Stop ridiculing Single Payer HC insurance...and think on your own

[nat4900]

Its a service connected issue jackass.

Then DON'T bitch so much.....

 

[BulletProof]

Even consider Medicare, the government program for the elderly; its overhead is approximately 3%, while in private insurance companies, overhead and profits add up to 15-25%.

Why do you think Medicare overhead is 3% while private insurance overhead is about 20%? Put on a dunce cap if you think the government really is more efficient. Medicare is little more than a check writing service with zero regard for efficiency of medical care expenditures, while insurance companies actually try to administer health care in an efficiency and responsible manner. All that's left to do is to squeeze out excessive profits of insurance companies by allowing real competition.

 

[BulletProof]

should members of congress be subject to the ACA laws? Before you say that they are, they aren't because we the taxpayers subsidize their medical policies so that they pay almost nothing for the most comprehensive plans.

Veterans, the old, the poor, congress, and government employees should all be dumped into the ACA. The government should pay for no medical care outside of the ACA. For any of those people to support the ACA for others but not for themselves reveal themselves to be true pieces of sh1t.

 

[dblack]

Private health insurance companies will co-exist with comprehensive Medicare – it’s not a ‘one or the other’ situation.

Single payer means single point of control. That's the entire point. Supplementary insurance will be superfluous.

Obviously, such policies will be relatively expensive – but individuals would not be ‘forced’ to use Medicare alone.

They will be forced to supplement it with their taxes. Whether they are allowed choose, or can afford to choose, alternative 'services' is irrelevant. Pretending that someone is free to buy something else, when you've already forced them to pay for something they don't want is perverse.

Of course, the irony of the Medicare scheme is that it's still just funneling tax money to private insurance companies. You people will fall for anything.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

And once again - your post shows a glaring lack of ability to put two and two together.
You say we should have a system like European countries have - yet that system depends on them not having a large military budget. "What does it have to do with it" - holy shit.

In other words, fucked up morons.....like you.......would THEN rather defend other countries through our military spending THAN to take care of fellow citizens'health care?????

Is that what an idiot like you is advocating????...........LOL

I'm not responsible for taking care of you, you fucking parasite.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Its a service connected issue jackass.

Then DON'T bitch so much.....

Not bitching just laying out the personal experiences of a "working" single payer system in the US. I'm not the exception either people have died in the VA system. The Government is incapable of administering quality health care.

 

[RodISHI]

Hey, ever heard the term lifestyle nitwit? People are not dying early because of health care. I guarantee if you compare the lifestyle of the average America to say that of a Scandinavian, there are pretty glaring differences.

Nat seems to think congress passing laws determines the health of people rather than people making choices to take care of their bodies

That taking care of their own bodies will be hard to do considering all the shit that FDA and EPA has approved of under the color of commerce. If Republicans do not wise up and they try to push this force Pharma shit without cleaning up FDA and EPA turning their heads the other way for toxins that are profitable to a few they will also be out on their asses.

Not seeing how the fda or EPA forces people to drink gallons of coke or eat Doritos or whatever.

Not saying occasional treats are bad but we have far more control over our health than we give ourselves credit

Avatar, you are either clueless or turning a blind eye to what has been going down with the toxins being put into our everyday environment with government approval and in some cases force legislation. I do not know which and do not desire to speculate either way.

I have posted some of the information on this forum over the years to what has been happening perhaps you have missed those postings. I will retrieve them for you if you care to be informed?

If that's what you believe, why not crusade against pollution? Why do you need a fake link between pollution and climate in order to fight pollution?

If your crusade was to stop man made pollution, 99% of the world would be on your side.

WTF is the climate change mantra really about? Do you know? Its an attempt to control the activities of everyone on earth and force them to live as a few libtardians think they should.

Deal with reality, dude. you might gain some credibility.

Not sure where you get your information on what I believe concerning the climate change issues Redfish as I made no mention of supporting the extra taxation of all of mankind to float a few elitists ideology. The fact is I am opposed to the taxer of men whether it be for climate change crap or racketeers pushing an insurance scam. My comment was directly about the way FDA and EPA has had a total disregard for the health and well being of the people when they ignore the peoples health in favor of commerce for a few when determining their approvals. I would be happy to discuss those issues with you and give you the links to information I have already put into this forum and have studied over the years. We can invite whomever you like and avatar and take that discussion into the CDZ, the health forum, congressional forum or even the economy forum if you wish? Just let me know.

BTW, Single payer will be no better if not even possibly worse the ACA.

 

[nat4900]

All that's left to do is to squeeze out excessive profits of insurance companies by allowing real competition.

Insurers are among a handful of industries, including Major League Baseball, that have a special exemption from federal antitrust laws.

