Single payer system within 7 years

[IcebergSlim]

I love how you've been trained to reject everything you don't want to hear as "fake"...like that....

But why would the CBO ever put up "fake numbers", even under a Director appointed by a Republican Congress? This, after a commendable effort on the part of republicans at every level, to sabotage the outcome.

I love how you've been trained to reject everything you don't want to hear as "fake"...

Counting 5 years of revenues versus 3 years of spending isn't fake?
What do you call it?

But why would the CBO ever put up "fake numbers",

Garbage in, garbage out.

Why don't you link me to the source for this 5/3 Assault on Our National Maidenhead?

Garbage in, garbage out.


The workings of the CBO are a complete mystery to you, aren't they.....

When you score a couple of extra years of taxes collected, before you start the spending,
of course the finances will look dishonestly better.

Not a mystery to me. You apparently fell for it.

Todd,

Pay attention now, Todd......On THAT particular point you are short a citation.....

You don't remember the taxes that were put in place, years before the coverage?

It was in all the papers.

SSDD

 

[task0778]

Kinda like the VA? I think you are somewhat detached from reality if you're believing all the crap that some on the Left is pushing out there. All you gotta do is look at what's going on in other countries, many of which are having fiscal problems with HC and the other social safety net programs.

Do you remember when Obama and the Dems told us how the ACA wouldn't add one thin dime to the national debt? And when they told us if you like your plan you can keep your plan? Or your doctor? It was all lies, just to get their law passed and they knew damn well it was a lie to begin with. And now you want me to believe SP would be the long sought panacea for health care? Sorry, been down that road too many times, I don't believe a word of it.

Name a major industrialized nation paying a larger percentage of GDP for health care than the US.......

Doesn't make a damn bit of difference. If you guys on the Left think you can just take that spending and pay for SP with it, well more power to ya. Ain't gonna happen though, it just isn't that simple. And you don't provide any answers to my questions either, like Siete didn't. Which your side is going to need to convince most Americans to go for the the SP idea. Or you lie your asses off, like you usually do.

All you gotta do is look at what's going on in other countries, many of which are having fiscal problems with HC and the other social safety net programs.
​

If you can't name one, I'm obliged to conclude that you are lying.....

Here you go, and you might want to hold off a tad on calling people a liar:

Or consider the case of France, once rated as providing the “best overall health care” by the World Health Organization. And indeed, France’s single-payer government health plan is famously generous, paying for spa care and massages and other high-end services under the rubric of “preventive care.”

Not coincidentally, the French health care system is going broke, according to a 2013 Bloomberg Businessweek report. Although French President Francois Hollande has pursued modest reforms, the system still posts billions of euros in annual deficits.

“Reform is needed fast,” Willy Hodin, the head of an organization representing French pharmacies, tells Bloomberg. “The most optimistic believe this system can survive another five to six years. The less optimistic don’t think it will last more than three.”

Similar challenges can be found in Germany, which has a two-tiered health care system in which most of the population (about 90%) is covered by the state system, while the remaining 10 percent, primarily high-earners and self-employed individuals, purchase private insurance for their coverage.

But exploding costs, rising more rapidly than inflation, brought a round of unpopular reforms in 2010 that shifted more of the costs to employers and workers. Those measures likely won’t be the last.

Healthcare Lessons From Europe

Donohue, of the Chamber, whores his organization to a handful of companies.....I booted him out of mine almost 25 years ago.

The point remains that there is not one advanced industrialized nation which covers a smaller percentage of its population at a higher cost.....either on a per capita or GDP basis. The FIRST model we should be looking at is the one which is more "efficient".

You asked for a country that si having financial difficulties with their SP and I provided a couple, and then you promptly went off in another tangent. And to suggest that a gov't run SP system in the US would be anywhere close to efficient is laughable. Hello? The VA? You call that efficient or well run? And you think a national SP would be any different?

 

[IsaacNewton]

Whine all you want cons, the future belongs to the kind. The past belongs to the selfish. Go find the little house on the prairie and die from a broken leg.

