Vermont Going To Single Payer By 2017. Kicking Health Insurance Companies Out

[thereisnospoon]

Health profiles are not the same as health care.
Geez, can we stop with these fallacies once and for all? WHo cares that people in France live longer or are less obese? This isnt France. This isnt Germany. Our populations, histories, culture and lifestyles are completely different. We might as well compare ourselves to Bolivia, Indonesia and Guinea.

It isn't a 'fallacy' but a statistical tool.

You're the one arguing here that a system can't work that doesn't exist, whilst stating that UHC doesn't work or is less efficient even though it works quite effectively in other countries - and with much better results.

That's the real fallacy, your ideologically driven assumptions about a system you know nothing about - as it doesn't exist yet.

You keep missing the point here: Vermont studied the possibilities and determined it wouldnt work. There's your system right there.
You havent shown UHC works anywhere. You post fallacious data points tht proves nothing mroe than different populations have different health profiles. In addition all the European sytems are hemorrhaging money and desperately making changes to accomodate it.

An attempt at UHC wasn't ever implemented in Vermont, and the jury is still out over whether it won't be implemented in 2017.

It isn't 'fallacious' as it is OECD data on OECD countries, which is usually derived from official stats of OECD nations. It just happens that the best performers have some form of UHC, and it isn't just OECD stats pointing that out: U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries - Forbes

1. United Kingdom
2. Switzerland
3. Sweden
4. Australia
5. Germany & Netherlands (tied)
7. New Zealand & Norway (tied)
9. France
10. Canada
11. United States

The most notable way the U.S. differs from other industrialized countries is the absence of universal health insurance coverage. Other nations ensure the accessibility of care through universal health systems and through better ties between patients and the physician practices that serve as their medical homes. The Commonwealth Fund “Mirror, Mirror On The Wall — 2014 Update”

So what is more likely? A grand international 'socialist' conspiracy to create fake data on the US, or that the US healthcare system is worse performing on a per capita basis?

Edit: I wonder if you have ever used the healthcare system of another country. I have personal experience in using two UHC systems and the US healthcare system, and thus can compare them from personal experience as well.

Still heavily weighted on Universal access.

Not much different from the WHO.

It kind of has to be universal otherwise everyone could just get rid of sick people. Are you telling me that certain Americans Citizens don't count... 'All men created equal..' must be fortune cookies...

I think your argument is the US has the best healthcare system in the world as long as you don't get sick.

Are you Newt Gingrich divorce lawyer?

Wow, a whole bunch of straw men crash the party.

 

[CowboyTed]

Medicare/Medicaid ≠ complete UHC system.

Also OECD stats disagree. The quality of American healthcare ranks well below nations with UHC: http://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/Briefing-Note-UNITED-STATES-2014.pdf

Health profiles are not the same as health care.
Geez, can we stop with these fallacies once and for all? WHo cares that people in France live longer or are less obese? This isnt France. This isnt Germany. Our populations, histories, culture and lifestyles are completely different. We might as well compare ourselves to Bolivia, Indonesia and Guinea.

It isn't a 'fallacy' but a statistical tool.

You're the one arguing here that a system can't work that doesn't exist, whilst stating that UHC doesn't work or is less efficient even though it works quite effectively in other countries - and with much better results.

That's the real fallacy, your ideologically driven assumptions about a system you know nothing about - as it doesn't exist yet.

You keep missing the point here: Vermont studied the possibilities and determined it wouldnt work. There's your system right there.
You havent shown UHC works anywhere. You post fallacious data points tht proves nothing mroe than different populations have different health profiles. In addition all the European sytems are hemorrhaging money and desperately making changes to accomodate it.

The European systems are far cheaper than the present US system.

So your answer is we are different. You actually want to be compared to third world countries like Boliva....

You should run on that manifesto, Let me help you with your speech : 'I can see it now, our country will have a health system like Boliva's'

Fact: Your comparisons are spurious. US health care costs more because people in the US are sicker. People in the US also subsidize drug costs in other countries.
You can keep slinging shit but you look like an idiot with every post because you dont know what the **** you're talking about.

"US health care costs more because people in the US are sicker"

Ever try and figure out why? Has Europe got some magic juice?

