A Stupid Statements About Single Payer Healthcare

[outtathereligioncloset]

I haven't read beyond the first post here, so know that before I respond.

The King and I have insurance through the marketplace.

In North Carolina, Blue Cross/Blue Shield is the only choice of provider. They provided MANY different choices of plans at various premium costs for me. Before that, United Healthcare was our only provider option.

If you'd given me five companies to choose from for 2019 I PROBABLY would have chosen BCBS. Their customer service is mostly good.

Each time the marketplace has changed providers in NC we've had to change doctors. I greatly resented the year I had to walk away from my family physician of 20+ years. It turned out to be both good and bad to have to start over with another one. Now BCBS has changed our options and all the doctors we had to switch to last year when they teamed up with Wake Med and Duke are no longer in network for any of their plans. So no follow up for me with them next year for my cataract surgery or for my kidney stone surgery. By their new plan choices I will have to find/see someone from the UNC Hospital network instead. But it LOOKS like we'll be able to go back to our previous doctor of 20+ years.

Our plan costs have not drastically increased during any year since we've been with the marketplace, but our deductibles and out of pocket maximum fluctuates from year to year.

It makes me angry (and has made me angry since waaaaaaay before the marketplace came into existence) that insurance companies are allowed to peel out any parts of our bodies to refuse coverage. It's been proven that poor dental health can cause heart issues. But teeth/oral care are not part of normal health insurance coverage. If I cannot hear a car coming and get smooshed accordingly, they'll pay for my broken bones. Why not pay for my needed hearing aid instead? If I need glasses to see, they won't cover that under health insurance, yet without glasses I could get seriously hurt----that they'll pay for. Why not help me see, hear, chew, instead. It would be a hell of a lot cheaper in the long run.

Why is it my ingrown toe is covered but an abcessed tooth is not? Makes no sense to me. Shouldn't be allowed to carve that coverage out. If it's something you would go to a "doctor" for, then it ought to be covered the same as any other part of your body.

We are penalized in this state if we fail to pay for car insurance and then proceed to drive. I think Trump should NOT have removed the penalty for failing to have health insurance. He only did that in his determination to undo everything good that those before him implemented. Healthcare coverage most of all.

[Brian37]

Awhile back i got into an argument about healthcare my opponent was a right winger who essentially argued .

That it was stealing his money to pay for other peoples healthcare and deprives them of their choice of provider 

1. It can't be theft if it's legal theft by definition is an illegal act 

2. Your actually y paying for your own care through a single system public system rather then a private one 

3. This assumes you should have a choice or that not giving you one is inherently wrong

It's an invented right 

All right are invented there are no natural rights 

Competition will drive down prices 

 Prove it 

Private is more efficient 

 Prove it 

Wait times 

 An issue but no system is perfect 

Forcing doctors to work for the government is wrong 

 By that logic forcing soldiers to fight for the government is wrong

Private is more efficient for the corporations who make money yes. But the morons who hate the idea of single payer don't want to see our current system for what it is, which is privatized socialism. But they feel the same way even outside health care issues. Giant corporations are socialists too. They socialize the gains among the CEOs and shareholders when they win, then socialize the losses on the tax payers when they loose.

[downbeatplumb]

Basic economics show that state sponsored medical system is more economical.


It doesn't however provide the absolute best medical care. To get the best - a profit motive is needed.


In the current system - of insurance companies " providing coverage" you get pretty good medical care - at a higher cost. Daddy Insurance gotta get his cut...... AND they will deny you coverage if they think they can get away with it. It' s part of the motivation - to make money - even at the expense to your health.

....

My solution - eliminate medical insurance. Everybody gets free medical care. The doctors are trained at state expense - and are pretty much free from malpractice suits.

If you want " the best" --- pay for it --- to doctors who went to the best private schools --- and can charge what the market will bear.

Where comprehensive performance is critical, we choose socialism.  That's why we have Medicare, Social Security, a military, police, and fire fighting services.

Allowing defectors to prosper undermines that system.

We have the NHS, which is Britains most beloved institution.

[Minimalist]

I think Trump should NOT have removed the penalty for failing to have health insurance. He only did that in his determination to undo everything good that those before him implemented. Healthcare coverage most of all.

Even the Orange Twat came to the realization that healthcare was complicated.  "Who knew?"


Everyone but him, it seems.

[Brian37]

Where comprehensive performance is critical, we choose socialism.  That's why we have Medicare, Social Security, a military, police, and fire fighting services.

Allowing defectors to prosper undermines that system.

We have the NHS, which is Britains most beloved institution.

Which astounds me that so many Brits fell for the Brexit crap. That entire con by their conservatives was sold on the idea, by not being part of the EU they could spend more on health care. 

There is a false dichotomy sold to the economic right voters that if you just let the rich do whatever they want things will get better.

[Amarok]

Awhile back i got into an argument about healthcare my opponent was a right winger who essentially argued .

1. It can't be theft if it's legal theft by definition is an illegal act 

2. Your actually y paying for your own care through a single system public system rather then a private one 

3. This assumes you should have a choice or that not giving you one is inherently wrong



All right are invented there are no natural rights 


 Prove it 


 Prove it 


 An issue but no system is perfect 


 By that logic forcing soldiers to fight for the government is wrong

Private is more efficient for the corporations who make money yes. But the morons who hate the idea of single payer don't want to see our current system for what it is, which is privatized socialism. But they feel the same way even outside health care issues. Giant corporations are socialists too. They socialize the gains among the CEOs and shareholders when they win, then socialize the losses on the tax payers when they loose.

