Single payer healthcare is a no-brainer

It's pretty much a no brainer regardless of where you are on the political spectrum that single-payer healthcare, co-existing with private care, is the only viable system. Anyone who thinks otherwise just isn't thinking critically, it's that simple.

The current 'healthcare' system we have rewards laziness at the expense of responsible people, and gives people in prison better access to healthcare than law-abiding citizens.

I'm assuming most people know that hospitals can't deny basic and emergency services to anyone regardless of their ability to pay - and they cannot be forced to pay their bills. In theory a hospital could sue a person for unpaid debt, but unless it was exorbitantly high, this would never happen. Therefore those who do pay their bills - not because they have to, but because they're just responsible, end up footing the costs of the millions who just don't pay, or declare bankruptcy due to exhoribant debt. For every $1,000 you pay toward "your bills", in reality you're probably paying about $50 for the cost of the actual service - the remaining $950 that you're paying is $1 toward the debt of 950 other individuals who defaulted on their bills. Therefore, those who are lazy and don't pay get off more or less scott-free, while those who do pay end up paying other people's debt.

And of course individuals in prison receive better access to heathcare than law-abiding citizensm which is pretty insulting to mainstream Americans. For example, a prisoner a few years ago was given a $1,000,000 bone marrow transplant without insurance - which he'd never have been able to get were he not in prison.

In addition, single-payer will also keep the govt out of private sector healthcare, and eliminate the necessity of private hospitals to perform services free of charge - and while some would complain about 'their money' being redistributed, I can guarantee that they'd be keeping more of their money in the long run if single payer is enacted, since it would drive down the cost of private healthcare caused by freeloaders - and as I already mentioned - 99% of what you're paying on "your medical bills" is actually other people's bills anyway.

So in summary, with single payer enacted:

1. Defaulting on debt would no longer be rewarded, at the expense of those who pay their bills

2. People serving time in prison would not be given better healthcare access than law-abiders

3. The govt could leave the private sector alone, and no longer force private hospitals to provide service free of charge

4. You'd get to keep way more of your own money, since the drop in private health-care costs would more than compensate whatever the cost of single-payer healthcare is- not to mention we'd likely have far less people draining taxpayer money via other forms of welfare as well (such as food stamps), since medical bills are the #1 cause of debt and bankruptcy in this country - you may even have lower net taxes, and lower net medical bills in the long run. So you'd be paying less of other peoples' expenses on both fronts.

So it's pretty much a no-brainier, it really is once you just analyze the pros and cons.

 

I actually agree with you here, though when you look at the comparisons of other countries expenses our current system is more costly to the government not to mention that preemptive care is usually better in a universal healthcare plan for example more people per 1000 go get check ups with their doctors than under our system and this is bad considering if people don't get things checked early it costs more in the future and it ends up being the government paying for it. This is my reasoning for supporting it.

 

You probably have some good points. But as I usually do, once I get to the point where someone says that anyone who disagrees is an idiot, I stop reading.

 

So you don't support single-payer care? Why's that?

 

I swear you're looking more like a troll with every post.

 

You don't think much, do you?

I guess you're assuming ObamaCare is single payer - it's not - it's regulating private business.

Single payer would exist independently of the private sector, and the private healthcare would avoid the regulations that currently exist, since the govt would be running it's own separate version of healthcare, rather than dictating the private sector how to run it's.

Think UPS and the Postal Service - they both exist independently. ObamaCare would be the equivalent of the govt telling UPS how to run it's operations.

 

We've already got a single payer system run by the government - it's call Medicare/Medicaid.

And we see how well they've done with that.

 

We have singe payer healthcare enforced on the private sector (hospitals cannot deny treatment to those who can't pay), and in prisons as well - . The only ones who don't receive single payer care are those who actually work and pay taxes, and pay their own medical bills.

It works just fine for what it is, we should eliminate medicare/medicaid and merge them into one single-payer system, and remove the govt from private sector care. Private hospitals would be able to deny treatment to those unable to pay, driving down the cost rather than punishing the rest of us by adding the cost of non-payers to our medical bills.

 

Being right is trolling now?

That's new.

 

You're wrong, actually.

 

Care to elucidate, or is that as far as the thought process goes?