 

[CowboyTed]

It isn't a 'fallacy' but a statistical tool.

You're the one arguing here that a system can't work that doesn't exist, whilst stating that UHC doesn't work or is less efficient even though it works quite effectively in other countries - and with much better results.

That's the real fallacy, your ideologically driven assumptions about a system you know nothing about - as it doesn't exist yet.

You keep missing the point here: Vermont studied the possibilities and determined it wouldnt work. There's your system right there.
You havent shown UHC works anywhere. You post fallacious data points tht proves nothing mroe than different populations have different health profiles. In addition all the European sytems are hemorrhaging money and desperately making changes to accomodate it.

An attempt at UHC wasn't ever implemented in Vermont, and the jury is still out over whether it won't be implemented in 2017.

It isn't 'fallacious' as it is OECD data on OECD countries, which is usually derived from official stats of OECD nations. It just happens that the best performers have some form of UHC, and it isn't just OECD stats pointing that out: U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries - Forbes

1. United Kingdom
2. Switzerland
3. Sweden
4. Australia
5. Germany & Netherlands (tied)
7. New Zealand & Norway (tied)
9. France
10. Canada
11. United States

The most notable way the U.S. differs from other industrialized countries is the absence of universal health insurance coverage. Other nations ensure the accessibility of care through universal health systems and through better ties between patients and the physician practices that serve as their medical homes. The Commonwealth Fund “Mirror, Mirror On The Wall — 2014 Update”

So what is more likely? A grand international 'socialist' conspiracy to create fake data on the US, or that the US healthcare system is worse performing on a per capita basis?

Edit: I wonder if you have ever used the healthcare system of another country. I have personal experience in using two UHC systems and the US healthcare system, and thus can compare them from personal experience as well.

Still heavily weighted on Universal access.

Not much different from the WHO.

It kind of has to be universal otherwise everyone could just get rid of sick people. Are you telling me that certain Americans Citizens don't count... 'All men created equal..' must be fortune cookies...

I think your argument is the US has the best healthcare system in the world as long as you don't get sick.

Are you Newt Gingrich divorce lawyer?

Wow, a whole bunch of straw men crash the party.

Not one link from the Hard Right to support your arguments... Use of hearsay and my cousin got sick once...

We have used world respected organisations, peer reviewed studies...

You have nothing....

 

[The Rabbi]

Health profiles are not the same as health care.
Geez, can we stop with these fallacies once and for all? WHo cares that people in France live longer or are less obese? This isnt France. This isnt Germany. Our populations, histories, culture and lifestyles are completely different. We might as well compare ourselves to Bolivia, Indonesia and Guinea.

It isn't a 'fallacy' but a statistical tool.

You're the one arguing here that a system can't work that doesn't exist, whilst stating that UHC doesn't work or is less efficient even though it works quite effectively in other countries - and with much better results.

That's the real fallacy, your ideologically driven assumptions about a system you know nothing about - as it doesn't exist yet.

You keep missing the point here: Vermont studied the possibilities and determined it wouldnt work. There's your system right there.
You havent shown UHC works anywhere. You post fallacious data points tht proves nothing mroe than different populations have different health profiles. In addition all the European sytems are hemorrhaging money and desperately making changes to accomodate it.

The European systems are far cheaper than the present US system.

So your answer is we are different. You actually want to be compared to third world countries like Boliva....

You should run on that manifesto, Let me help you with your speech : 'I can see it now, our country will have a health system like Boliva's'

Fact: Your comparisons are spurious. US health care costs more because people in the US are sicker. People in the US also subsidize drug costs in other countries.
You can keep slinging shit but you look like an idiot with every post because you dont know what the **** you're talking about.

"US health care costs more because people in the US are sicker"

Ever try and figure out why? Has Europe got some magic juice?

It's a lifestyle issue. Europe also has many fewer cars as people live in old crowded cities.
ANything else you need help figuring out? Just ask me. I'll set you straight.

 

[The Rabbi]

You keep missing the point here: Vermont studied the possibilities and determined it wouldnt work. There's your system right there.
You havent shown UHC works anywhere. You post fallacious data points tht proves nothing mroe than different populations have different health profiles. In addition all the European sytems are hemorrhaging money and desperately making changes to accomodate it.

