Why didn't Obama and the Democrats Just Go for Single Payor

[Tresha91203]

They had to bribe a few democrats to get passed what we have now, including my own Mary Landrieu. I doubt she survives her upcoming run ... she's already "standing up to Obama" in her commercials trying to save herself. Not all Democrats are progressive liberals, and they still have to answer to their own constituents. Some of them are on very shaky ground having passed what they did. No way they had enough suicide senators to pass single payer.


[/B][/B]QUOTE=GHook93;8473826]

They didn't have the votes for it.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

They had the house and senate. With Obamacare they bustered the filibuster anyways.[/QUOTE]

 

[dblack]

Government provides currency, security, regulation and infrastructure.

Without those things, Capitalism isn't possible.

You can have trade..but it wouldn't be the same thing.

OK again. And, again, the implied 'so the fuck what'? I'm not advocating anarchy. I'm saying government shouldn't be interfering in our personal economic decisions. When you give government that power, those with the most to gain from controlling it (in this case, the insurance companies) will find a way to bend it to their ends. Blaming that on capitalism is perverse. It's like blaming freedom for tyranny.

Personal decisions in terms of what?

In this case, how to finance our health care.

 

[Political Junky]

The insurance companies give large contributions to congress in order to avoid single payer.
That and the stories about waiting lists in countries that do have single payer convince many, who don't do research themselves, that those tales are true.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The insurance companies give large contributions to congress in order to avoid single payer.
That and the stories about waiting lists in countries that do have single payer convince many, who don't do research themselves, that those tales are true.

competing insurance companies are capitalism in action....they are currently fighting for their lives in a system that leaves them with very narrow profits....especially if you compare them with the profits of providers like the drug companies or medical products....but they're the ones who take all the heat when prices go up...

a single payer system sets prices.....this is the big attraction of single payer but also its downfall....

setting arbitrary rates can keep prices down but this causes many insurers and health providers to go out of business or go elsewhere and you are left with no innovation and a rationed healthcare system......

this is why single payer Canadians come down to the U.S. for surgeries and other specialized healthcare....and why Sweden which has long been touted by the liberals as such a great single payer system has moved to private insurers....

many Dems are aware that single payer is not a good solution....but the Far Left has taken over their party and power is their real motivation....in whatever form they can manage to legislate...or as we've seen lately....dictate...

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Most dems won't even say publicly that they are for a single payer system. They know Americans reject the idea.

That's incorrect as well.

Most Americans wanted Single Payer.

No, they didn't, nor do they now.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Government provides currency, security, regulation and infrastructure.

Without those things, Capitalism isn't possible.

You can have trade..but it wouldn't be the same thing.

What an astonishingly ignorant statement.

People didn't barter before official government currency? How about bitcoins? People didn't build homes or shops or lay out roads before government? People didn't self regulate trade and codes of conduct before government?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Most dems won't even say publicly that they are for a single payer system. They know Americans reject the idea.

No. They know that a well funded minority of Americans reject the idea. Huge difference.

It is a common sense policy. It saves money and improves outcomes.

The lobby against it is strong......but to claim that Americans reject it is bullshit.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I mean this is what they desire! This is what Obaminationcare's end game is. Obaminationcare was designed to fail and fail miserably tearing the enter system down with in, while at the same time upping the number of people in medicaid.

Eventually they will float the only solution is single payor!

However, in the meantime Obaminationcare will decimate the economy and gripple the job market.

I am not arguing whether or not single payor is the solution, but if that is what they so strongly desire, then why didn't they just push that plan when they had the house and senate? I mean not a single republican voted for Obamacare anyways, so why didn't they just go for what they wanted?

Maybe all Democrats did not support single payer?


D'Oh!

 

[Political Junky]

The insurance companies give large contributions to congress in order to avoid single payer.
That and the stories about waiting lists in countries that do have single payer convince many, who don't do research themselves, that those tales are true.

competing insurance companies are capitalism in action....they are currently fighting for their lives in a system that leaves them with very narrow profits....especially if you compare them with the profits of providers like the drug companies or medical products....but they're the ones who take all the heat when prices go up...

a single payer system sets prices.....this is the big attraction of single payer but also its downfall....

setting arbitrary rates can keep prices down but this causes many insurers and health providers to go out of business or go elsewhere and you are left with no innovation and a rationed healthcare system......

this is why single payer Canadians come down to the U.S. for surgeries and other specialized healthcare....and why Sweden which has long been touted by the liberals as such a great single payer system has moved to private insurers....

many Dems are aware that single payer is not a good solution....but the Far Left has taken over their party and power is their real motivation....in whatever form they can manage to legislate...or as we've seen lately....dictate...

