You want to turn the economy loose?

We'll get around to it sooner or later in this country, but single-payor is the answer. Instead of asking Trump how he feels about Mexican rapists or women interviewers on the rag, ask him how he feels about single-payer.

 

instead of just telling us why its better and then switching to a demonizing statement... how about you lay out extremely specific and detailed mathematics that demonstrate the difference between the two and why it will not only cost less, but then follow up why it will provide better care ultimately... otherwise its just more hot air... I mean come on, you have to agree with that... unleash the kracken and cite the numbers and wellness directly related to the practices put forward... how many jobs will be lost, how many jobs will be created, whata re the wages of those jobs lost and created, whats the impact on the financial system as costs are shifted from one industry to another, dive into the details, not just the general propaganda points...

 

Another question. Should healthcare be treated as a commodity or a public service?

 

the real question should do you want our government to run your hospitals ?...hell no..they can't do anything right...everything they touch they screw it up....

 

So if they screw everything up
Maybe we should just leave iran alone

 

There is no need for the government to run hospitals. Single-payer is a system where the government collects money and pays all medical bills. Government is providing health insurance to elderly people for many years without fail, so there is no concern that government will not do it successfully for everyone.
Private health insurances are essentially parasites that put additional cost to already expensive medical services.

 

What makes you think THAT is the question?

The ACA makes no attempt to "run hospitals".

Not even Medicare attempts to "run hospitals". And, Medicare is certainly successful with lower management costs than insurance companies charge.

 

Why don't you just look at the extreme detail that exists for the 100 or so systems that are in practice today?

Every other first world nation (and a huge percentage of the rest) already have single payer. This isn't some wild new direction. We have the opportunity to identify the best of these systems that are in practice as living, breathing policy proposals!

For example, Belgium (and others) have single payer for a significant portion of human needs and then allow for-profit insurance to cover additional stuff that those with money might want covered. In other words, we don't even need to have our entire system be single payer!

For example, we already administer Medicare today, and they are doing it effectively. Why am I not allowed to be covered by Medicare?



AND, we need to see our costs go down significantly - something other countries have address. When that happens, it is an obvious sure bet that there are some folks who are not going to get paid. Keeping our current (or ANY) system on the grounds that it requires more employees makes no sense at all. So, be careful where you go with the job loss issue.

For example, with one single payer system for America, plus exceptions for those who can pay for more coverage, it's a sure bet there will be fewer insurance company employees and that corporations will also have fewer employees figuring out and managing and administering health care coverage. There is no efficiency benefit to having each major corporation administering health care for their employees, dealing with state by state issues for every state in which they have offices.

 

so your logic is... "other places do it, so if we did it, we'd get the same results"... well lets follow that logic as it applies to our education system and other government services we have today... yet, we seem to spend MORE than any other nation in almost every category of spending, yet we get LESS results than they do... so if doing the same thing worked so well, why are we spending more and getting less than many things we do exactly the same way?

if that kind of logic worked, everyone in the world would have identical systems wouldn't they... but yet when we go into details of these other systems people claim would work in america, we see there are actually quite a few differences between them, even though they are "all alike"... then once we factor in the different politics we see they are in fact quite dramatically different once we dive into the details instead of just taking whats on the surface...

so once again...

please provide specific details and numbers for what america should do... provide specific details on how that will affect all the industries included... stop preachign the propaganda... because everything we've copied from all these other "perfect examples" hasn't turned out to work so well for america in the end...

P.S. since I know you can't provide the detailed numbers, nobody ever has, thats why nobody can prove it will work, I will simply ask you to hold off preaching solutions until you can recite the details... and details are not "it works for others" or "this could work"... details are the numbers... bring up the numbers... show the shift in the industries... show me how many will be fired, and how many will be hired, show me how it will guarantee better care... because since you wanted to cite "medicare" as a prime example the government works at healthcare, I will cite the "VA" as a prime example the government SUCKS at healthcare...