An attempt at UHC wasn't ever implemented in Vermont, and the jury is still out over whether it won't be implemented in 2017.

It isn't 'fallacious' as it is OECD data on OECD countries, which is usually derived from official stats of OECD nations. It just happens that the best performers have some form of UHC, and it isn't just OECD stats pointing that out: U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries - Forbes

1. United Kingdom
2. Switzerland
3. Sweden
4. Australia
5. Germany & Netherlands (tied)
7. New Zealand & Norway (tied)
9. France
10. Canada
11. United States

The most notable way the U.S. differs from other industrialized countries is the absence of universal health insurance coverage. Other nations ensure the accessibility of care through universal health systems and through better ties between patients and the physician practices that serve as their medical homes. The Commonwealth Fund “Mirror, Mirror On The Wall — 2014 Update”

So what is more likely? A grand international 'socialist' conspiracy to create fake data on the US, or that the US healthcare system is worse performing on a per capita basis?

Edit: I wonder if you have ever used the healthcare system of another country. I have personal experience in using two UHC systems and the US healthcare system, and thus can compare them from personal experience as well.

Still heavily weighted on Universal access.

Not much different from the WHO.

It kind of has to be universal otherwise everyone could just get rid of sick people. Are you telling me that certain Americans Citizens don't count... 'All men created equal..' must be fortune cookies...

I think your argument is the US has the best healthcare system in the world as long as you don't get sick.

Are you Newt Gingrich divorce lawyer?

Wow, a whole bunch of straw men crash the party.

Not one link from the Hard Right to support your arguments... Use of hearsay and my cousin got sick once...

We have used world respected organisations, peer reviewed studies...

You have nothing....

You have used biased worthless sources. And even though this has been pointed out over and over you perist like it didnt exist. We have even pointed out the source of the biases (subjective questions like "are you happy with your healthcare", measurements that assume more government control is better, etc). And yet you persist. What does this say about your ability to reason?

 

[RKMBrown]

And they will experience delays in treatment and more needless deaths, just like European countries and the VA.
Why anyone thinks this is an advance is beyond me.

Except more people die in the US from not receiving treatment than in Western Europe.

Another foundation premise turns to dust...

That has never been established beyond that bullshit Harvard paper study.

Whenever that roll of toilet paper (which other Harvard Professors called a "stretch") is brought up, I always ask for the names.

This was identified over a decade ago...that would translate to 1/2 million corpses. Where are the names ?

Answer: You don't have any. With work, you might produce a few...but you should easily have hundreds of thousands.

I grow tired of arguing against the Shangri-la bullshit of the left.

It called science... It's tough

Genius...There is no free lunch.
Implementation of single payer in the USA would be a shock to the economic system from which recovery may not be possible.
To fully insure and provide for 320 million people PLUS any person from Mexico and Central America capable of making it across our Swiss cheese border, womb to tomb medical care would be an undertaking so gargantuan, it is unimaginable the cost to do so....

Depends who you attempt to insure. If you only insured citizens and legal residents, then it wouldn't be as much an issue. Several countries that have Single Payer don't provide 'free' healthcare to non-citizens and illegal residents.

That said, I don't see how Single Payer could work without first removing the Federal healthcare system and allowing states to determine their own healthcare system. If you try to implement an alternative system to ACA/Medicare/Medicaid in a state, you are essentially asking people in that state to pay twice.

Everyone in the USA is already insured through medicare/medicaid. DUH!

There are two issues at hand:

1) Some people are dead beats and this government is insane, thus everyone gets to cover the bills of the dead beats.
2) Some people live in lollipop land where money grows on trees and everyone gets to be the six million dollar man in exchange for a few pennies and millions of wishes.

The amount of money one can spend on one person's health care can exceed the assets of every single human being on the planet. Should we spend 200 trillion dollars to save one life? No? You would sacrifice one life for money?

 

[asterism]

You both fail to refute the figures- that these nations pay less, receive better care, live longer. Just ad hominem attacks and oblique statements.

