivist and utopian.

That government is the creation of man and was created to be our servant, not our master -and as such, man always reserves the right to destroy it and start over if it won't do the job for which it was created.

Once again you keep talking about destroying it and starting over. I couldn't care less. You keep pointing to that. Are you one of those "America, love it or leave it" people or one of those "If you have a problem with it, take a gun to the DC and start slaughtering Congress" people? If you are of those people just let me know now so I know not to waste my time.

*insert standard American exceptionalism US can do no wrong bullshit I could hear from Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh*

Please. Just stop.

 

[Chris]

Why so many people are upset with the idea of a National Single Payer Healthcare? Some would say it is a national takeover of healthcare. Some would say it would increase taxes. Fine, it is a national takeover of healthcare and my taxes would increase: so the tradeoff I would always have healthcare for the rest of my life.

Let us think about the possible benefit with a Single Payer Healthcare with my wages with my employer or possible employer. With someone working or not working, everyone has a Single Payer Healthcare. Therefore, someone that is making thousands of dollars or working at McDonalds have the same level of healthcare.

Right now, people stay with their employer because they cannot afford to lose their company insurance policy. Right now, women that are in a loveless marriage feel they have to stay with their husband because of their husbands company insurance. If everyone has a Single Payer Healthcare Insurance, everyone has more liberated to quit their job to venture to a new employer or become self employed that only creates new business and employment. If everyone has a Single Payer Healthcare Insurance, women and with some men, will feel they have greater liberty to get a divorce.

Therefore, a Single Payer Healthcare System would increase LIBERTY and increase the Standard of Living because employers would have to increase wages to keep their workers from leaving or starting their own business.

When do you wise up?

Figure out the basis of the take-over.

How's this for a 10-page bill to fix the problem:

Overview: Keep the government out of healthcare, except for legislation that accomplished the following:
1. Allow the 1300 companies to sell in every state.
2. Tort reform limiting damages to actual costs.
3. No state mandates: buy what coverage you wish.
4. Use the tax system to incentivize more into the medical field.
5. Encourage more to buy their own health insurance with tax deductibility.
6. Government step aside.
The End.

Ridiculous.

The problem is that we do not, nor will we ever, let people bleed to death on the street in this country, so with this ridiculous for profit healthcare system, the poor end up overusing the most expensive healthcare of all...the emergency room.

Why not open your mind a little bit and read how other countries cover everyone and limit their healthcare costs?

 

[jeffrockit]

Neither of those 'benefits' has happened anywhere in the world with single payer. Therefore, your conclusion is, basically, crap.

You should go to the United Kingdom, as they have a national healthcare without anyone being charged walking out of the hospital. In fact, the United Kingdom has a higher standard of living then the United States of America. In fact, Germany and Japan that lost World War II to the United States of America after being destroyed and invaded and occupied by the United States of America has a national healthcare and a higher standard of living then we do.

In fact, I would rather live in a country that lost World War II then being in a country that won World War II.

They don't pay "walking out of the hospital" because they already pay in oppressive tax rates. Universal healthcare will not be free to anyone...most of us that actually pay taxes will pay for it in higher tax rates.
You are welcome to live in one of those countries that lost WWll but I am sure that is just talk on your part. The posters that seem to think other countries are so much better that the US, never seem to have the courage to move. I guess it's not that bad of a country after all.

 

[MajikMyst]

Why so many people are upset with the idea of a National Single Payer Healthcare? Some would say it is a national takeover of healthcare. Some would say it would increase taxes. Fine, it is a national takeover of healthcare and my taxes would increase: so the tradeoff I would always have healthcare for the rest of my life.

Let us think about the possible benefit with a Single Payer Healthcare with my wages with my employer or possible employer. With someone working or not working, everyone has a Single Payer Healthcare. Therefore, someone that is making thousands of dollars or working at McDonalds have the same level of healthcare.

Right now, people stay with their employer because they cannot afford to lose their company insurance policy. Right now, women that are in a loveless marriage feel they have to stay with their husband because of their husbands company insurance. If everyone has a Single Payer Healthcare Insurance, everyone has more liberated to quit their job to venture to a new employer or become self employed that only creates new business and employment. If everyone has a Single Payer Healthcare Insurance, women and with some men, will feel they have greater liberty to get a divorce.

Therefore, a Single Payer Healthcare System would increase LIBERTY and increase the Standard of Living because employers would have to increase wages to keep their workers from leaving or starting their own business.

When do you wise up?

Figure out the basis of the take-over.

How's this for a 10-page bill to fix the problem:

Overview: Keep the government out of healthcare, except for legislation that accomplished the following:
1. Allow the 1300 companies to sell in every state.
2. Tort reform limiting damages to actual costs.
3. No state mandates: buy what coverage you wish.
4. Use the tax system to incentivize more into the medical field.
5. Encourage more to buy their own health insurance with tax deductibility.
6. Government step aside.
The End.

The problem with that is you still will have insurance run amok.. What is preventing them form wrongfully denying coverage on someone? How does that force them to accept pre-existing conditions? Government step aside is what got us in the economical jam we are in now.. Banks and financial institutions ran amok and killed our economy and housing market..

