Replace the ACA with single payer

[The VOR]

You idiots don't realize that we pay for health care anyway! Might as well make it efficient .

Had no idea the best way to make something efficient was by breaking it. I have a hammer right here, how about I make your clock efficient?

You are a brainwashed functional moron. ACA has only made health care better and cheaper DUH.

You can't possibly be this stupid or duped....it's just not possible

You must live in an idiot red state. Sorry you can't get your scam policies any more. ACA works great in blue states that already had good insurers.

You're an ignorant partisan shill, nothing more and nothing less

LOL. The biggest, and I do mean biggest, partisan political hack on the board calling someone else partisan.

This is your mentality:

Anything and everything republican, good, good, good.
Anything and everything democrat, bad, bad, bad.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

New York is a red state? Nope

Obamacare Rates Rise in New York, and So Does Political Risk

 

[WillReadmore]

Replace the ACA with single payer the rest of the civilized world enjoys. Lets not be left out in the cold!!!!

-It would be cheaper
-Moral

Only rich can afford what the ryans of this world want. That is wrong.

WHat is it with you libs and your undying need to get shit and have someone else pay for it?

I don't see any real gain in allowing corporations to maximize their profit off of our health. It's not really even free market enterprise, as when you need your appendix out (or whatever) you don't have a choice. And, our system works when you have a choice.

So, in looking at systems working today, we spend gigantic amounts on health care, and it would be great if we didn't have to do that. Luckily enough, there are numerous countries doing better than we are.

So, why are you complaining when people think maybe America could do with spending less on health care?

You really don't see any gain in that?

Let me explain to you the difference.

You need your appendix out. You have two hospitals you could go to.

Hospital one, is a private care center. If you die, they don't get paid. If you wait too long and leave. They don't get paid. If you get treated poorly, you might pay for services, but never come back, and they don't get paid.

You are a customer to them. And if they don't keep the customer, they go out of business.

So they every single incentive in the world, to make sure you are treated well, healed, and survive the illness, and are happy to come back again the next time you need something.... or they will not have a job.

Hospital two, is a gov-care tax-funded socialized care center.

Let me just cut this off here.

Single payer health care does not mean the government owns ANY provider services AT ALL.

Remember that Medicare is a single payer system. Yet, Medicare doesn't own any hospitals.

You're getting into this panic about "socialism", and it is blocking you from listening.

Also, you clearly have not taken a look at any of the other industrialized nations in the world, which ALL use payment systems that are not like ours, as they are variants on the "single payer" theme.

 

[WillReadmore]

I'm privately insured without any help from ObamaCare. This isn't about me.

Typical. Some rich wealthy guy, talking about how great socialism is.... when he's not in the socialist system.

Then some average working person like me, who has actually used Obama Care, and see's how bad the system works, you mock and object to.

So typical of left-wingers. You say how great the system is, even though you don't use it, and are not qualified to comment.

You ignore the experience of people like me, who have been in the system, even though between the two of us, I'm the only one qualified to comment.

So predictable.

lol interesting analysis. I'm not wealthy. I just have good job benefits.

Did you know you can voluntarily give your own money to charity? You learn something new every day, huh?

We tried that. You can read about it.

Beyond that, people complained that giving wasn't so easy, because of taxes.

So, Bush and Obama had some large cuts in taxes. Those resulted in no more c

So, why are you paying taxes TODAY?

Do you think the rules on paying taxes are about to change, because of health care???

Seriously. I just don't understand what the HECK you are thinking.

You said guns aren't used to force me to pay taxes. I don't object to that, I want to get in on it. What the fuck are you talking about? Explain how I can not pay taxes and not have government come with guns to take my shit from me. It was your claim ... so ... back it up ....

There's nothing new or different concerning what our government will do to collect taxes legally owed.

You are stooping to make a general statement which applies to ALL taxes, NOT this case in particular.

And, the point about taxes is that there is NO civilization without taxes. Ever.

So, if you want to discuss taxes, go to some other board. THIS board assumes there is a political system.

So your argument is that government isn't using guns to make me pay for your medical bills because they use guns to make me pay all my taxes ...



You were still born, weren't you?

No, my argument is that nothing about tax collection changes due to any decision related to health care.