 

Yes, almost everyone in the world has single payer. They just don't have their systems designed in an identical manner. Saying "single payer" does not answer all the questions, but with the number of systems out there we have huge information on how such systems work - we can do comparison shopping!! And, of course, we can tune it for ourselves.

The VA is different in that the government hires the providers - they work for the government. Under Medicare the government does not run the providers. A key factor in single payer is that those served are those who vote. Today, VA and Medicare are controlled by the majority, and the majority do not get their health care from either of these sources.

How much can be saved? The best way to see that is with the many analyses of the health care expenditures of the various nations. This site has two such analyses, where you can look at both total cost and %GDP:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita

 

I was under the impression that single payer causes the medical economy to remove the clinics with the family doctor and replaces them with expensive hospital care.

I don't want that. We should stick to our current system of health insurance and local clinics.

 

I'm saying we're not getting value for the price we're paying in health care.

Now, you're saying we don't get value from the price we're paying for education.

So far, so good.

But, that doesn't mean that the problems we're having getting value from health care dollars are the same as the problems we're having getting value from education dollars.

If you are actually concerned about education, you might take a look at how some of the successful, but low spending nations succeed. Finland, for example. Hint: teachers have career paths, are highly educated, decide in their unions what teaching methods to use and design curricula. In short, teaching is a profession, not just a job as it is in America. Is that all that makes the difference there? I don't know for sure. But, it is a huge difference other than the total dollars spent.

 

I haven't heard this.

I wouldn't want that, either.

Insurance companies have tended to move the industry toward having restricted networks where even hospitals aren't available without paying "out of network" charges.

Also, with single payer you can vote to make things like local clinics important. With insurance, customers haven't even been able to count on keeping their local hospital available to them, and the relatively low number of insurance companies along with the complexity of policies tends to shield these companies from such issues.

So, in general, I'd hope we can keep even more providers available.

 

"Better care ultimately" ? Lol! What about no care at all? There are 16.5 million that have care because of Obamacare who previously had no care at all.http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-rates-drop-sharply-under-obamacare/24852325/ From a math perspective that is a huge accomplishment.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/05/news/economy/obamacare-facts/

 

once again... cite the numbers, that WE would spend, show the shift in industries, and prove how it will guarantee a better outcome... when you're able to accomplish that, you will be able to silence the doubters... until then, all you continue to do is preach the propaganda without the proof... I can link to websites that preach propaganda, but you would say I have no argument or basis to my claims... and you'd be right... so stop the preaching, and demonstrate the proof...

 

and there are those who had care prior to Obama, and now can't afford to use it... so its a complete and utter wash... we can do this ALL DAY LONG... prove single payer and the model of other countries would work... show me the shift in dollars and which industries will increase and decrease as a result... you have yet to do that at all... all you do is cite a website linked to what another country does... you fail to show the real impacts to the american society... wishful thinking is not fact... you always cite the positives, but you completely disregard the negatives... you dance around the issue... show us how the money will flow, who wins who loses...

P.S. Obama also promised to end bankruptcy due to healthcare, yet we haven't made a significant dent in that either, people are still going bankrupt to healthcare... I can link to all the propaganda like you, but I'm more interested in reality, not twisted truths... SHOW, ME, THE MONEY... don't show me links about overall healthcare spending and pretend that is what would happen in america... show me what REALLY would occur... give us your projections of where the money will go... to demonstrate the savings... as well as the improved healthcare...

 

uhhhh newsflash... teachers in america are highly educated, most end their career with a masters to get the boost in pension... since most pay out based on education level and teaching grade... ever wonder why they all magically float up to high school or universities towards the end of their careers with a masters? yeah so they can milk the pension design... but they are highly educated...

teachers guess what, yeah they control their unions... and the teaching methods as the unions end up voting for the school boards THEY want... show me a single school board not heavily influenced by the teachers unions in america... so they control the curricula design and have for decades... teaching is a profession here, why would you say its just a job to teachers? do you not think they see themselves as professionals?

everything you started working for finland is everything we're doing in america... almost word for word... so since we STILL get worse results... and STILL spend more... whats the excuse now?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! I don't know if I can put more at the end of that...

