Vermont approves single payer plan

[beagle9]

What happens when Ted Cruz shuts down the Government and everyone has the single payer system?

We'd probably have to resort to some kind of insane, barbaric scheme of paying doctors ourselves!

This would be what the rich who can afford to do so would figure, and then to hec with the rest of us while the storm is raging on and on. The rich don't see it as barabaric to pay their own way, but they would see it as barabaric if I were to have a serious health care issue, where as I wasn't able to afford the services needed to get that issue taken care of, and so I end up at the emergency room in hopes that mercy is somehow laid upon me by those who will make me sit in that room in hopes that I will die before being taken to the back and seen. Done seen this happen time and time again in the past, but the rich can't see those things from their houses now can they ?

When are people going to realize that being rich doesn't mean to not take care of business when it comes to this nation and it's health also ? Poor people can't do it, so who else is left ? Oh that's right, the government is left, but the rich don't want them meddling in such things either, so who else is left between the rich and the poor if government is bad and evil in the rich man's eyes ? Anything the government is attemping to do, has been brought about by the rich not doing, and therefore the government was left to handle it instead.

Now the government isn't the best to handle things after they have fallen apart, because it seeks power over all when the opportunity arises or when it smells weakness in the system of things. We are witnessing this as we speak here today. One thing the government can do and do good, and that is to get the rich man crying like little girls when it tries to fix something, but who is left if the government has no say so in anything as according to the rich ?

 

[dblack]

What happens when Ted Cruz shuts down the Government and everyone has the single payer system?

We'd probably have to resort to some kind of insane, barbaric scheme of paying doctors ourselves!

This would be what the rich who can afford to do so would figure, and then to hec with the rest of us while the storm is raging on and on. The rich don't see it as barabaric to pay their own way, but they would see it as barabaric if I were to have a serious health care issue, where as I wasn't able to afford the services needed to get that issue taken care of, and so I end up at the emergency room in hopes that mercy is somehow laid upon me by those who will make me sit in that room in hopes that I will die before being taken to the back and seen. Done seen this happen time and time again in the past, but the rich can't see those things from their houses now can they ?

When are people going to realize that being rich doesn't mean to not take care of business when it comes to this nation and it's health also ? Poor people can't do it, so who else is left ? Oh that's right, the government is left, but the rich don't want them meddling in such things either, so who else is left between the rich and the poor if government is bad and evil in the rich man's eyes ? Anything the government is attemping to do, has been brought about by the rich not doing, and therefore the government was left to handle it instead.

Now the government isn't the best to handle things after they have fallen apart, because it seeks power over all when the opportunity arises or when it smells weakness in the system of things. We are witnessing this as we speak here today. One thing the government can do and do good, and that is to get the rich man crying like little girls when it tries to fix something, but who is left if the government has no say so in anything as according to the rich ?

You're arguing for some means of caring for the poor, not 'single payer'.

 

[AntiParty]

We'd probably have to resort to some kind of insane, barbaric scheme of paying doctors ourselves!

This would be what the rich who can afford to do so would figure, and then to hec with the rest of us while the storm is raging on and on. The rich don't see it as barabaric to pay their own way, but they would see it as barabaric if I were to have a serious health care issue, where as I wasn't able to afford the services needed to get that issue taken care of, and so I end up at the emergency room in hopes that mercy is somehow laid upon me by those who will make me sit in that room in hopes that I will die before being taken to the back and seen. Done seen this happen time and time again in the past, but the rich can't see those things from their houses now can they ?

When are people going to realize that being rich doesn't mean to not take care of business when it comes to this nation and it's health also ? Poor people can't do it, so who else is left ? Oh that's right, the government is left, but the rich don't want them meddling in such things either, so who else is left between the rich and the poor if government is bad and evil in the rich man's eyes ? Anything the government is attemping to do, has been brought about by the rich not doing, and therefore the government was left to handle it instead.

Now the government isn't the best to handle things after they have fallen apart, because it seeks power over all when the opportunity arises or when it smells weakness in the system of things. We are witnessing this as we speak here today. One thing the government can do and do good, and that is to get the rich man crying like little girls when it tries to fix something, but who is left if the government has no say so in anything as according to the rich ?