The McCarran-Ferguson Act gives states the power to regulate the "business of insurance," granting insurers a limited exemption from federal antitrust scrutiny. Insurers, for example, under the federal antitrust exemption may be able to meet, share information and agree on pricing for premiums.

 

[Doc1]

All that's left to do is to squeeze out excessive profits of insurance companies by allowing real competition.

Insurers are among a handful of industries, including Major League Baseball, that have a special exemption from federal antitrust laws.

The McCarran-Ferguson Act gives states the power to regulate the "business of insurance," granting insurers a limited exemption from federal antitrust scrutiny. Insurers, for example, under the federal antitrust exemption may be able to meet, share information and agree on pricing for premiums.

Yawn. The ACA says the State can approve any increase up to 9%, 10% and above and HHS has to approve it.

"Last month, HHS issued preliminary regulations mandated under the federal health reform law that would require health insurance companies to disclose and justify any premium increases of 10% or more starting this year, the New York Times reports."

HHS Releases Proposed Rules on Rate Increases for Insurance Premiums

You are an ignorant dumbass.

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the reviews would "help rein in the kind of excessive and unreasonable rate increases that have made insurance unaffordable for so many families."

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Once again the left showing emotional thinking over rational thinking.
Yes, it would be super awesome to have a working single-payer system that was fair, affordable and still offered world class healthcare in America.
But that doesn't mean it can happen. You cannot wish something into place.
America is not like much smaller European nations, America is nothing like Canada...nations all having very low military expenditures and very low populations in comparison.
At the same time, there is the American diet.
I read somewhere that $.67 of every dollar spent in healthcare in America can be attributed to two things - diet and sedentary lifestyle.
You want the cost of healthcare to go down? Way down? Then tell people to stop eating so much sugar laden, high fat and sodium garbage.

 

[eflatminor]

Single payer means forcing those in the healthcare industry to labor for a wage or fee to which they did not voluntarily agree.

Once again, Democrats in favor of slavery.

Paying for this boondoggle requires you involuntarily extract wealth from some citizens, enforced by armed government agents.

Once again, Democrats supporting theft and thuggery.

God I hate you central planner wannabes.

 

[forkup]

I'll give some facts about why single payer is cheaper at least in my country.
-Lets first state the obvious. If the profit motive doesn't exist there is no need to make profit. Every penny you give shareholders of hospital, health insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies is a penny less to spend on the function of providing healthcare. Here we need to of course pay the pharmaceutical companies to. But price negotiations are at the country level. This gives us more leverage to get a good deal. Most hospitals and all Health insurance companies are state controlled.
-This means the administration is much simpler. Most of us have a general care practitioner, so our ER deal with actual emergencies. These doctors in general don't have secretaries because price setting is regulated, the same applies to our pharmacists, who don't need to find out what is covered because that is state controlled to. The same applies to our health insurance companies, my town population around 40000 people is served by about 20 people who have administrative functions dealing with health care. No pharmacy techs, almost no medical secretaries.
-No need for advertising health insurance, it's mandatory.
-Becoming a doctor costs you 550 euro a year, not a thousand, 5 hundred, this means no college debt, it also means doctors are cheaper because they don't have to work of this debt.
Conclusion:
Single payer is more streamlined and cheaper because a lot less money gets spent on non medical related things.

so in your country doctors, hospitals, drug companies, etc only exist to break even? Are you that stupid?

Did I say that?

pay the pharmaceutical companies to

it also means doctors are cheaper

yes, you did "-Lets first state the obvious. If the profit motive doesn't exist there is no need to make profit. Every penny you give shareholders of hospital, health insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies is a penny less to spend on the function of providing healthcare"

feel free to retract that lie if you choose.

What lie? You selectively quoting me is no proof that I lie. In fact the very next sentence to that I immediately define what we do pay for. Furthermore you trying to explain to me how MY health care is arranged is hilarious. We pay for pharmaceuticals on the open market, but we negotiate pricing on the country level. Most hospitals are subsidised and are non profit. Doctors earn money, but because becoming a doctor is cheaper they charge less than in the US. I challenge you to find a single letter that contradicts that. Btw the fact that you don't accept my reasoning why our healthcare is cheaper implies you have a better reasoning. So give it to me.

what country do you live in? what is the population? What are the percentages of racial and ethnic minorities? what is the unemployment rate? what is your total taxation rate including federal and local? Do you get to choose your doctor and hospital or are you told where to go? How long do you wait for tests like MRIs? Does anyone in your country buy a medical supplement plan in order to get better faster treatment? Why do your people come to the USA for treatment of serious medical conditions? How much of your national budget is devoted to medical care? If you are a member of NATO, how long would your country exist without the USA defending you?

This debate is much more complex than you pretend that it is.