Healthcare in Sweden | sweden.se


Care within 90 days

Waiting times for preplanned care, such as cataract or hip-replacement surgery, have long been a cause of dissatisfaction. As a result, Sweden introduced a health care guarantee in 2005.

This means no patient should have to wait more than seven days for an appointment at a community health care center, 90 days for an appointment with a specialist and 90 days for an operation or treatment, once it has been determined what care is needed. If the waiting time is exceeded, patients are offered care elsewhere; the cost, including any travel costs, is then paid by their county council.

Statistics from December 2010 indicate that about nine out of ten patients see a specialist within 90 days and receive treatment or are operated on within a further 90 days. Roughly 80 per cent today feel they receive the care they need. In 2006, the figure was 74 per cent.

For 2012, the Swedish government and SALAR will review the design of this health care guarantee. Their intention is to formulate a guarantee that will be even more patient-oriented and take a comprehensive view by regulating the maximum time a patient must wait from initial contact with a health care provider to the time treatment begins.
<more>

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[MENTION=35352]zeke[/MENTION]

From what I saw on a PBS Frontline show a great amount of this law was written by two top staffers. Both who came directly from the Health care industry. And the health care industry was not going to allow single payer to happen.

The health care companies have written a law that is heads they win, tails we lose.

Single payer would have been my choice IF we were going to do some type of reform.

Supposedly we Americans are pretty smart, get er done problem solvers.

I think that's an urban myth. We don't solve any problems anymore.

We did reform the system we had. Doing single payer (which I mostly support) would have changed the system all together.

please try and keep up

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Most dems won't even say publicly that they are for a single payer system. They know Americans reject the idea.

No. They know that a well funded minority of Americans reject the idea. Huge difference.

It is a common sense policy. It saves money and improves outcomes.

The lobby against it is strong......but to claim that Americans reject it is bullshit.

if single payer is so "common sense" as you say.....why don't more countries have it....?

because it is a stellar failure......the ones who have tried it are all going toward private payer or have adapted into a mix of two sytems.....both public and private....

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The insurance companies give large contributions to congress in order to avoid single payer.
That and the stories about waiting lists in countries that do have single payer convince many, who don't do research themselves, that those tales are true.

competing insurance companies are capitalism in action....they are currently fighting for their lives in a system that leaves them with very narrow profits....especially if you compare them with the profits of providers like the drug companies or medical products....but they're the ones who take all the heat when prices go up...

a single payer system sets prices.....this is the big attraction of single payer but also its downfall....

setting arbitrary rates can keep prices down but this causes many insurers and health providers to go out of business or go elsewhere and you are left with no innovation and a rationed healthcare system......

this is why single payer Canadians come down to the U.S. for surgeries and other specialized healthcare....and why Sweden which has long been touted by the liberals as such a great single payer system has moved to private insurers....

many Dems are aware that single payer is not a good solution....but the Far Left has taken over their party and power is their real motivation....in whatever form they can manage to legislate...or as we've seen lately....dictate...

Healthcare in Sweden | sweden.se


Care within 90 days

Waiting times for preplanned care, such as cataract or hip-replacement surgery, have long been a cause of dissatisfaction. As a result, Sweden introduced a health care guarantee in 2005.

This means no patient should have to wait more than seven days for an appointment at a community health care center, 90 days for an appointment with a specialist and 90 days for an operation or treatment, once it has been determined what care is needed. If the waiting time is exceeded, patients are offered care elsewhere; the cost, including any travel costs, is then paid by their county council.

Statistics from December 2010 indicate that about nine out of ten patients see a specialist within 90 days and receive treatment or are operated on within a further 90 days. Roughly 80 per cent today feel they receive the care they need. In 2006, the figure was 74 per cent.

For 2012, the Swedish government and SALAR will review the design of this health care guarantee. Their intention is to formulate a guarantee that will be even more patient-oriented and take a comprehensive view by regulating the maximum time a patient must wait from initial contact with a health care provider to the time treatment begins.
<more>

Five Capitalist Democracies & How They Do It | Sick Around The World | FRONTLINE | PBS

Switzerland: Interviews - Pascal Couchepin | Sick Around The World | FRONTLINE | PBS

One of the things really striking for Americans is that under LAMal, you now say the insurance companies can't make a profit on basic coverage. What's the thinking there?