So, if you want to discuss how taxes are collected, you need to go to some other board.

I said my money was being taken by force and given to other citizens. You said no it isn't. Now you're back tracking because obviously it was a lie. Just man up to that you said and stop trying to spin

You're complaining about taxes in general.

The subject here has to do with health care.

You can pack away your pearl handled revolvers and notice that we already pay for health care through Medicare, VA, aid to low income ACA applicants and in direct aid to hospitals that end up serving the remaining indigent.

So, this is not some newfangled method of stealing your money.

 

[dblack]

Replace the ACA with single payer the rest of the civilized world enjoys. Lets not be left out in the cold!!!!

-It would be cheaper
-Moral

Only rich can afford what the ryans of this world want. That is wrong.

WHat is it with you libs and your undying need to get shit and have someone else pay for it?

I don't see any real gain in allowing corporations to maximize their profit off of our health. It's not really even free market enterprise, as when you need your appendix out (or whatever) you don't have a choice. And, our system works when you have a choice.

So, in looking at systems working today, we spend gigantic amounts on health care, and it would be great if we didn't have to do that. Luckily enough, there are numerous countries doing better than we are.

So, why are you complaining when people think maybe America could do with spending less on health care?

You really don't see any gain in that?

Let me explain to you the difference.

You need your appendix out. You have two hospitals you could go to.

Hospital one, is a private care center. If you die, they don't get paid. If you wait too long and leave. They don't get paid. If you get treated poorly, you might pay for services, but never come back, and they don't get paid.

You are a customer to them. And if they don't keep the customer, they go out of business.

So they every single incentive in the world, to make sure you are treated well, healed, and survive the illness, and are happy to come back again the next time you need something.... or they will not have a job.

Hospital two, is a gov-care tax-funded socialized care center.

Let me just cut this off here.

Single payer health care does not mean the government owns ANY provider services AT ALL.

Remember that Medicare is a single payer system. Yet, Medicare doesn't own any hospitals.

True. Directly, single-payer would only socialize health insurance - it puts government in charge of how we pay for health care. But if government provides the health care industry the bulk of its revenue, will there be any question who's calling the shots?

You're getting into this panic about "socialism", and it is blocking you from listening.

I don't really hear a lot of panic. It seems you can't accept the fact that a lot of people don't like socialism. You assume that "just don't get it"

Also, you clearly have not taken a look at any of the other industrialized nations in the world, which ALL use payment systems that are not like ours, as they are variants on the "single payer" theme.

And they are examples of, to one degree or another, state socialism. Equivocating on terminology won't change that.

 

[francoHFW]

New York is a red state? Nope

Obamacare Rates Rise in New York, and So Does Political Risk

Finally a rise. BFD. lol

Richest paying less than nonrich, keeping almost all the new wealth, superdupe.

 

[francoHFW]

Replace the ACA with single payer the rest of the civilized world enjoys. Lets not be left out in the cold!!!!

-It would be cheaper
-Moral

Only rich can afford what the ryans of this world want. That is wrong.

WHat is it with you libs and your undying need to get shit and have someone else pay for it?

I don't see any real gain in allowing corporations to maximize their profit off of our health. It's not really even free market enterprise, as when you need your appendix out (or whatever) you don't have a choice. And, our system works when you have a choice.

So, in looking at systems working today, we spend gigantic amounts on health care, and it would be great if we didn't have to do that. Luckily enough, there are numerous countries doing better than we are.

So, why are you complaining when people think maybe America could do with spending less on health care?

You really don't see any gain in that?

Let me explain to you the difference.

You need your appendix out. You have two hospitals you could go to.

Hospital one, is a private care center. If you die, they don't get paid. If you wait too long and leave. They don't get paid. If you get treated poorly, you might pay for services, but never come back, and they don't get paid.

You are a customer to them. And if they don't keep the customer, they go out of business.

So they every single incentive in the world, to make sure you are treated well, healed, and survive the illness, and are happy to come back again the next time you need something.... or they will not have a job.

Hospital two, is a gov-care tax-funded socialized care center.

Let me just cut this off here.

Single payer health care does not mean the government owns ANY provider services AT ALL.

Remember that Medicare is a single payer system. Yet, Medicare doesn't own any hospitals.