Actually not really even for the corporation as such actions are ultimately self defeating

---

Ask him how he thinks private health insurance works. If your personal healthcare costs for any given year exceed the amount your insurance company paid to the providers, then you paid for someone else’s healthcare.

Competition hasn’t driven down prices in our current system.

How efficient something is depends on how you measure it’s efficiency. Are we talking money, man hours, lives saved, etc?

Wait times are a solvable issue. Realistically the only reason there would be wait times is because everyone can get healthcare. So the right wingers solution is to only let people who can afford it have it?

The soldiers example I think is pretty weak. Soldiers volunteer. However the constitution does give you the right to a lawyer, whether you can afford one or not. None of these lawyers are forced to work for the government though, they are government employees just like doctors would be. The whole “forcing doctors to work” ignores the fact that they are still paid and free to find another job if they want to.

The soldier analogy was simply to argue that to have that career you need to join the government funded army to be a doctor in a universal system you have to join the government health system . But your analogy works too .

And i will ask all  this if i get the the time

---

While I think everyone needs access to healthcare, I'm not convinced a single payer system is the complete answer either. While not a perfect example of single payer I can't help but look at the problems with the US VA system. And I hear a lot from my sister who spent 4 yrs in Canada and complained a lot about timely service for treatment of "non emergency/non acute care" conditions. 

These guy probably speak to the issues better than I ever could. 

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/pe...thcare.asp

https://vittana.org/15-pros-and-cons-of-...ealth-care

https://healthcare.procon.org/

I have used the Canadian system 70% of my life and have yet to have an issue . Is the VA system a problem with single payer or have it functions in a non single system . And i already said no system is perfect their are pros and cons to any system .

---

Basic economics show that state sponsored medical system is more economical.


It doesn't however provide the absolute best medical care. To get the best - a profit motive is needed.


In the current system - of insurance companies " providing coverage" you get pretty good medical care - at a higher cost. Daddy Insurance gotta get his cut...... AND they will deny you coverage if they think they can get away with it. It' s part of the motivation - to make money - even at the expense to your health.

....

My solution - eliminate medical insurance. Everybody gets free medical care. The doctors are trained at state expense - and are pretty much free from malpractice suits.

If you want " the best" --- pay for it --- to doctors who went to the best private schools --- and can charge what the market will bear.

I don't care for that idea

[Minimalist]

Let's see what the latest trend in 'Murrican Health Care is that the fascisti can swear is the only way to go!

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/11/transpl...ror-story/

Transplant clinic suggests woman crowdfund to obtain life-saving treatment in latest US health care horror story

As progressive lawmakers and healthcare experts have frequently pointed out in recent months, few growing trends have laid bare the fundamental immorality and brokenness of America’s healthcare system quite like the rise of GoFundMe and other crowdfunding platforms as methods of raising money for life-saving medical treatments that—due to insurance industry greed and dysfunction—are far too expensive for anyone but the very wealthiest to afford.

“Insurance groups are recommending GoFundMe as official policy—where customers can die if they can’t raise the goal in time—but sure, single-payer healthcare is unreasonable,” Ocasio-Cortez, an unabashed supporter of Medicare for All, wrote sarcastically.

[YahwehIsTheWay]

[Out of Character]

The system we have as run by the Insurance Bastards is monstrously inefficient. Not only do we have a pointless middle-man in the process but one who's vested interest is to make sure the system doesn't do what we hope it will. Specifically, Insurance Bastards make money when health care is not provided. It's like putting foxes in charge of the chicken coup and hoping the foxes take care of the chickens. 

As a business owner, I would happily pay more in taxes to cover all my employees with Medicare for All and would come out ahead financially in doing so. No more getting raped by the Insurance Bastards. 

Health care should be a community function, like police and military protection. It makes no sense that the government will pay for a soldier to keep an invading army out of my town, a police officer to keep a burglar out of my home but not a doctor to keep a virus from invading my body.

[Crossless2.0]

[Out of Character]

The system we have as run by the Insurance Bastards is monstrously inefficient. Not only do we have a pointless middle-man in the process but one who's vested interest is to make sure the system doesn't do what we hope it will. Specifically, Insurance Bastards make money when health care is not provided. It's like putting foxes in charge of the chicken coup and hoping the foxes take care of the chickens. 

As a business owner, I would happily pay more in taxes to cover all my employees with Medicare for All and would come out ahead financially in doing so. No more getting raped by the Insurance Bastards. 

Health care should be a community function, like police and military protection. It makes no sense that the government will pay for a soldier to keep an invading army out of my town, a police officer to keep a burglar out of my home but not a doctor to keep a virus from invading my body.

I have long maintained that when you factor in the inefficiencies and needless costs involved in our current arrangement, Medicare for all is actually the fiscally conservative option, and it’s only the stupidity of our prevailing political discourse that allows the politicians bought and paid for by the insurance lobby to claim otherwise.

[Dr H]

Awhile back i got into an argument about healthcare my opponent was a right winger who essentially argued :

That it was stealing his money to pay for other peoples healthcare and deprives them of their choice of provider 

He's already paying for other people's healthcare -- just not in ways so obvious that he notices.  When a hospital emergency room has to treat a non-paying patient who doesn't have a PCP because of no insurance and insufficient cash, the hospital doesn't eat that cost.  They pass it on to paying customers and insurance companies in higher rates for other services.  The insurance companies in turn pass it on to their customers in higher premiums.

It comes down to:  would he rather pay $50, up front, from his wallet, into a socialized healthcare system -- or have $250 picked from his back pocket by the industry to support the corporate dominated mess we currently have?