The idea is very simple: If it is a social insurance, and everybody is obliged to be a member of a health insurance system, you can't ask them to pay so that the shareholders get a better revenue. It is a little the same, if I can compare with SBB, our railway system. We are very attached to the railway system; Switzerland is a country of railway. ... I think that the people wouldn't [have] agreed to privatize the railways [as] it is done now in Great Britain. To think that they can [make] a profit on the railway system, it [would] be against equality in this matter.

Naturally, you can question that, ... but till now we were able to afford a good railway system, to improve it and to have a high quality in transportation. ... We want also high quality for everybody in the health system, and after that you can earn more money than your neighbor. ... School, health care, railway system, aging, to have a good place for nursing homes for old people, retired people, we think that we must have equality of that -- not quite complete equality, it is impossible, but to have a great sense of solidarity among the people.


... One of the problems we have in America is that many people -- it's a huge number of people -- go bankrupt because of medical bills; some studies say 700,000 people a year. How many people in Switzerland go bankrupt because of medical bills?

Nobody. Doesn't happen. It would be a huge scandal if it happens.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Most dems won't even say publicly that they are for a single payer system. They know Americans reject the idea.

No. They know that a well funded minority of Americans reject the idea. Huge difference.

It is a common sense policy. It saves money and improves outcomes.

The lobby against it is strong......but to claim that Americans reject it is bullshit.

if single payer is so "common sense" as you say.....why don't more countries have it....?

because it is a stellar failure......the ones who have tried it are all going toward private payer or have adapted into a mix of two sytems.....both public and private....

Nearly every first world country other than the US has some form of single-payer healthcare.

Your post is nonsense.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Most dems won't even say publicly that they are for a single payer system. They know Americans reject the idea.

No. They know that a well funded minority of Americans reject the idea. Huge difference.

It is a common sense policy. It saves money and improves outcomes.

The lobby against it is strong......but to claim that Americans reject it is bullshit.

if single payer is so "common sense" as you say.....why don't more countries have it....?

...

jesus christ! If common sense were common...


oh never mind. my common sense says "why bother?" with you

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The insurance companies give large contributions to congress in order to avoid single payer.
That and the stories about waiting lists in countries that do have single payer convince many, who don't do research themselves, that those tales are true.

competing insurance companies are capitalism in action....they are currently fighting for their lives in a system that leaves them with very narrow profits....especially if you compare them with the profits of providers like the drug companies or medical products....but they're the ones who take all the heat when prices go up...

a single payer system sets prices.....this is the big attraction of single payer but also its downfall....

setting arbitrary rates can keep prices down but this causes many insurers and health providers to go out of business or go elsewhere and you are left with no innovation and a rationed healthcare system......

this is why single payer Canadians come down to the U.S. for surgeries and other specialized healthcare....and why Sweden which has long been touted by the liberals as such a great single payer system has moved to private insurers....

many Dems are aware that single payer is not a good solution....but the Far Left has taken over their party and power is their real motivation....in whatever form they can manage to legislate...or as we've seen lately....dictate...

Healthcare in Sweden | sweden.se


Care within 90 days

Waiting times for preplanned care, such as cataract or hip-replacement surgery, have long been a cause of dissatisfaction. As a result, Sweden introduced a health care guarantee in 2005.

This means no patient should have to wait more than seven days for an appointment at a community health care center, 90 days for an appointment with a specialist and 90 days for an operation or treatment, once it has been determined what care is needed. If the waiting time is exceeded, patients are offered care elsewhere; the cost, including any travel costs, is then paid by their county council.

Statistics from December 2010 indicate that about nine out of ten patients see a specialist within 90 days and receive treatment or are operated on within a further 90 days. Roughly 80 per cent today feel they receive the care they need. In 2006, the figure was 74 per cent.

For 2012, the Swedish government and SALAR will review the design of this health care guarantee. Their intention is to formulate a guarantee that will be even more patient-oriented and take a comprehensive view by regulating the maximum time a patient must wait from initial contact with a health care provider to the time treatment begins.
<more>

dictating 'guarantees' from the top does not guarantee service....if there are no doctors to take care of things there simply is no care...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

competing insurance companies are capitalism in action....they are currently fighting for their lives in a system that leaves them with very narrow profits....especially if you compare them with the profits of providers like the drug companies or medical products....but they're the ones who take all the heat when prices go up...

a single payer system sets prices.....this is the big attraction of single payer but also its downfall....

setting arbitrary rates can keep prices down but this causes many insurers and health providers to go out of business or go elsewhere and you are left with no innovation and a rationed healthcare system......

this is why single payer Canadians come down to the U.S. for surgeries and other specialized healthcare....and why Sweden which has long been touted by the liberals as such a great single payer system has moved to private insurers....

many Dems are aware that single payer is not a good solution....but the Far Left has taken over their party and power is their real motivation....in whatever form they can manage to legislate...or as we've seen lately....dictate...