Whine all you want cons, the future belongs to the kind.

Dude!
Tax the rich, feed the poor
Till there are no rich no more?

Because all of existence operates on your fallacious either/or absolutes. Right?

 

[Votto]

Texas became the 11th state to pass the Article V movement.

We only need 2/3 of the states and those in the Federal government can be sent packing, hopefully with an amendment for term limits in Congress.

http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-morris/

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Medicare is a single payer system,

If it is good enough for people over 65, it should be good for all,

The VA health care system is single payer as well and it is horrible.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Texas became the 11th state to pass the Article V movement.

We only need 2/3 of the states and those in the Federal government can be sent packing, hopefully with an amendment for term limits in Congress.

http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-morris/

It's simple, if a cohort of conservative states try to force their backwards agenda on the entire nation and change the Constitution to fit their bizarre ideology, there will either be civil war or the country will break up. I think it should break up right now and avoid the bloodshed. A new civil war won't be two armies facing each other, it will be Iraq style revenge killings ad nauseum in perpetuity no matter who thinks they've got control of the country. It will go on for decades.

The thing is conservatives don't want to break the country up, not because of the country but because 2/3 to 3/4 of the revenue would leave with the blue states and the new Red Confederate States of Batshittia would become a 4th world economy and nation.

It is time to break the thing up and everyone go their own way. Any attempt by conservatives to seize control of the Constitution and revise it to mirror their own image will result in civil war. It is an absolute.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Name a major industrialized nation paying a larger percentage of GDP for health care than the US.......

Doesn't make a damn bit of difference. If you guys on the Left think you can just take that spending and pay for SP with it, well more power to ya. Ain't gonna happen though, it just isn't that simple. And you don't provide any answers to my questions either, like Siete didn't. Which your side is going to need to convince most Americans to go for the the SP idea. Or you lie your asses off, like you usually do.

All you gotta do is look at what's going on in other countries, many of which are having fiscal problems with HC and the other social safety net programs.
​

If you can't name one, I'm obliged to conclude that you are lying.....

Here you go, and you might want to hold off a tad on calling people a liar:

Or consider the case of France, once rated as providing the “best overall health care” by the World Health Organization. And indeed, France’s single-payer government health plan is famously generous, paying for spa care and massages and other high-end services under the rubric of “preventive care.”

Not coincidentally, the French health care system is going broke, according to a 2013 Bloomberg Businessweek report. Although French President Francois Hollande has pursued modest reforms, the system still posts billions of euros in annual deficits.

“Reform is needed fast,” Willy Hodin, the head of an organization representing French pharmacies, tells Bloomberg. “The most optimistic believe this system can survive another five to six years. The less optimistic don’t think it will last more than three.”

Similar challenges can be found in Germany, which has a two-tiered health care system in which most of the population (about 90%) is covered by the state system, while the remaining 10 percent, primarily high-earners and self-employed individuals, purchase private insurance for their coverage.

But exploding costs, rising more rapidly than inflation, brought a round of unpopular reforms in 2010 that shifted more of the costs to employers and workers. Those measures likely won’t be the last.

Healthcare Lessons From Europe

Donohue, of the Chamber, whores his organization to a handful of companies.....I booted him out of mine almost 25 years ago.

The point remains that there is not one advanced industrialized nation which covers a smaller percentage of its population at a higher cost.....either on a per capita or GDP basis. The FIRST model we should be looking at is the one which is more "efficient".

You asked for a country that si having financial difficulties with their SP and I provided a couple, and then you promptly went off in another tangent. And to suggest that a gov't run SP system in the US would be anywhere close to efficient is laughable. Hello? The VA? You call that efficient or well run? And you think a national SP would be any different?

You went off on the SP tangent......in an effort to indict HC......

RE: VA care.....here's the data...