You're arguing for some means of caring for the poor, not 'single payer'.

Yea. Why do you care for the poor? That's like EW!!!
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIhU3mQTp1U]Ew with Jimmy Fallon and Channing Tatum (Late Night with Jimmy Fallon) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[FA_Q2]

Vermont Approves Single-Payer Health Care: "Everybody In, Nobody Out"

Looks promising ................

yeah, it's off to a great start, Dudley.

Vermont's Single-Payer System Falling Short Already | National Review Online

To be honest, the program itself has not yet rolled out. These are more concerned they are starting to have in anticipation. They are likely true IMHO but still before roll out.

2017 is the real test when it actually hits the market (or removes the market more correctly stated). I hope like hell they stay the course, we need a STATE to outline the monstrosity that this is before the nation jumps on board.

 

[dblack]

This would be what the rich who can afford to do so would figure, and then to hec with the rest of us while the storm is raging on and on. The rich don't see it as barabaric to pay their own way, but they would see it as barabaric if I were to have a serious health care issue, where as I wasn't able to afford the services needed to get that issue taken care of, and so I end up at the emergency room in hopes that mercy is somehow laid upon me by those who will make me sit in that room in hopes that I will die before being taken to the back and seen. Done seen this happen time and time again in the past, but the rich can't see those things from their houses now can they ?

When are people going to realize that being rich doesn't mean to not take care of business when it comes to this nation and it's health also ? Poor people can't do it, so who else is left ? Oh that's right, the government is left, but the rich don't want them meddling in such things either, so who else is left between the rich and the poor if government is bad and evil in the rich man's eyes ? Anything the government is attemping to do, has been brought about by the rich not doing, and therefore the government was left to handle it instead.

Now the government isn't the best to handle things after they have fallen apart, because it seeks power over all when the opportunity arises or when it smells weakness in the system of things. We are witnessing this as we speak here today. One thing the government can do and do good, and that is to get the rich man crying like little girls when it tries to fix something, but who is left if the government has no say so in anything as according to the rich ?

You're arguing for some means of caring for the poor, not 'single payer'.

Yea. Why do you care for the poor? That's like EW!!!

What??? I wasn't dismissing that idea. Just saying it's not the same thing as taking over the whole thing. That'd be like forcing everyone onto food stamps in order to feed the poor. Would that make any sense?

 

[Bombur]

UHC systems are more efficient at providing health insurance. It is already a given in the US that we try and provide health care to the poor. The argument is about what is the most efficient way to do that.

 

[dblack]

UHC systems are more efficient at providing health insurance. It is already a given in the US that we try and provide health care to the poor. The argument is about what is the most efficient way to do that.

Yeah. Well, again, I'm not looking for the government to make my life more 'efficient'. It's a pretty creepy motive when it comes right down to it.

 

[Bombur]

UHC systems are more efficient at providing health insurance. It is already a given in the US that we try and provide health care to the poor. The argument is about what is the most efficient way to do that.

Yeah. Well, again, I'm not looking for the government to make my life more 'efficient'. It's a pretty creepy motive when it comes right down to it.

Yes, saving hundreds of billions of dollars for the benefit of everyone is "creepy."

 

[dblack]

UHC systems are more efficient at providing health insurance. It is already a given in the US that we try and provide health care to the poor. The argument is about what is the most efficient way to do that.

Yeah. Well, again, I'm not looking for the government to make my life more 'efficient'. It's a pretty creepy motive when it comes right down to it.

Yes, saving hundreds of billions of dollars for the benefit of everyone is "creepy."

If you do that by conscripting them into a government 'system' against their will - yeah. It's creepy. We're not ants, for fuck's sake. I'm sure there are any number of human endeavors that would be more 'efficient' if we forced them into a state-run system. How about procreation? All this dating, marriage and divorce stuff is pretty messy. Think of the money we'd save.