Healthcare in Sweden | sweden.se


Care within 90 days

Waiting times for preplanned care, such as cataract or hip-replacement surgery, have long been a cause of dissatisfaction. As a result, Sweden introduced a health care guarantee in 2005.

This means no patient should have to wait more than seven days for an appointment at a community health care center, 90 days for an appointment with a specialist and 90 days for an operation or treatment, once it has been determined what care is needed. If the waiting time is exceeded, patients are offered care elsewhere; the cost, including any travel costs, is then paid by their county council.

Statistics from December 2010 indicate that about nine out of ten patients see a specialist within 90 days and receive treatment or are operated on within a further 90 days. Roughly 80 per cent today feel they receive the care they need. In 2006, the figure was 74 per cent.

For 2012, the Swedish government and SALAR will review the design of this health care guarantee. Their intention is to formulate a guarantee that will be even more patient-oriented and take a comprehensive view by regulating the maximum time a patient must wait from initial contact with a health care provider to the time treatment begins.
<more>

dictating 'guarantees' from the top does not guarantee service....if there are no doctors to take care of things there simply is no care...

no doctors? "The End is Near!"???

come on, be serious

 

[Rozman]

Obama and the Democrats needed to lie and to weasel this mess through.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

No. They know that a well funded minority of Americans reject the idea. Huge difference.

It is a common sense policy. It saves money and improves outcomes.

The lobby against it is strong......but to claim that Americans reject it is bullshit.

if single payer is so "common sense" as you say.....why don't more countries have it....?

...

jesus christ! If common sense were common...


oh never mind. my common sense says "why bother?" with you

typical lib retort....

so please inform us all those many countries which have exclusively a successful single payer system.....you can say Canada has single payer but it is not all that successful....

 

[Howey]

I mean this is what they desire!

Do you really not know or are you just playing stupid?

Obama didn't have the votes to pass a single payor system like Medicare for All. What he did, however, is have the brains to include a provision in the ACA that allows states to set up their own single payor insurance using Medicare and Medicaid.

Vermont is the first, and definitely not last state to do so.

Vermont will have its single payer system up and running by the year 2017. The system will be funded through Medicaid and Medicare, as well as a small raise in taxes and federal money provided through the Affordable Care Act.

The state’s single-payer program will also effectively make all hospitals and other health providers in Vermont non-profit, meaning that the people of Vermont will no longer have to pay their own hospital bills, insurance premiums, deductibles and the like, all of which were designed to make a profit for insurers.

The single payer system is also expected to provide the state with an economic boost, as employees with company-sponsored health plans won’t have to be concerned with paying medical bills or a health insurance premium; thus, they can use the money saved to spend on other things to stimulate the economy.

According to Harvard health care economist Dr. William Hsaio, who has helped create health systems in seven different countries and was brought in by Vermont to make sure its single-payer program is set up correctly from the start, the state will end up saving 25 percent per capita in administrative costs and other expenses, compared with Vermont’s current health care system.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Healthcare in Sweden | sweden.se


Care within 90 days

Waiting times for preplanned care, such as cataract or hip-replacement surgery, have long been a cause of dissatisfaction. As a result, Sweden introduced a health care guarantee in 2005.

This means no patient should have to wait more than seven days for an appointment at a community health care center, 90 days for an appointment with a specialist and 90 days for an operation or treatment, once it has been determined what care is needed. If the waiting time is exceeded, patients are offered care elsewhere; the cost, including any travel costs, is then paid by their county council.

Statistics from December 2010 indicate that about nine out of ten patients see a specialist within 90 days and receive treatment or are operated on within a further 90 days. Roughly 80 per cent today feel they receive the care they need. In 2006, the figure was 74 per cent.

For 2012, the Swedish government and SALAR will review the design of this health care guarantee. Their intention is to formulate a guarantee that will be even more patient-oriented and take a comprehensive view by regulating the maximum time a patient must wait from initial contact with a health care provider to the time treatment begins.
<more>

dictating 'guarantees' from the top does not guarantee service....if there are no doctors to take care of things there simply is no care...

no doctors? "The End is Near!"???

come on, be serious

so who informed you of the big SURGE of young people planning to become doctors now that Obamacare is in effect....? /sarcasm...