I will answer all your questions, but I first want to point out what I noticed. First you tried , to call me an idiot. Then you tried by selectively quoting me to call me a liar. Now your changing tack again by saying I oversimplify. I gave you a broad idea on why our system is cheaper by pointing out how different approaches on health care have certain different consequences. A simplified response would be to simply say we are cheaper and leave it at that. Or the claims I've come across in this OP. Like welfare states are going bankrupt, or socialism is inefficient. Giving not just the fact. "Single payer countries are cheaper", but some of the reasoning behind that fact is more in depth than I've seen of other people. If you disagree with the reasoning that's fine, but then point out why the reasoning is flawed.
-I live in Belgium, population a bit over 11 million.
Explain why this is relevant please?
- Straight up foreigners is about 10 percent.About 40 Percent of the populace lives in the Walloon area and speaks French, about 60 percent is Flemish and speaks Dutch. Then we have quite a large number that identifies itself as Moroccan or Turkish altough they have the Belgian nationality.
Explain why that is relevant?
-Unemployment rate is 6,8 percent.
Why is that relevant?
-Taxation is around 50 percent.
Note that when I say we ave 50 percent cheaper healthcare that includes both out of pocket and taxation.
-Yes we are completely free in our choice of both doctor and hospital.
-I've had a few MRI's in my time, I usually got help within a few weeks but since I don't live in a major city I don't expect my experience to be indicative and major cities have longer waits I believe. It also depends on the seriousness of the potential diagnoses. A friend of mine was feared to have lung cancer he got in the next day.
-Yes we do buy medial supplement. I for one have one that covers hospitalization. Without it I would get a bill of 500 to 1500 euro when I get surgery or need to stay in hospital. Costs me 36 euro a month to cover me, my wife and my kid. It has nothing to do with better or faster treatment.
- As to Belgians coming to the US for medical treatment. I'm not claiming it doesn't happen, but if it does it would probably be for something extremely rare and I suspect that American's in some cases go to doctors abroad too.
-Our healthcare budget is 11 percent of the GDP, America's is 17 percent
-Yes we are a member of NATO which demands that we spent 2 percent of our GDP on defence which we don't. We spent about 1.1 percent. SInce if we would honor our commitments and supposing that that .9 percent comes out of healthcare we would still be cheaper
So I fail to see how this has any bearing on this conversation.
I do ask that you read this post carefully and in its entirety if you choose to respond, since I've gave you the respect to answer your post thoroughly.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Comprehensive Medicare would end employer based insurance, allowing Americans to pursue other employment based on the type of work or location.

Employers liberated from offering a health benefit would result in more money available for hiring, raises, and salaries.

And no more having care dictated by private insurers.

 

[Doc1]

Comprehensive Medicare would end employer based insurance, allowing Americans to pursue other employment based on the type of work or location.

Employers liberated from offering a health benefit would result in more money available for hiring, raises, and salaries.

And no more having care dictated by private insurers.

Well sure except that care would now be dictated by the Gov. (shaking my head) You people have one idea, central planning for EVERYTHING.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Funny how you do not even recognize that single payer insurance has failed everywhere it's been tried but you tell others to thunk for themselves

Learn something......(besides what Sean hannity feeds your half brain)

Single-Payer Myths; Single-Payer Facts

Facts about National Health Insurance (NHI) You Might Not Know

The health care delivery system remains private. As opposed to a national health service, where the government employs doctors, in a national health insurance system, the government is billed, but doctors remain in private
practice.

A national health insurance program could save approximately $150 billion on paperwork alone. Because of the administrative complexities in our current system, over 25% of every health care dollar goes to marketing, billing,
utilization review, and other forms of waste. A single-payer system could reduce administrative costs greatly.

Most businesses would save money. Because a single-payer system is more efficient than our current system, health care costs are less, and therefore, businesses save money. In Canada, the three major auto manufacturers (Ford, GM, and Daimler-Chrysler) have all publicly endorsed Canada’s single-payer health system from a business and financial standpoint. In the United States, Ford pays more for its workers health insurance than it does for the steel to make its cars.

Under NHI, your insurance doesn’t depend on your job. Whether you’re a student, professor, or working part-time raising children, you’re provided with care. Not only does this lead to a healthier population, but it’s also beneficial from an economic standpoint: workers are less-tied to their
employers, and those that dislike their current positions can find new work
(where they would be happier and most likely more productive and efficient).

Myths about National Health Insurance (NHI)

The government would dictate how physicians practice medicine.
In countries with a national health insurance system, physicians are rarely questioned about their medical practices (and usually only in cases of expected fraud). Compare it to today’s system, where doctors routinely have to ask an insurance company permission to perform procedures, prescribe certain medications, or run certain tests to help their patients.