I am sure a movement towards single payer will return, since younger voters are those who most support it. And, by the way, a plurality of Vermonters still support single payer, which makes it all the more infuriating it is being abandoned.

You're full of shit. They pay double what we pay for half the quality and have to effing wait in line. You're idea of cheaper is what a 70% of your income in total taxes? ROFL

UK taxes: 40 per cent of their GDP. ROFL

List of countries by total health expenditure PPP per capita - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

World Health Organization ranking of health systems in 2000 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

France has the world's best healthcare, 4th in expenditure.

The US has the world's 38th best healthcare, 1st in expenditure.

Haw haw haw haw.....ROTFLMAO.

This would means someone is using the WHO rating system. The same one that has us one clean band-aid better than Cuba.

The left only continues to show just what a screwed up education system can do to inferior minds.

For all the state's flaws, Cuba has excellent health care, and roughly the same life expectancy as the US despite being much poorer. The WHO is the most impartial evaluator one could want. When you discard statistics in favor of opinions, there is no argument that could sway you.

Impartial? The WHO openly states a bias in favor of government-run healthcare systems:

The fourth function is called stewardship, because the concept is well described by the
dictionary definition: the careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one’s
care (19). People entrust both their bodies and their money to the health system, which has
a responsibility to protect the former and use the latter wisely and well. The government is
particularly called on to play the role of a steward, because it spends revenues that people
are required to pay through taxes and social insurance, and because it makes many of the
rules that are followed in private and voluntary transactions. It also owns facilities on trust
from the citizens. Private insurers and practitioners, however, perform this function in only
a slightly restricted degree, and part of the state’s task as the overall steward or trustee of
the system is to see to it that private organizations and actors also act carefully and responsibly.
A large part of stewardship consists of regulation, whether undertaken by the government
or by private bodies which regulate their members, often under general rules
determined by government. But the concept embraces more than just regulation, and when
properly conducted has a pervasive influence on all the workings of the system.

Priority setting is generally considered a public sector exercise, particularly concerning
the proper use of public or publicly mandated expenditure. It does not matter for this purpose
whether the delivery of services is public or private, nor how providers are paid. What
matters is that by contracting with private providers or reimbursing them through public
insurance, the government can assure that its priorities are respected even where it does
not provide the services. In the sphere of private, voluntary financing of services there generally
are no explicit priorities: that part of the health system responds to demands rather
than to needs.

Stewardship is the last of the four health systems functions examined in this report,
and it is arguably the most important. It ranks above and differs from the others –
service delivery, input production, and financing – for one outstanding reason: the ultimate
responsibility for the overall performance of a country’s health system must always lie with
government.

http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_en.pdf

 

[Listening]

Edit: I wonder if you have ever used the healthcare system of another country. I have personal experience in using two UHC systems and the US healthcare system, and thus can compare them from personal experience as well.

I don't want to

You keep missing the point here: Vermont studied the possibilities and determined it wouldnt work. There's your system right there.
You havent shown UHC works anywhere. You post fallacious data points tht proves nothing mroe than different populations have different health profiles. In addition all the European sytems are hemorrhaging money and desperately making changes to accomodate it.

An attempt at UHC wasn't ever implemented in Vermont, and the jury is still out over whether it won't be implemented in 2017.

It isn't 'fallacious' as it is OECD data on OECD countries, which is usually derived from official stats of OECD nations. It just happens that the best performers have some form of UHC, and it isn't just OECD stats pointing that out: U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries - Forbes

1. United Kingdom
2. Switzerland
3. Sweden
4. Australia
5. Germany & Netherlands (tied)
7. New Zealand & Norway (tied)
9. France
10. Canada
11. United States

The most notable way the U.S. differs from other industrialized countries is the absence of universal health insurance coverage. Other nations ensure the accessibility of care through universal health systems and through better ties between patients and the physician practices that serve as their medical homes. The Commonwealth Fund “Mirror, Mirror On The Wall — 2014 Update”

So what is more likely? A grand international 'socialist' conspiracy to create fake data on the US, or that the US healthcare system is worse performing on a per capita basis?

The fact that Vermont workers would see income taxes rise some 20 percentage points caused the governor to scrap the plan. Which was at best pie in the sky in the first place.
Without implementation of confiscatory taxes, single payer is just plain unaffordable.