Tort reform? Your son or daughter dies due to medical mal practice?? How much is that worth? I agree that there needs to be some limiting.. But people diserve something for their loss.. Or how bout this?? If a patient dies, the doctor is brought up on criminal charges or at least investigated for them.. I would much prefer some of these neglegent doctors go to jail than just pay a court fee and continue their practice..

Sadly your solutions above will do nothing.. Insurance companies will form agreements not to sell in certain markets to continue to drive costs up.. It would be the same princple as two competeing theatres having different movies.. They do so by agreement..

A single payer syestem is the only true way keep them honest.. Cause if the consumer doesn't like their insurance, they have else where to go..

 

[Claudette]

My problem with it is that the Govt will be running it. The Govt that has never in its entire history run anything cheaply or well will be in charge. Add to that the fact that the leaders in our Govt exempted themselves from it speaks volumes to me. How about you??? Thats my problem. Thanks but a big no thanks to anything the Govt runs.

 

[California Girl]

Here's some useful shit from a country with single payer healthcare....

Hospitals: 27 NHS trusts in England with 'significantly high' death rates - Telegraph

Health information guide Dr Foster said 27 hospital trusts had Hospital Standardised Mortality Ratios (HSMRs) that were much higher than average.

HSMRs came to prominence after the public inquiry into child death rates at Bristol Royal Infirmary between 1991 and 1995 when death rates were found to be double the national average.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why so many people are upset with the idea of a National Single Payer Healthcare? Some would say it is a national takeover of healthcare. Some would say it would increase taxes. Fine, it is a national takeover of healthcare and my taxes would increase: so the tradeoff I would always have healthcare for the rest of my life.

Let us think about the possible benefit with a Single Payer Healthcare with my wages with my employer or possible employer. With someone working or not working, everyone has a Single Payer Healthcare. Therefore, someone that is making thousands of dollars or working at McDonalds have the same level of healthcare.

Right now, people stay with their employer because they cannot afford to lose their company insurance policy. Right now, women that are in a loveless marriage feel they have to stay with their husband because of their husbands company insurance. If everyone has a Single Payer Healthcare Insurance, everyone has more liberated to quit their job to venture to a new employer or become self employed that only creates new business and employment. If everyone has a Single Payer Healthcare Insurance, women and with some men, will feel they have greater liberty to get a divorce.

Therefore, a Single Payer Healthcare System would increase LIBERTY and increase the Standard of Living because employers would have to increase wages to keep their workers from leaving or starting their own business.

When do you wise up?

Figure out the basis of the take-over.

How's this for a 10-page bill to fix the problem:

Overview: Keep the government out of healthcare, except for legislation that accomplished the following:
1. Allow the 1300 companies to sell in every state.
2. Tort reform limiting damages to actual costs.
3. No state mandates: buy what coverage you wish.
4. Use the tax system to incentivize more into the medical field.
5. Encourage more to buy their own health insurance with tax deductibility.
6. Government step aside.
The End.

The problem with that is you still will have insurance run amok.. What is preventing them form wrongfully denying coverage on someone? How does that force them to accept pre-existing conditions? Government step aside is what got us in the economical jam we are in now.. Banks and financial institutions ran amok and killed our economy and housing market..

Tort reform? Your son or daughter dies due to medical mal practice?? How much is that worth? I agree that there needs to be some limiting.. But people diserve something for their loss.. Or how bout this?? If a patient dies, the doctor is brought up on criminal charges or at least investigated for them.. I would much prefer some of these neglegent doctors go to jail than just pay a court fee and continue their practice..

Sadly your solutions above will do nothing.. Insurance companies will form agreements not to sell in certain markets to continue to drive costs up.. It would be the same princple as two competeing theatres having different movies.. They do so by agreement..

A single payer syestem is the only true way keep them honest.. Cause if the consumer doesn't like their insurance, they have else where to go..

1."... insurance run amok.. What is preventing them form wrongfully denying coverage on someone..."
"According to AMA’s National Health Insurance Report Card, Medicare denies 6.85 percent of its claims, higher than any private insurer (Aetna was second, denying 6.80 percent of its claims), and more than double any private insurer’s average."
Medicare: Largest Denier Of Health Care Claims » The Foundry

2."How does that force them to accept pre-existing conditions?"
Of course they shouldn't!

Do you have auto insurance? How absurd would it be to call Geico from the scene of your accident and demand that you be covered for it?
Why would anyone with a brain pay for health insurance before they contracted a serious disorder, if they knew that the insurance company had to give them insurace at that point???

3. "... killed our economy and housing market.. "
Wrong. GSE's and forcing banks to give unwarrented loans resulted in the mortgage meltdown. Government interference.

4. Since practice of 'defensive medicine' costs 15 times as much as the total profit in the healthcare industry, I encourage you to look at the Canadian answer to tort reform.

Canada keeps malpractice cost in check - St. Petersburg Times

FactCheck.org: Pushing for a Public Plan

Report: Reining in lawsuits would cut deficit - Washington Times

5. "Sadly your solutions above will do nothing..."
Sadly your comprehension is lacking.