True. Directly, single-payer would only socialize health insurance - it puts government in charge of how we pay for health care. But if government provides the health care industry the bulk of its revenue, will there be any question who's calling the shots?

You're getting into this panic about "socialism", and it is blocking you from listening.

I don't really hear a lot of panic. It seems you can't accept the fact that a lot of people don't like socialism. You assume that "just don't get it"

Also, you clearly have not taken a look at any of the other industrialized nations in the world, which ALL use payment systems that are not like ours, as they are variants on the "single payer" theme.

And they are examples of, to one degree or another, state socialism. Equivocating on terminology won't change that.

Also examples of intelligence and being well informed. You wouldn't understand...

 

[WillReadmore]

Replace the ACA with single payer the rest of the civilized world enjoys. Lets not be left out in the cold!!!!

-It would be cheaper
-Moral

Only rich can afford what the ryans of this world want. That is wrong.

WHat is it with you libs and your undying need to get shit and have someone else pay for it?

I don't see any real gain in allowing corporations to maximize their profit off of our health. It's not really even free market enterprise, as when you need your appendix out (or whatever) you don't have a choice. And, our system works when you have a choice.

So, in looking at systems working today, we spend gigantic amounts on health care, and it would be great if we didn't have to do that. Luckily enough, there are numerous countries doing better than we are.

So, why are you complaining when people think maybe America could do with spending less on health care?

You really don't see any gain in that?

Let me explain to you the difference.

You need your appendix out. You have two hospitals you could go to.

Hospital one, is a private care center. If you die, they don't get paid. If you wait too long and leave. They don't get paid. If you get treated poorly, you might pay for services, but never come back, and they don't get paid.

You are a customer to them. And if they don't keep the customer, they go out of business.

So they every single incentive in the world, to make sure you are treated well, healed, and survive the illness, and are happy to come back again the next time you need something.... or they will not have a job.

Hospital two, is a gov-care tax-funded socialized care center.

Let me just cut this off here.

Single payer health care does not mean the government owns ANY provider services AT ALL.

Remember that Medicare is a single payer system. Yet, Medicare doesn't own any hospitals.

True. Directly, single-payer would only socialize health insurance - it puts government in charge of how we pay for health care. But if government provides the health care industry the bulk of its revenue, will there be any question who's calling the shots?

You're getting into this panic about "socialism", and it is blocking you from listening.

I don't really hear a lot of panic. It seems you can't accept the fact that a lot of people don't like socialism. You assume that "just don't get it"

Also, you clearly have not taken a look at any of the other industrialized nations in the world, which ALL use payment systems that are not like ours, as they are variants on the "single payer" theme.

And they are examples of, to one degree or another, state socialism. Equivocating on terminology won't change that.

Today, for-profit corporations make the decisions that would be transferred to the government.

As we see, for-profit insurers have been fully willing to dump people who get sick, to fail to address those of limited means, refuse to serve those with existing medical problems, etc., etc.

So far, we patch over these problems by making more and more regulations. (Remembering that before the ACA, there were numerous regulations on health care insurers - just not enough to solve some of these problems we see as so serious.)

If the government made those decisions, WE (or our representatives) would vote on them, rather than having to pass regulations in the hopes of requiring corporations to deliver what we need.

We can look at other nations where health care payment is managed by the government to see what that looks like.

We can also look at Medicare, of course, but with Medicare we don't all use the system. So, we're in a position where we can cut Medicare without it hurting ourselves. Medicare would be different if it served ALL citizens, including congressmen. It would also be different if providers recognized that ALL their customers are Medicare customers - rather than today, where some providers can simply refuse to serve Medicare customers.

 

[OKTexas]

Why not? Seriously, Canada, Uk, Germany, France, and on down the list have it. It is a proven system and it works. I seriously believe that our healthcare system shouldn't be about jacking up the price just because you're sick. That is wrong.

If you like their system so much, feel free to pack your shit and move to one of them. Although with your psychological problems I doubt they'd take ya.

Hmmmmm........... They all pay less per citizen for their health care than we do, live longer, have lower infant mortality, and live healthier than we do. They just do not create felons like Scott of Florida that bilk the system of 2 billion dollars, and then goes on the be the GOP governor of Florida.