Single Payer isn't the same as UHC: Universal Coverage Is Not Single Payer Healthcare - Forbes

It’s easy – often politically expedient – to lump universal health coverage (UHC) and “Single Payer” together, but they are not the same thing.
Here in the U.S., one big reason for the confusion is that we’re the only (industrialized) country that doesn’t have UHC. What we have here in the U.S. is called SHC – selective health coverage.

While other countries debate (and then implement) different funding mechanisms, they all start with UHC – which is less about how healthcare is funded and focuses more on who has access to healthcare.

Another reason for the confusion (intentional or otherwise) is that by definition, a single payer system is universal coverage. The reverse, however, is not true. There are several different ways (other than single payer) to fund UHC.

Also keep in mind that US Federal taxes would still be collected for the ACA system they aren't using, and they would still have to deal with Federal regulations, so it is hardly surprising that more costs would be involved.

Right. So Obamacare has screwed a state.

Nobody on the left really cares.

After all states are only good for enforcing Jim Crow laws.

In the sense that regardless of the system you attempt to implement on the state level, you would still be restricted in what you can do or fund based on the existing Federal system.

Our so called "Constitutional Scholar" Affirmative Action Failure of a POTUS does it again.

 

[asterism]

It isn't a 'fallacy' but a statistical tool.

You're the one arguing here that a system can't work that doesn't exist, whilst stating that UHC doesn't work or is less efficient even though it works quite effectively in other countries - and with much better results.

That's the real fallacy, your ideologically driven assumptions about a system you know nothing about - as it doesn't exist yet.

You keep missing the point here: Vermont studied the possibilities and determined it wouldnt work. There's your system right there.
You havent shown UHC works anywhere. You post fallacious data points tht proves nothing mroe than different populations have different health profiles. In addition all the European sytems are hemorrhaging money and desperately making changes to accomodate it.

An attempt at UHC wasn't ever implemented in Vermont, and the jury is still out over whether it won't be implemented in 2017.

It isn't 'fallacious' as it is OECD data on OECD countries, which is usually derived from official stats of OECD nations. It just happens that the best performers have some form of UHC, and it isn't just OECD stats pointing that out: U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries - Forbes

1. United Kingdom
2. Switzerland
3. Sweden
4. Australia
5. Germany & Netherlands (tied)
7. New Zealand & Norway (tied)
9. France
10. Canada
11. United States

The most notable way the U.S. differs from other industrialized countries is the absence of universal health insurance coverage. Other nations ensure the accessibility of care through universal health systems and through better ties between patients and the physician practices that serve as their medical homes. The Commonwealth Fund “Mirror, Mirror On The Wall — 2014 Update”

So what is more likely? A grand international 'socialist' conspiracy to create fake data on the US, or that the US healthcare system is worse performing on a per capita basis?

Edit: I wonder if you have ever used the healthcare system of another country. I have personal experience in using two UHC systems and the US healthcare system, and thus can compare them from personal experience as well.

Still heavily weighted on Universal access.

Not much different from the WHO.

Probably because minimum cover effects the overall health of the country, and how fast disease spreads in a population.

Preventive care also weighs into how expensive a healthcare system is to run, if people have regular check ups it is more likely that health issues will be treated at their early stages rather than develop to the point people need expensive surgery.

Hipster,
You are showing where real saving can be made. Another one is education of medical staff, in UK a GP doctor makes about $120k a year but has very little student debt. You don't become a doctor to become a millionaire but you will have a comfortable life.

So they are starting earlier, medicine is still very sort after and the caliber of students are still to the highest.

There's a shortage of doctors in the UK:

UK has fewer doctors per person than Bulgaria and Estonia - Telegraph
NHS hospitals suffer staffing crisis on top of scandals - Telegraph
NHS recruiting 50 doctors from India over Skype to plug desperate A E shortages Daily Mail Online

 

[The Rabbi]

You keep missing the point here: Vermont studied the possibilities and determined it wouldnt work. There's your system right there.
You havent shown UHC works anywhere. You post fallacious data points tht proves nothing mroe than different populations have different health profiles. In addition all the European sytems are hemorrhaging money and desperately making changes to accomodate it.