 

[Bombur]

Yeah. Well, again, I'm not looking for the government to make my life more 'efficient'. It's a pretty creepy motive when it comes right down to it.

Yes, saving hundreds of billions of dollars for the benefit of everyone is "creepy."

If you do that by conscripting them into a government 'system' against their will - yeah. It's creepy. We're not ants, for fuck's sake. I'm sure there are any number of human endeavors that would be more 'efficient' if we forced them into a state-run system. How about procreation? All this dating, marriage and divorce stuff is pretty messy.

Yes health insurance is just like marriage.

/boggle

Why does the world view of libertarians rely on horrible analogies? I know this is diverting the topic a bit but every libertarian I have ever met loves horrible analogies. WTF?

 

[dblack]

Yes, saving hundreds of billions of dollars for the benefit of everyone is "creepy."

If you do that by conscripting them into a government 'system' against their will - yeah. It's creepy. We're not ants, for fuck's sake. I'm sure there are any number of human endeavors that would be more 'efficient' if we forced them into a state-run system. How about procreation? All this dating, marriage and divorce stuff is pretty messy.

Yes health insurance is just like marriage.

/boggle

Why does the world view of libertarians rely on horrible analogies? I know this is diverting the topic a bit but every libertarian I have ever met loves horrible analogies. WTF?

How is it different, in your view? Seriously, what limiting principle is there on your zeal to see the state running our lives? If efficiency is your yardstick, there's lots of things, things that are quite like healthcare, that would arguably run smoother under a mandated system.

My point is that efficiency is a shitty justification for forcing everyone to submit to your 'system'. You can write it off as 'ideology' if you like, but I'll not voluntarily submit to the kind of government authority over my life, no matter how 'inefficient' it might be.

 

[editec]

Why does the world view of libertarians rely on horrible analogies? I know this is diverting the topic a bit but every libertarian I have ever met loves horrible analogies. WTF?

That's because if they could posit good analogies they're realize that much of their delusions about libertarianism are nothing more than children apologies for being a selfish prick.

Most libertarians THING (not people) oriented.

They are materialists, and humanism actually confuses them.

 

[dblack]

Why does the world view of libertarians rely on horrible analogies? I know this is diverting the topic a bit but every libertarian I have ever met loves horrible analogies. WTF?

That's because if they could posit good analogies they're realize that much of their delusions about libertarianism are nothing more than children apologies for being a selfish prick.

Most libertarians THING (not people) oriented.

They are materialists, and humanism actually confuses them.

Or, is it because they actually pay attention to the principles at work behind the specifics of a given issue?

Nahh...

 

[Bombur]

If you do that by conscripting them into a government 'system' against their will - yeah. It's creepy. We're not ants, for fuck's sake. I'm sure there are any number of human endeavors that would be more 'efficient' if we forced them into a state-run system. How about procreation? All this dating, marriage and divorce stuff is pretty messy.

Yes health insurance is just like marriage.

/boggle

Why does the world view of libertarians rely on horrible analogies? I know this is diverting the topic a bit but every libertarian I have ever met loves horrible analogies. WTF?

How is it different, in your view? Seriously, what limiting principle is there on your zeal to see the state running our lives? If efficiency is your yardstick, there's lots of things, things that are quite like healthcare, that would arguably run smoother under a mandated system.

My point is that efficiency is a shitty justification for forcing everyone to submit to your 'system'. You can write it off as 'ideology' if you like, but I'll not voluntarily submit to the kind of government authority over my life, no matter how 'inefficient' it might be.

Efficiency isn't the only consideration. You can also consider things like the power people have in various systems. In this regard UHC systems can and often do offer significantly more options for people in terms of what doctors they see and what treatments are available to them. A UHC system can also be combined with private insurance to for even greater flexibility and choice.

I assume by your rant you will not be accepting Medicare when you are old enough.

 

[Spoonman]

Ah.... the future is now...
If only this were true for the whole country....
Dems shed a tear of happiness.
Next on the horizon is free housing for all....

If only ...if only...