Yep and when they want quality care for life threatening situations they come here if they can afford it. That should tell you something.

 

[Old Rocks]

How much is good health care worth to you? $8,233 per year? That’s how much the U.S. spends per person.

Worth it?

That figure is more than two-and-a-half times more than most developed nations in the world, including relatively rich European countries like France, Sweden and the United Kingdom. On a more global scale, it means U.S. health care costs now eat up 17.6 percent of GDP.

A sizable slice of Americans — including some top-ranking politicians — say the cost may be unfortunate but the U.S. has “the best health care in the world.”

But let’s consider what 17 cents of every U.S. dollar is purchasing. According to the most recent report from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) — an international economic group comprised of 34 member nations — it’s not as much as many Americans expect.

In the United States:

• There are fewer physicians per person than in most other OECD countries. In 2010, for instance, the U.S. had 2.4 practicing physicians per 1,000 people — well below below the OECD average of 3.1.
  
  
• The number of hospital beds in the U.S. was 2.6 per 1,000 population in 2009, lower than the OECD average of 3.4 beds.
  
  
• Life expectancy at birth increased by almost nine years between 1960 and 2010, but that’s less than the increase of over 15 years in Japan and over 11 years on average in OECD countries. The average American now lives 78.7 years in 2010, more than one year below the average of 79.8 years.

Health Costs: How the U.S. Compares With Other Countries

Now if you have cancer, the US has the best record on that. But our record on infant mortality sucks, and we are generally below the other first world nations in everything but cancer care.

 

[dblack]

Also, you clearly have not taken a look at any of the other industrialized nations in the world, which ALL use payment systems that are not like ours, as they are variants on the "single payer" theme.

And they are examples of, to one degree or another, state socialism. Equivocating on terminology won't change that.

Today, for-profit corporations make the decisions that would be transferred to the government.

Nope. The power that single-payer grants to government is the power force everyone into buying insurance from the same 'company'.

As we see, for-profit insurers have been fully willing to dump people who get sick, to fail to address those of limited means, refuse to serve those with existing medical problems, etc., etc.

So far, we patch over these problems by making more and more regulations. (Remembering that before the ACA, there were numerous regulations on health care insurers - just not enough to solve some of these problems we see as so serious.)

If the government made those decisions, WE (or our representatives) would vote on them, rather than having to pass regulations in the hopes of requiring corporations to deliver what we need.

Yep. And if your preferences in health care or insurance aren't in line with the majority, you're stuck with whatever they decide. In a free market, if your insurance company pisses you off, you can look for another. Or find some other way to pay for your health care. If the government takes over, you're stuck with whatever they think you ought to "buy".

 

[eagle7_31]

Also, you clearly have not taken a look at any of the other industrialized nations in the world, which ALL use payment systems that are not like ours, as they are variants on the "single payer" theme.

And they are examples of, to one degree or another, state socialism. Equivocating on terminology won't change that.

Today, for-profit corporations make the decisions that would be transferred to the government.

Nope. The power that single-payer grants to government is the power force everyone into buying insurance from the same 'company'.

As we see, for-profit insurers have been fully willing to dump people who get sick, to fail to address those of limited means, refuse to serve those with existing medical problems, etc., etc.

So far, we patch over these problems by making more and more regulations. (Remembering that before the ACA, there were numerous regulations on health care insurers - just not enough to solve some of these problems we see as so serious.)

If the government made those decisions, WE (or our representatives) would vote on them, rather than having to pass regulations in the hopes of requiring corporations to deliver what we need.

Yep. And if your preferences in health care or insurance aren't in line with the majority, you're stuck with whatever they decide. In a free market, if your insurance company pisses you off, you can look for another. Or find some other way to pay for your health care. If the government takes over, you're stuck with whatever they think you ought to have - or be force to buy, rather.

A number of the libs probably figured ACA is a mess to start with and thought the Hildebeast would win in 2016 and put in single payer.

 

[Timmy]

Also, you clearly have not taken a look at any of the other industrialized nations in the world, which ALL use payment systems that are not like ours, as they are variants on the "single payer" theme.

And they are examples of, to one degree or another, state socialism. Equivocating on terminology won't change that.

Today, for-profit corporations make the decisions that would be transferred to the government.