An attempt at UHC wasn't ever implemented in Vermont, and the jury is still out over whether it won't be implemented in 2017.

It isn't 'fallacious' as it is OECD data on OECD countries, which is usually derived from official stats of OECD nations. It just happens that the best performers have some form of UHC, and it isn't just OECD stats pointing that out: U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries - Forbes

1. United Kingdom
2. Switzerland
3. Sweden
4. Australia
5. Germany & Netherlands (tied)
7. New Zealand & Norway (tied)
9. France
10. Canada
11. United States

The most notable way the U.S. differs from other industrialized countries is the absence of universal health insurance coverage. Other nations ensure the accessibility of care through universal health systems and through better ties between patients and the physician practices that serve as their medical homes. The Commonwealth Fund “Mirror, Mirror On The Wall — 2014 Update”

So what is more likely? A grand international 'socialist' conspiracy to create fake data on the US, or that the US healthcare system is worse performing on a per capita basis?

Edit: I wonder if you have ever used the healthcare system of another country. I have personal experience in using two UHC systems and the US healthcare system, and thus can compare them from personal experience as well.

Still heavily weighted on Universal access.

Not much different from the WHO.

Probably because minimum cover effects the overall health of the country, and how fast disease spreads in a population.

Preventive care also weighs into how expensive a healthcare system is to run, if people have regular check ups it is more likely that health issues will be treated at their early stages rather than develop to the point people need expensive surgery.

Hipster,
You are showing where real saving can be made. Another one is education of medical staff, in UK a GP doctor makes about $120k a year but has very little student debt. You don't become a doctor to become a millionaire but you will have a comfortable life.

So they are starting earlier, medicine is still very sort after and the caliber of students are still to the highest.

There's a shortage of doctors in the UK:

UK has fewer doctors per person than Bulgaria and Estonia - Telegraph
NHS hospitals suffer staffing crisis on top of scandals - Telegraph
NHS recruiting 50 doctors from India over Skype to plug desperate A E shortages Daily Mail Online

Forget it. Cowboy Ted is a jew hating stupid bastard who will blame the international Zionist conspiracy on Britain's doc shortage.

 

[hipeter924]

You keep missing the point here: Vermont studied the possibilities and determined it wouldnt work. There's your system right there.
You havent shown UHC works anywhere. You post fallacious data points tht proves nothing mroe than different populations have different health profiles. In addition all the European sytems are hemorrhaging money and desperately making changes to accomodate it.

An attempt at UHC wasn't ever implemented in Vermont, and the jury is still out over whether it won't be implemented in 2017.

It isn't 'fallacious' as it is OECD data on OECD countries, which is usually derived from official stats of OECD nations. It just happens that the best performers have some form of UHC, and it isn't just OECD stats pointing that out: U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries - Forbes

1. United Kingdom
2. Switzerland
3. Sweden
4. Australia
5. Germany & Netherlands (tied)
7. New Zealand & Norway (tied)
9. France
10. Canada
11. United States

The most notable way the U.S. differs from other industrialized countries is the absence of universal health insurance coverage. Other nations ensure the accessibility of care through universal health systems and through better ties between patients and the physician practices that serve as their medical homes. The Commonwealth Fund “Mirror, Mirror On The Wall — 2014 Update”

So what is more likely? A grand international 'socialist' conspiracy to create fake data on the US, or that the US healthcare system is worse performing on a per capita basis?

Edit: I wonder if you have ever used the healthcare system of another country. I have personal experience in using two UHC systems and the US healthcare system, and thus can compare them from personal experience as well.

Still heavily weighted on Universal access.

Not much different from the WHO.

Probably because minimum cover effects the overall health of the country, and how fast disease spreads in a population.

Preventive care also weighs into how expensive a healthcare system is to run, if people have regular check ups it is more likely that health issues will be treated at their early stages rather than develop to the point people need expensive surgery.

Hipster,
You are showing where real saving can be made. Another one is education of medical staff, in UK a GP doctor makes about $120k a year but has very little student debt. You don't become a doctor to become a millionaire but you will have a comfortable life.

So they are starting earlier, medicine is still very sort after and the caliber of students are still to the highest.