Comparing VA Costs to the Cost of Non-VA Providers

There are a number of reasons to compare the cost of VA care to the costs of other providers. VA users often obtain additional care outside the VA system through Medicare, Medicaid, or other forms of insurance. This “dual use” is particularly common among veterans eligible for Medicare. A natural question, therefore, is how VA costs compare to those of Medicare-funded services. Policy makers are also interested in learning whether it is more efficient for VA to make or buy the health care services that it provides to veterans, and whether VA is operating as efficiently as non-VA hospitals.​

Comparison of VA Cost to Medicare Reimbursement

The most thorough study comparing the relative cost of VA provided care was an HSR&D study that compared actual VA costs at six VA medical centers to the hypothetical fee-for-service payments for the same services that would have been paid by Medicare. The final report (Nugent, 2004) found that VA was providing care at a lower cost. Details from this study appeared as a series of papers in a special supplement of Medical Care in 2003. The overview paper for the papers in this supplement is cited below (Nugent, 2003). The supplement includes papers with detailed comparisons for difference services, including acute hospital stays, outpatient care, nursing home, and other types of care.​

Evaluation of VA Pharmacy Costs

It has been estimated that VA’s Pharmacy Benefits Management (PBM) program saved VA $1.5 billion between 1995 and 1999 (Sales, 2005). VA prices for 20 medications commonly used by seniors are lower even than those negotiated by private PBM companies for the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan (Families USA, 2005).

HERC: Comparing VA vs. Non-VA Costs


Here are qualitative indicators....


Economist's View: VA Hospitals vs. Private Sector Hospitals


more recently

WASHINGTON -- The American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI), an independent customer service survey, ranks the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) customer satisfaction among Veteran patients among the best in the nation and equal to or better than ratings for private sector hospitals. The 2013 ACSI report assessed satisfaction among Veterans who have recently been patients of VA’s Veterans Health Administration (VHA) inpatient and outpatient services. ACSI is the nation’s only cross-industry measure of customer satisfaction, providing benchmarking between the public and private sectors.

News Releases - Office of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs

News Releases - Office of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs

VA mental health care found superior to care in the private sector - VAntage Point​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No kidding, why did the debt double during the BO years?

Bucktooth,


I'm gonna do you a solid so that you don't go through the rest of your life as pathetically stupid as you are now....


a) it didn't.......At the end of FY 2009 the Gross Debt stood at 11.875 Trillion........at the end of FY 2016 it stood at 19.5....unless you anticipate a monster deficit and a bumper crop of Social Security payments (a highly unlikely twofer), we ain't getting to 23.75 by Sept. 30 of this year..........Unless The Yam decides to buy another casino with OPM.

b) as a likely recidivist supply side voting imbecile (an unavoidable conclusion judging by your avatar and handle) you MUST acquaint yourself with the concept of Structural Deficit......

At the end of FY 2009 the Gross Debt stood at 11.875 Trillion

Why are you charging Bush for bank TARP money that was repaid a year or two later?
Or for "stimulus" bills passed by Obama? Or for government funding bills held up by Dems so
Obama could sign larger ones after January 2009?
Why are you crediting Obama with the repayment of those TARP funds?

The day Obama took office, the debt was $10.6 trillion.
When he left, it was $19.9 trillion.

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

You can check for yourself.

Great thing about that plug.......the Bucketmouths just can't contain themselves.....

What earthly logic suggests that a POTUS is "responsible" for debt beginning from his first day in office?

Cutting to the quick?

Absolutely none.

The FIRST date you SHOULD look at is Sept. 30, following Inauguration. I'll wait right here, while you explain why to Bucktooth.

Once Bucktooth's vacant gaze returns, we can begin to make whatever reasonable adjustments to that number you want - but it will involve math and documentation.

What earthly logic suggests that a POTUS is "responsible" for debt beginning from his first day in office?

How much of FY 2009 spending was signed by Obama?
How much of his "stimulus" was spent in FY 2009?

Cutting to the quick?

Absolutely none.

Wrong.......

Usually, the president in office prior to a new president would have helped craft and sign into law government spending bills applied to the first 9 months of spending the next year and a president’s new term. A fiscal year starts on October 1 of the year prior to the calendar year to September 30th of the calendar year. In other words the fiscal year starts three months early.