Nope. The power that single-payer grants to government is the power force everyone into buying insurance from the same 'company'.

As we see, for-profit insurers have been fully willing to dump people who get sick, to fail to address those of limited means, refuse to serve those with existing medical problems, etc., etc.

So far, we patch over these problems by making more and more regulations. (Remembering that before the ACA, there were numerous regulations on health care insurers - just not enough to solve some of these problems we see as so serious.)

If the government made those decisions, WE (or our representatives) would vote on them, rather than having to pass regulations in the hopes of requiring corporations to deliver what we need.

Yep. And if your preferences in health care or insurance aren't in line with the majority, you're stuck with whatever they decide. In a free market, if your insurance company pisses you off, you can look for another. Or find some other way to pay for your health care. If the government takes over, you're stuck with whatever they think you ought to have - or be force to buy, rather.

It's not a gov takeover ! It's a single payer for those who buy into the gov plan because they don't have a private plan available .

What would be your system if you were king of America ?

 

[dblack]

It's not a gov takeover ! It's a single payer for those who buy into the gov plan because they don't have a private plan available.

I think you're mistaken. What you're describing is usually referred to as the 'public option'. Single-payer replaces private insurance: Single Payer Health Care

What would be your system if you were king of America ?

Voluntary.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You idiots don't realize that we pay for health care anyway! Might as well make it efficient .

Had no idea the best way to make something efficient was by breaking it. I have a hammer right here, how about I make your clock efficient?

You are a brainwashed functional moron. ACA has only made health care better and cheaper DUH.

I realize that sans lies, you'd be mute.

 

[francoHFW]

You idiots don't realize that we pay for health care anyway! Might as well make it efficient .

Had no idea the best way to make something efficient was by breaking it. I have a hammer right here, how about I make your clock efficient?

You are a brainwashed functional moron. ACA has only made health care better and cheaper DUH.

I realize that sans lies, you'd be mute.

example, superdupe?

 

[Timmy]

It's not a gov takeover ! It's a single payer for those who buy into the gov plan because they don't have a private plan available.

I think you're mistaken. What you're describing is usually referred to as the 'public option'. Single-payer replaces private insurance: Single Payer Health Care

What would be your system if you were king of America ?

Voluntary.

Voluntary ? Ok. What do you do wh those who opt out of insurance .

 

[PoliticalChic]

You idiots don't realize that we pay for health care anyway! Might as well make it efficient .

Had no idea the best way to make something efficient was by breaking it. I have a hammer right here, how about I make your clock efficient?

You are a brainwashed functional moron. ACA has only made health care better and cheaper DUH.

I realize that sans lies, you'd be mute.

example, superdupe?

Who's the moron who said this?
"ACA has only made health care better and cheaper DUH."


"WHY DOES OBAMACARE MAKE HEALTH INSURANCE SO EXPENSIVE?"
Why Does Obamacare Make Health Insurance So Expensive?


But....don't stop lying, simpleton.....it's like having a bell on the cat: at least we know where you are.

 

[Timmy]

You idiots don't realize that we pay for health care anyway! Might as well make it efficient .

Had no idea the best way to make something efficient was by breaking it. I have a hammer right here, how about I make your clock efficient?

You are a brainwashed functional moron. ACA has only made health care better and cheaper DUH.

I realize that sans lies, you'd be mute.

example, superdupe?

Who's the moron who said this?
"ACA has only made health care better and cheaper DUH."


"WHY DOES OBAMACARE MAKE HEALTH INSURANCE SO EXPENSIVE?"
Why Does Obamacare Make Health Insurance So Expensive?


But....don't stop lying, simpleton.....it's like having a bell on the cat: at least we know where you are.

Obamacare rates actually dropped here in Mass .

 

[dblack]

It's not a gov takeover ! It's a single payer for those who buy into the gov plan because they don't have a private plan available.

I think you're mistaken. What you're describing is usually referred to as the 'public option'. Single-payer replaces private insurance: Single Payer Health Care

What would be your system if you were king of America ?

Voluntary.

Voluntary ? Ok. What do you do wh those who opt out of insurance .

As king, I wouldn't 'do' anything with them. I don't think government should be in charge of how we pay for our health care.