There's a shortage of doctors in the UK:

UK has fewer doctors per person than Bulgaria and Estonia - Telegraph
NHS hospitals suffer staffing crisis on top of scandals - Telegraph
NHS recruiting 50 doctors from India over Skype to plug desperate A E shortages Daily Mail Online

They are leaving in droves to places like New Zealand and Australia:

It was only a fortnight ago that health workforce planners realised so few young doctors were moving on to specialist training that they had places for only 50 new graduates rather than the usual 140. Meanwhile, the doctors they have recruited from the UK and Ireland, are taking up their contracts.

After years of a doctor shortage, there is a surfeit. Where previously one in four New Zealand-trained doctors would disappear overseas, the loss is only one in 20 now.

Herald on Sunday editorial Suddenly a surplus of doctors - National - NZ Herald News

 

[Listening]

Let me go back.

Goosed posted an article from six months ago.

Since that time, Vermont has given Single Payer the flush.

It cost to much.

Great that they tried.

To bad Obama has screwed them.

But that's the bottom line.

 

[The Rabbi]

Single payer=Dead.

 

[RKMBrown]

Single payer=Dead.

Single payer = democrat orgasm.

 

[The Rabbi]

Single payer=Dead.

Single payer = democrat orgasm.

They can orgasm all they want. It isnt going to happen. It isnt a viable solution, any more than a guaranteed income is a viable solution.

 

[RKMBrown]

Single payer=Dead.

Single payer = democrat orgasm.

They can orgasm all they want. It isnt going to happen. It isnt a viable solution, any more than a guaranteed income is a viable solution.

It's viable. We just have to be willing to swallow a 20% (essentially doubling) or so tax increase on the upper middle class to pay for all of the expensive health care needs and desires of the entire nation between 25 and 65. But hey then health care would be free

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Is it only a matter of time before the nation follows suit?

Vermont Wants Aetna, Cigna and Other Health Insurers Dead

Under a single-payer system, there is no role for health insurance companies such as Aetna and Cigna as the government pays all the medical bills. Many hope that the United States will implement a single-payer system.

In Canada, the pay for medical doctors is about 50% lower. In Norway, it is nearly two-thirds lower.

Vermont Wants Aetna, Cigna and Other Health Insurers To Be History - TheStreet

.

If I were a doctor, I would set up my clinic right on the border with Vermont. Leftism would put my kids through college and vouchsafe a nice retirement for me.

 

[hazlnut]

And they will experience delays in treatment and more needless deaths, just like European countries and the VA.
Why anyone thinks this is an advance is beyond me.

Why do you assume a death is "needless" without know the person who died.

Just like abortions, you assume to know what's best.

 

[hazlnut]

Is it only a matter of time before the nation follows suit?

Vermont Wants Aetna, Cigna and Other Health Insurers Dead

Under a single-payer system, there is no role for health insurance companies such as Aetna and Cigna as the government pays all the medical bills. Many hope that the United States will implement a single-payer system.

In Canada, the pay for medical doctors is about 50% lower. In Norway, it is nearly two-thirds lower.

Vermont Wants Aetna, Cigna and Other Health Insurers To Be History - TheStreet

.

If I were a doctor, I would set up my clinic right on the border with Vermont. Leftism would put my kids through college and vouchsafe a nice retirement for me.

No. You'd go broke sitting alone in your new office.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Is it only a matter of time before the nation follows suit?

Vermont Wants Aetna, Cigna and Other Health Insurers Dead

Under a single-payer system, there is no role for health insurance companies such as Aetna and Cigna as the government pays all the medical bills. Many hope that the United States will implement a single-payer system.

In Canada, the pay for medical doctors is about 50% lower. In Norway, it is nearly two-thirds lower.

Vermont Wants Aetna, Cigna and Other Health Insurers To Be History - TheStreet

.

If I were a doctor, I would set up my clinic right on the border with Vermont. Leftism would put my kids through college and vouchsafe a nice retirement for me.

No. You'd go broke sitting alone in your new office.

Incorrect. Thousands of hospitals and doctors are located right across the border to Canada. There's a reason for that. Communism doesn't work no matter how many times you try it.