 

I wouldn't want what the government would offer as single payer care. My healthcare decisions are between me and my doctor, not some non-faced government official who knows diddly about me and my health conditions. Bad enough 'fighting' private insurance for what they've contracted for, but the government would even be worse.

Does it now? Well enough that seniors had 'donut holes' and not all low income people were eligible, which opened the door for the ACA to find it's way to the voting floor. Cutting payments, doctors not accepting MC/MA patients. That well.

Exactly how do you think a one-payer system would be funded? You get your private insurance AND get to pay for the one payer system via taxes. Not quite seeing the savings there.

 

All your points are invalid on the simple counterargument that Gov has no business in personal affairs.

 

Spacecricket, Your basically advocating to extend medicare to everyone...... interesting coming from you.

 

Well, your logic is basically, "The specific way we handle Medicare/Medicaid sucks, so any attempt to have something similar to Medicare/Medicaid will also suck."

It's a ridiculous mentality. Just because one person (or in this case, our government) tries something and fails doesn't mean someone else can try that same thing but end up with different results.

 

Single Payer Healthcare not only spreads my risk out over the entire population. It also spreads out my personal soveriegnty. Universal Health Care gives society a direct and immoral interest on my personal health and personal health choices in regards to cost.

It can therefore have the moral inclination to control every part of my health and the choices I make. This leads to all kinds of heinous abuses by the bureaucracy and by the body politic against me. Fat taxes suddenly become en vogue. Consumption taxes against fatty foods or other heinous costs are added over time. Suddenly VATs of all kinds break the society and leave it a Ward of the State.

No thank you. Better the hazards of too much freedom, than not enough. Especially when it comes to my body.

 

I wouldn't support the elimination of private healthcare and replacing it with single payer - I'd support both coexisting separately.

Think about it this way. It can cost $700 or more for a noninsured 30 minute ER visit. So assuming that only went to the cost of the doctor's salary - the doctor could only work 30 minutes a day 7 days a week, and still make about $230,000 a year - working less than 4 hours a week. In real life doctors probably work up to 60 hours per week, which would make the doctor's salary about $3,700,000 a year. Doctors make good money, but no where near that amount.

Do you have any idea how much of the cost of 'your bills' is actually you paying for the bills of lazy individuals who don't pay? I've known people who make as much as $50,000 per year who just throw all their medical bills in the trash, even when the bills are only a couple $100, just because they know they can't be forced to pay. If you're happy paying up to 20X or more the actual cost of your expenses every time you pay a medical bill, then hell keep supporting the current system.

And don't say "well hospitals should just start denying treatment to those who can't pay", because that's about as likely to happen as for the govt to start giving taxpayer-funded Lamborghinis to poor people.

 

Only if you elect to use it.

Again, only if you elect to use it.

You seem to be thinking I want single payer to replace private healthcare but that's incorrect, so just a strawman.

And you pay far more of other peoples' bills in the long run due to cost inflation by those who don't pay than you ever would if single payer care existed separate from private care.

 

I disagree.

 

Well good then. You go lobby your State Government to enact Universal Health Care. I choose to live in States without it.

This is a State's Rights issue. The Federal Government can keep out.

 

Why should I have to pay federally for Medicare and Medicaid if I don't receive single-payer care? I'm not a single, unemployed mom with kids so I can't get Medicaid, and if I don't live to be 65 I will never qualify for Medicare - so why should I have to pay the federal govt for other people's care and not receive any of it myself?

 

Because I and the majority of America like it that way. Tyranny of the Majority and all that business.

 

I don't really care what the majority say - if I think the majority's wrong, well then that just makes the rest of us more right so I feel better. I only care about what works from a cost/benefit analysis - I'm not big on the idea of Idiocracy.

Plus it's not like the majority voted in Medicare/Medicaid by referendum - it's really tyranny of the ones who can get the guys in Washington on their side, so I'll just have to try harder to get them on my side then.

 

See, this is why I find you hilarious. Not that long ago you were praising fascism as cool yo. Then a few posts ago you were (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing about personal freedom and small government and states' rights. And now you're advocating tyranny again.

Are you schizo? Do you have MPD?

 

If we had "tyranny of the majority" then Gore'd have been President in 2000, lmao