 

Be careful now, you're stepping on Reagan's toes when you claim government medical insurance works well. Remember, King Ronny wanted Medicare killed from day one.

Also, if you are willing to be fooled like the right-wingers, the free market system, of which private insurance companies are part, are what made this country strong. Like all parts of the free market, there is equal opportunity for all and profits are dictated by consumers, not price-fixing by corrupt business leaders.

 

No, I can do this all day long, you can't. I provided the numbers who couldn't afford healthcare before Obamacare and after. You however, have not provided the numbers of those who used to be able to afford Obamacare and now cannot.

No one is going to provide every detail you ask, because you yourself cannot provide the evidence it is a wash. But there is one thing for sure, about statistics, when every developed nation has universal health care but us, and stays with it, that is all the evidence a reasonable person would ever need.

Lol! If the figures I have given are propaganda then show us they are. Don't talk about it. If it is pretending, then show us it's pretending, don't talk about it. I can't provide every figure you ask for, while you provide nothing but rhetoric. And by the way, I posted a website what Obamacare does, not just what some other country does. Here is another; http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/da...ers-to-know-for-obamacares-5-year-anniversary

 

Not to defend Trump, but just to insert facts, he has discussed his opinion on single payer healthcare. He thinks it would have been a workable idea after WWII but that we are now too "path dependent" to do it.

 

If government heavily regulates health care industry, it is effectively banning free market, therefore government 100% responsible for access to Health Care.

 

You've never taken a course in education in you life. And, just try to show evidence of your "float up" idea - which doesn't even make sense, given the differing qualifications and techniques required.

No, unions in the US don't have control of teaching methods, or cirricula. Teachers don't get to choose to reject "no child left behind", teachers would never call for the amount of testing and dependence on testing for evaluation rather than work product or teacher evaluation. Decisions on common core are coming from state level politicians. Texas "school board" is the source of selective history, nonsense on science, etc., not teachers. Teachers are a tiny minority of our population, and school boards are most usually elected.

Teaching is CALLED a profession, but again they are not managed like a profession. They are managed like government employees - because, they are government employees. Their salary usually depends on time in service and education achievement, not on professional evaluation.

So, no, the difference between Finland and the US is dramatic. There is really no comparison other than that there are teachers in classrooms.

 

Sure. In a post I'll write you a health care plan for America.

I showed there is a dramatic difference in expenditure, backing my point.

From there, you can do your own research.

 

Since the young generally have no significant health problems, they will be paying all the health bills for everyone else through their taxes instead of truly benefitting.....Uh....The ones that work anyway....Course, we are no longer at human replacement levels now so, don't count on too much with a single payer system. Instead look for less and less life saving coverage (as tax revenue dwindles) for those the government deems unsavable. The very rich, of course, will be able to afford their own supplemental private care.

 

What's the difference if a government bureaucracy runs a healthcare system or if an insurance company bureaucracy runs it? As long as it's one big system it'll be screwed up no matter who runs it. As long as it's one big system people, human life, will be reduced to nothing more than numbers on a spreadsheet. But if the government runs it we'll at least get to vote on who is in charge of it.

If healthcare is so expensive that we think the only way to afford it is to create a big group fund then maybe we need to look at why it's so expensive. Why just try to find ways to come up with billions of dollars instead of looking at why we have to come up with billions of dollars? Maybe it's time to tell Dr. Ectomy that he isn't worth half of what he thinks he is. Maybe doctors should learn to cure something instead of just hacking pieces out of us and then charging exorbitant fees for the privilege of it.

A guy can work all his life only to find the doctors billing him out of his house and his life savings when he gets old and sick. Maybe we should look at the guys doing the billing instead of just trying to figure out how to pay them.