Waits for services would be extremely long.
Again, in countries with NHI, urgent care is always provided immediately. Other countries do experience some waits for elective procedures (like cataract removal), but maintaining the US’s same level of health expenditures (twice as much as the next-highest country), waits would be much shorter or even non-existent.

People will overutilize the system.
Most estimates do indicate that there would be some increased utilization of the system (mostly from the 42 million people that are currently uninsured and therefore not receiving adequate health care), however the staggering savings from a single-payer system would easily compensate for this. (And remember, doctors still control most health care utilization. Patients don’t receive prescriptions or tests because they want them; they receive them because their doctors have deemed them appropriate.)

Government programs are wasteful and inefficient.
Some are better than others, just as some businesses are better than others. Just to name a few of the most successful and helpful: the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, and Social Security. Even consider Medicare, the government program for the elderly; its overhead is approximately 3%, while in private insurance companies, overhead and profits add up to 15-25%.

Single-Payer Myths; Single-Payer Facts | Physicians for a National Health Program

Pacific Research Institute | Socialized medicine a global failure

Single-payer health care system is a failure

The Pitfalls of Single-Payer Health Care: Canada’s Cautionary Tale

'Single Payer' Healthcare Has Failed The U.S. Indian Health Service -- So Why Does The Left Keep Advocating It?

Why Bernie Sanders' Single-Payer Health Care Plan Failed In Vermont

 

[Markle]

[QUOelTE="na4900, post: 18156445, member: 53797"]Government programs are wasteful and inefficient.
Some are better than others, just as some businesses are better than others. Just to name a few of the most successful and helpful: the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, and Social Security. Even consider Medicare, the government program for the elderly; its overhead is approximately 3%, while in private insurance companies, overhead and profits add up to 15-25%.[/QUOTE]

Flat out LIE told again and again by either an uninformed nat4900 or an ignorant nat4900. Nat4900, a devoted follower of Joseph Goebbels “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

From Forbes magazine:

JUN 30, 2011 @ 03:35 PM
The Myth of Medicare's 'Low Administrative Costs'
[...]
Medicare has higher administrative costs per beneficiary

A more accurate measure of overhead would therefore be the administrative costs per patient, rather than per dollar of medical expenses. And by that measure, even with all the administrative advantages Medicare has over private coverage, the program's administrative costs are actually significantly higher than those of private insurers. In 2005, for example, Robert Book has shown that private insurers spent $453 per beneficiary on administrative costs, compared to $509 for Medicare. (Indeed, Robert has written the definitive paper on this subject, from which the above figure is taken.)

[....]

The Myth of Medicare's 'Low Administrative Costs'

 

[Desperado]

I don;t want my doctor visit to feel like Im going to the driver's license office.
Last thing I want is the government to control health care

 

[Doc1]

[QUOelTE="na4900, post: 18156445, member: 53797"]Government programs are wasteful and inefficient.
Some are better than others, just as some businesses are better than others. Just to name a few of the most successful and helpful: the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, and Social Security. Even consider Medicare, the government program for the elderly; its overhead is approximately 3%, while in private insurance companies, overhead and profits add up to 15-25%.

Flat out LIE told again and again by either an uninformed nat4900 or an ignorant nat4900. Nat4900, a devoted follower of Joseph Goebbels “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

From Forbes magazine:

JUN 30, 2011 @ 03:35 PM
The Myth of Medicare's 'Low Administrative Costs'
[...]
Medicare has higher administrative costs per beneficiary

A more accurate measure of overhead would therefore be the administrative costs per patient, rather than per dollar of medical expenses. And by that measure, even with all the administrative advantages Medicare has over private coverage, the program's administrative costs are actually significantly higher than those of private insurers. In 2005, for example, Robert Book has shown that private insurers spent $453 per beneficiary on administrative costs, compared to $509 for Medicare. (Indeed, Robert has written the definitive paper on this subject, from which the above figure is taken.)

[....]

The Myth of Medicare's 'Low Administrative Costs'[/QUOTE]

Damn straight, Gov employees are paid too much, promised too much in their pensions, and have much better Health Plans.

 

[Markle]

Actually, if an individual wanted to be insured by a federal government program on HC (a-la Medicare) as just ANOTHER insurer to send my monthly check to......a federal insurer who charged 3% overhead, rather than 25% overhead as most private insures do.......Why the FUCK NOT???

Are you right wing morons willing to completely trust bankers and do away with the FDIC???

Still a lie.

 

[nat4900]

Well sure except that care would now be dictated by the Gov. (shaking my head) You people have one idea, central planning for EVERYTHING.

Hey, MORON.....WHO the fuck is right now "dictating" your health care......Some "loving and caring" CEO from a private insurer??? Some individual who cares ONLY for the company's profits??

Are you idiots really THAT fucked up??? (Rhetorical question....you ARE that fucked up.)