In FY2009, Congress did not complete work by September 30, 2008. President Bush did sign some appropriations bills and a continuing resolution to keep the government running into President Obama’s first term, yet a Democrat controlled Congress purposely held off on the big spending portions of the appropriations bills until Obama took office. They did so for the purposes of jacking up spending. President Obama signed the final FY2009 spending bills on March 11, 2009.

The Truth about President Obama's Skyrocketing Spending

You know what I don't see a lot of, in DS's version?

Numbery things......

For example......how much of the discretionary budget remained to be signed and what was the "delta" between the final product and the version agreeable to the previous administration?

I see "some", "big", and "jacking up". What do you see?

Did you stop to ask why?

The Story Behind the Largest Deficit in U.S. History

Here are some number things.
Let me know if you need an Epi-pen.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No kidding, why did the debt double during the BO years?

Bucktooth,


I'm gonna do you a solid so that you don't go through the rest of your life as pathetically stupid as you are now....


a) it didn't.......At the end of FY 2009 the Gross Debt stood at 11.875 Trillion........at the end of FY 2016 it stood at 19.5....unless you anticipate a monster deficit and a bumper crop of Social Security payments (a highly unlikely twofer), we ain't getting to 23.75 by Sept. 30 of this year..........Unless The Yam decides to buy another casino with OPM.

b) as a likely recidivist supply side voting imbecile (an unavoidable conclusion judging by your avatar and handle) you MUST acquaint yourself with the concept of Structural Deficit......

At the end of FY 2009 the Gross Debt stood at 11.875 Trillion

Why are you charging Bush for bank TARP money that was repaid a year or two later?
Or for "stimulus" bills passed by Obama? Or for government funding bills held up by Dems so
Obama could sign larger ones after January 2009?
Why are you crediting Obama with the repayment of those TARP funds?

The day Obama took office, the debt was $10.6 trillion.
When he left, it was $19.9 trillion.

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

You can check for yourself.

and he gets credit for every cent of interest from 43's legislation ..

and he gets credit for every cent of interest from 43's legislation

I know, all those really low interest rates.
And then Obama got all those record high Federal Reserve profits.
They were running $100 billion or so a year for a while.

What do you figure his record paid of The Wages of Supply Side Idiocy?

ESL?

 

[JoeB131]

No one will be arguing with government to get treatment? Why not?

Mostly because you can vote the government out if they don't deliver. You see, the problem with private insurance is that you are the third priority after their shareholders and the employers. Maybe, maybe after they make them happy, they'll get around to paying for your cancer treatment, but more likely, they'll try to declare it a pre-existing condition and not pay for it.

Again, the rest of the world has figured this out.

Uh-Huh, so what you're proposing is that I pay more in taxes than I do now to get what less than what I already have, just so I can participate in increasing the federal debt and lining the pockets and increasing the power of politicians and bureaucrats?

Naw, you want to keep lining the pockets of guys like Ed Hanaway, who denied Nataline Sarkisyan's liver transplant operation and thousands of other procedures, and they rewarded him with a nine-figure retirement package.

 

[JoeB131]

There is true Single Payer, and then there is our Medicare/Medicare Advantage/Medicare Supplement system.

You mean the big ripoff the Insurance companies have gotten stealing from Medicare?

Frankly, not seeing how paying their eight figure executive salaries enhances health care at all.

 

[Mac1958]

There is true Single Payer, and then there is our Medicare/Medicare Advantage/Medicare Supplement system.

You mean the big ripoff the Insurance companies have gotten stealing from Medicare?

Frankly, not seeing how paying their eight figure executive salaries enhances health care at all.

You're right as always Joe.

Personally, I want people to suffer and die, and for rich insurance company guys to get richer.

You got me. Again.

Damn.
.

 

[JoeB131]

"If it is good enough for people over 65, it should be good for all,"

By logical extension, if gassing all of the prisoners in Hitler's prison camps was good enough for them, then it should be good for all!