The single-payer is what the socialists in office have wanted all along. They know the kids won't pay for something they don't want or need and here's why:

New ad indicates the Affordable Care Act may not appear so 'affordable' to disillusioned, poor young people who would rather pay a penalty.

Millennials: Generation ObamaCare 'opt-out' | Fox News Video

they have this in countries like hungary. when you want a doctor for a critical surgery you get scheduled based on how large the bribe you give him up front is. they have to make their money somehow

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

What happens when Ted Cruz shuts down the Government and everyone has the single payer system?

We'd probably have to resort to some kind of insane, barbaric scheme of paying doctors ourselves!

This would be what the rich who can afford to do so would figure, and then to hec with the rest of us while the storm is raging on and on. The rich don't see it as barabaric to pay their own way, but they would see it as barabaric if I were to have a serious health care issue, where as I wasn't able to afford the services needed to get that issue taken care of, and so I end up at the emergency room in hopes that mercy is somehow laid upon me by those who will make me sit in that room in hopes that I will die before being taken to the back and seen. Done seen this happen time and time again in the past, but the rich can't see those things from their houses now can they ?

When are people going to realize that being rich doesn't mean to not take care of business when it comes to this nation and it's health also ? Poor people can't do it, so who else is left ? Oh that's right, the government is left, but the rich don't want them meddling in such things either, so who else is left between the rich and the poor if government is bad and evil in the rich man's eyes ? Anything the government is attemping to do, has been brought about by the rich not doing, and therefore the government was left to handle it instead.

Now the government isn't the best to handle things after they have fallen apart, because it seeks power over all when the opportunity arises or when it smells weakness in the system of things. We are witnessing this as we speak here today. One thing the government can do and do good, and that is to get the rich man crying like little girls when it tries to fix something, but who is left if the government has no say so in anything as according to the rich ?

The whole reason health care costs what it does these days is because the government got involved in the first place. Going back to a cash payment for most services, while maintaining high deductible insurance for catastrophic reasons would bring the costs of services back down.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

UHC systems are more efficient at providing health insurance. It is already a given in the US that we try and provide health care to the poor. The argument is about what is the most efficient way to do that.

Yeah. Well, again, I'm not looking for the government to make my life more 'efficient'. It's a pretty creepy motive when it comes right down to it.

Yes, saving hundreds of billions of dollars for the benefit of everyone is "creepy."

What government program has ever accomplished such a thing?

 

[Bombur]

Yeah. Well, again, I'm not looking for the government to make my life more 'efficient'. It's a pretty creepy motive when it comes right down to it.

Yes, saving hundreds of billions of dollars for the benefit of everyone is "creepy."

What government program has ever accomplished such a thing?

Every single health care system in a modern country besides our own.

 

[dblack]

Yeah. Well, again, I'm not looking for the government to make my life more 'efficient'. It's a pretty creepy motive when it comes right down to it.

Yes, saving hundreds of billions of dollars for the benefit of everyone is "creepy."

What government program has ever accomplished such a thing?

I don't know that it has, I just want to be clear that efficiency isn't a good enough reason to force compliance to a proposed 'system'.

People seem to want to cast libertarians as radicals or extremists, and I've always seen us as the opposite. We're the moderating force in most circumstances, often the only people asking 'Do we really need to get the police involved?" when it comes to solving our problems as a society. We believe voluntary cooperation is preferable to coercive mandates. If there's not a damned good reason, no one should take up arms against their neighbor for their own convenience.

 

[Bombur]

Yes, saving hundreds of billions of dollars for the benefit of everyone is "creepy."

What government program has ever accomplished such a thing?

I don't know that it has, I just want to be clear that efficiency isn't a good enough reason to force compliance to a proposed 'system'.

People seem to want to cast libertarians as radicals or extremists, and I've always seen us as the opposite. We're the moderating force in most circumstances, often the only people asking 'Do we really need to get the police involved?" when it comes to solving our problems as a society. We believe voluntary cooperation is preferable to coercive mandates. If there's not a damned good reason, no one should take up arms against their neighbor for their own convenience.

The reasons in this case are economic and health. Those are two pretty big reasons.

HTH