Most people support single-payer health care

While hidebound ideologues fantasize about their profiteering Aynrandistan Mutuals, the US is ravaged by the most expensive healthcare system in the world that fails to cover tens of millions, and pragmatists look to the multiple extant paradigms of advanced nations that have actually achieved universal coverage at half the cost, and are confident that we can do even better.

Under the current unsatisfactory and unsustainable plight, the State imposes upon private businesses the burden of administering plans and reimburses them and their privileged for doing so via the taxpayer:

The largest tax subsidy for private health insurance — the exclusion from income and payroll taxes of employer and employee contributions for employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) – was estimated to cost approximately $250 billion in lost federal tax revenue in 2013.
​

Clearly, the time has come to realize the benefits of economy of scale, the actuarial desirability of maximizing the risk pool, the efficiency of consolidating administrative functions, the common sensical elimination of the bloat of repeatedly-duplicated profit margins, executive salaries, marketing, advertising, data processing, and political lobbying budgets, employee payrolls, etc., etc., etc. The superfluous middle man insinuates an army of bottom-line bureaucrats into the consumer/provider relationship.

We can do better:

​

“We’re going to have insurance for everybody!” ​

"If you can’t take care of your sick in the country, forget it, it’s all over. ... I believe in universal healthcare!"
Trump told CNN’s Larry King in October 1999.​

"The Canadian plan also helps Canadians live longer and healthier than America. … We need, as a nation, to reexamine the single-payer plan, as many individual states are doing."
Trump in his 2000 book, The America We Deserve.




​

 

It's no surprise to me that most people support someone else paying for their healthcare.

 

Like the government instead of rip off insurance companies you mean?

 

I'd take private insurance over government run healthcare any day. Look at how the VA treats veterans.

 

Health insurance isn't a right. Forcing socialized medicine on the citizenry at the end of a government gun barrel is violent theft, and those who advocate it thieves in training.

 

If you can convince people to set aside their ideology/theology and just work the numbers the majority will admit that single payer is the most economical and efficient method to deliver healthcare to the largest share of the population.

The Republican created ACA is better than nothing and what we had before the ACA is the worst of all possible worlds.

But the ideologues cannot be convinced by numbers and evidence because their "faith" says no.

 

Single payer, private delivery is the way to go.

At the VA, the government owns and operates the facilities and employs physicians and staff.

 

The ideologues will have to defer to the democratic will of pragmatists in the matter. Having to foot the bloated medical bills of the uninsured is not fair to the American taxpayer.

Once a society accepts the moral imperative that it cannot allow its people to suffer and die, it assumes the need to devise the most economical way of doing so.

 

Sez you. No idea where you live, but in the United States, our form of government is a constitutional republic, not a democracy... as a matter of irrefutable legal fact, not opinion. Cute how you call freedom-loving people "ideologues" and corrupt, thievish parasites "pragmatists."

I guess Dahmer was a "pragmatist" too, he wanted to eat... he ate... how very pragmatic.

Then the proper course is repealing laws that require them to be treated, not enlarging and exacerbating the violent redistribution.

Everyone suffers and dies, and no central government will ever change that, only retard progress against it. The only "moral imperative" in central US government is not to take more from the citizenry than is absolutely necessary to insure the defense of borders, regulate interstate commerce, and enforce the rule of law. Everything else is illicit violence against the citizenry.

If individual -states- want to set up socialized medicine, fine. Then all the actual productive there can vote with their feet to escape the socialism... and they will. If local counties and cities want to, fine. Doing it centrally and federally is indisputably evil and will yield only the same graft, waste, incompetence and inefficiency that central government always yields.

The only "truth" of socialized medicine is violent theft.

 

Their ideological dogma is a luxury mocked by the empirical reality of advanced nations. They cannot cite a single example of their airy-fairy notion succeeding anywhere.

The most efficient and least cataclysmic reform would be to take advantage of the extant Medicare structure and to incrementally extend the eligibility age downward, thus incorporating progressively less costly demographics into the risk pool. Of course, those who find the concept antithetical to their beliefs should be free to seek unsubsidized coverage from private providers in the free market.

 

Once a government accepts that they own the citizenry and know what's best for them we're looking at oppression by limiting healthcare. Welcome to 1984 sorry it came a few years late.

 

Your ideological fervour is noted. Medicare contradicts your personal preferences, and there is no practical impediment to extending it to include younger, less costly demographics into the risk pool and reduce the cost for all Americans.

 

You may rage at the democratic will asserting itself, but the multiply-affirmed paradigm of single-payer universal coverage being the most economic approach has no competing examples, merely airy-fairy confections. If there were a single nation with an unbridled free market that proved practicable, that would not be the case.

 

I'm not raging against anything just wondering what was so wrong with pre-Obama healthcare. Seemed to be working fine - I don't remember people being left in the street to die because they didn't have insurance.

 

If you can convince people to set aside their ideology/theology and just work the numbers, the majority will admit that eugenics, childbirth caps, and euthanasia of the old, handicapped, terminally ill and mentally defective are the most economical and efficient methods to provide -any- government services to the Arya... erm... citizenry, including healthcare, to the largest share of the population.

Thankfully we are the land of the free and not the land of the economical and efficient.

 

Evidently, this one is unsure of where the funds said insurance company is leveraging to "pay for" services. How about this. All folks are required to pay the same rate for government to provide them health care. Meaning, they have to pay into the service. no hand outs, cause why should anyone be above their level of contribution?

 

Your throwing around NAZI euphemisms as though they were somehow foreign to your beliefs is great for laughs.

There, however, is nothing immoral about an advanced society providing healthcare to its citizenry.

Strike three. You're out.

 

They weren't, and same is true of any central government schemes that supplant individual freedom and local social services. With the gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex, the end is ALWAYS self-enrichment and growth of violent power and NEVER the ostensible social issue whitewash they peddle. Millions are waking up to this every year after the "great enlightening" provided by the internet.

The entirety of the single payer lie narratives flows like a putrid river out of taxpayer funded public union and Complex lobby PR departments who never saw a graft trough they didn't like.

 

Would you be so supportive of the "democratic will" if said will was to require everyone to work? To do something productive to "earn" their government provided privilege? I doubt it.

 

Wrong. You placed "efficiency" above rights. I just took that to its logical conclusion. Oh, and I'm as much a Nazi as you are a "lifelong Republican." ROFL

Remember folks, when attempting a discussion with a leftist -always- have a written record.

 

Fallacy: argumentum ad populum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

 

Ever asked yourself why the drug and insurance companies shell out millions to bent politicians in payment to keep the status quo? And do you honestly think you vote for senators who represent all the people? Your ability to except corporate propaganda without question is staggering. But I forget, you live in the land of the free, or is that the land of the freewheelers.

 

All that because I asked for the concession that everyone be required to pay into universal health coverage?

 

A. That system is not nearly as bad as

Completely different system

 

Most people like free housing, clothing, schooling, food, and sex, and maybe a car and internet service. So what?

News Flash: The government not taxing something is NOT a subsidy.

"the efficiency of consolidating administrative functions, the common sensical elimination of the bloat of repeatedly-duplicated profit margins, executive salaries, marketing, advertising, data processing, and political lobbying budgets, employee payrolls, etc., etc., etc. The superfluous middle man insinuates an army of bottom-line bureaucrats into the consumer/provider relationship." Which part of this do you believe does not exist in a government run system?