Or,

If bread and water is good enough for inmates on death row, then it is good enough for you.

Maybe FJO, Medicare /isn't/ good enough for people over 65, just that they get NO CHOICE.

I think you are a little stupid.

Here's why private insurance doesn't want to insure old people. Because they have no income and they are more likely to get sick and die. Dammit, those Dressage Horses aren't going to buy themselves.

Fact is, Medicare does just fine with the old folks, even with the Medicare Part C and D ripoffs for big insurance and big pharma.

People on Medicare are more satisfied than people on private insurance.

 

[JoeB131]

You're right as always Joe.

Personally, I want people to suffer and die, and for rich insurance company guys to get richer.

You got me. Again.

Damn.

Naw, I think you are just a tool whose been kissing the asses of the plutocrats so long, the whole world looks like a rectal sphincter.

 

[Mac1958]

You're right as always Joe.

Personally, I want people to suffer and die, and for rich insurance company guys to get richer.

You got me. Again.

Damn.

Naw, I think you are just a tool whose been kissing the asses of the plutocrats so long, the whole world looks like a rectal sphincter.

Well, that's true.
.

 

[Political Junky]

Massachusetts has universal care and California will soon. It's coming folks and faster thanks to the repubs' actions recently.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Naw, you want to keep lining the pockets of guys like Ed Hanaway, who denied Nataline Sarkisyan's liver transplant operation and thousands of other procedures, and they rewarded him with a nine-figure retirement package.

That story again? Your insurance will only pay for things they agree to cover. If you get in a car accident and don't have collision, you can't blame the insurance company when they don't repair or replace your car.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Texas became the 11th state to pass the Article V movement.

We only need 2/3 of the states and those in the Federal government can be sent packing, hopefully with an amendment for term limits in Congress.

http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-morris/

It's simple, if a cohort of conservative states try to force their backwards agenda on the entire nation and change the Constitution to fit their bizarre ideology, there will either be civil war or the country will break up. I think it should break up right now and avoid the bloodshed. A new civil war won't be two armies facing each other, it will be Iraq style revenge killings ad nauseum in perpetuity no matter who thinks they've got control of the country. It will go on for decades.

The thing is conservatives don't want to break the country up, not because of the country but because 2/3 to 3/4 of the revenue would leave with the blue states and the new Red Confederate States of Batshittia would become a 4th world economy and nation.

It is time to break the thing up and everyone go their own way. Any attempt by conservatives to seize control of the Constitution and revise it to mirror their own image will result in civil war. It is an absolute.

What we should do is divide the country right down the middle; conservatives on one side and liberals on the other. Anybody in between would have to choose a side to live on. That would solve most of our political problems.

 

[JoeB131]

That story again? Your insurance will only pay for things they agree to cover. If you get in a car accident and don't have collision, you can't blame the insurance company when they don't repair or replace your car.

Except that she had insurance. The insurance company tried to cheat them AFTER they collected the premiums. they also went to court and argued that their contract wasn't with Nataline's Dad, but with his employer, so he had no standing to sue them for non-delivery of services.

But this is okay by you, you just let your boss cheat you out of insurance after 20 years and you blame the black guy.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That story again? Your insurance will only pay for things they agree to cover. If you get in a car accident and don't have collision, you can't blame the insurance company when they don't repair or replace your car.

Except that she had insurance. The insurance company tried to cheat them AFTER they collected the premiums. they also went to court and argued that their contract wasn't with Nataline's Dad, but with his employer, so he had no standing to sue them for non-delivery of services.

But this is okay by you, you just let your boss cheat you out of insurance after 20 years and you blame the black guy.

Yes, but just because you have insurance doesn't mean they will cover everything under the sun. You have to know what coverage you have, or in this case, the coverage his employer provided.

The insurance company didn't cover anything considered experimental or anything that doesn't have at least a 50% chance of success which the girl didn't have. They changed their policy because of her, but it was too late. They won't change it back, and now premiums will increase for everybody that uses Cigna insurance.