What is single payer?

Venezuela is not America. So that is fear mongering.
Single payer would create jobs, more money flow, and stifle crap like the epipen , aids pill, and many more cases of abuse from happening, hospitals and doctors would still be making record profits.

 

Onus is entirely on the fearmonger to provide credible nonpartisan substantiation that what is happening in America is even remotely akin to what happened in a 3rd world nation like Venezuela.

 

Then there is the fact that there are many medical conditions that single payer Canadian style medicine cannot handle and so wealthy Canadians fly on down the the U.S.A. and take advantage of state of the art, top of the line health care . . . paying for what they actually NEED out of their own pocket. The downside of single payer (socialistic systems) is that it becomes -- no matter what their advocates CLAIM -- a one size fits all cookie-cutter type of operation and also it has no incentive to be innovative.

 

Everyone pays taxes on their income reported to the federal government. If you want to play silly semantic games then you have nothing of substance to refute that FACT that EVERYONE pays federal taxes on their INCOME regardless as to what any specific 1040 line item is called or which federal program it is allocated to funding.

 

If they were smart they would actually go to Cuba in that case...I mean if it really was state of the art they required.

 

Onus is entirely on you to prove that the Canadian healthcare system cannot provide state of the art healthcare.

 

American medicine is unparalleled.
If you are advocating open access to mediocrity, Canada and Europe are great examples.
Would you prefer everyone have an equal slice of crap pie?
Thank you posters. I truly underappreciated being American prior to reading here.

 

Well it would be if I cared to track down the well publicized instances of Canadian wealthy and even celebrities on death's door that came down to the U.S.A. to get the lifesaving health care that they actually needed; but I don't actually care enough to go to that much trouble with a search engine.

- - - Updated - - -

One wonders if there is any real truth to that particular bit of leftist generated propaganda about the quality of Cuban health care.

 

Like ii said early on this is just a pipe dream, Trump won due to Trump supporters, people that well support President-elect Trump.

So this amazing idea for further job creation, saving employers and Americans (of all classes) money, while giving hospitals, private practice doctors, small clinics record profits, and stifling the Epipen,Aids pill, etc abuse from happening, while at the same time spurring further medical advancements, will never happen.

All they hear is Blah blah blah Trump won, blah blah blah socialism.
then imagine a cry baby.

- - - Updated - - -

No wondering involved, just takes someone such as your self to step back from being so proud, and just see fact as fact.

 

Of course I understand that, I have over 40 years of business ownership behind me. The idea of allowing people to buy in is a valid one. If something is so poor that you have to force people to participate, it's got major problems; the voluntary participation exposes the severity of it. Every business and service in the nation sells it service on the basis of a voluntary customer relationship, and that works. It works for car insurance as well, where liability toward others is a major issue justifying at least that minimum insurance be carried- but that is the extent of the requirement and it is still an openly competitive market. So- it works.

 

I have a cousin who was born and raised in Europe and is now a Canadian citizen. Here is what she said about Canadian healthcare.

"Your health care is insane. we pay less, no it is not free in canada, but we also get (*)(*)(*)(*)ty services. u die from cancer because your MRI appointment takes 2 years. which evil is worse? not sure.....

We might have some americans moving to canada just like we had draft dodgers. but majority of people talking about moving won't because it is not easy. Canada does not have illegal immigrants and to legally immigrate to canada aint no easy.

or it will trigger something bigger. here in europe they are saying that after Brexit and Trump, EU might step up to make some changes as well. The refugees situation here is really really bad. I am guessing Germans will rise ona day...."

 

The line item federal income tax is NOT a silly semantics game. You see, this is not my first rodeo. Whenever the 47% stat is cited by rightists, reflexively, you will have a plethora of leftists pointing out that everyone pays payroll taxes. For that reason, I choose my words very carefully. It is as if they want to deny the fact that 47% of people do not pay federal income tax. Yes, they pay payroll tax but they do NOT pay federal income tax. That fact is noteworthy. You may want to pretend it doesn't exist, but it does. I have a right to correctly point out that 47% do not pay federal income tax ( which is aside from payroll tax), and the proper way to convey that point is to say they do not pay federal income tax.

This was never a situation where I was refuting the fact that everyone pays federal taxes on their income, this is a situation where I said that 47% do not pay federal income tax, and I am 100% correct in that assertion. You coming in after the fact and implying that I am trying to refute that everyone pays federal taxes on their income is a very poorly disguised strawman argument. You are now arguing against a point that was never made.

You said that the onus was on me to prove my point. I have done just that. You are welcome.

 

Doctors and nurses spend 8 years or so training and incur huge education debts. When the govt takes over everything and decides they're making too much money they're going to chose another course of study believe me. Same with pharmaceutical companies that are being harassed by the govt harpies. Good luck with developing any new drugs when the govt puts them out of business.

 

Its a wonderful system employed by the Soviet Union!

 

The 55% of Americans who actually pay individual income taxes.

Any other questions ?

 

If Trump would convince a majority of Democrats and Republicans replace Obama Care with a single payer, much more cost effective and far superior system, he would be seen as a miracle worker. He is in a unique position to get this done, as most Democrats would support it along with enough Republicans. The present healthcare system is a ripoff and most of Obama Care along with the horrible Bush Perscription bill were written by greedy scumbag lobbyists from the pharmaceutical and insurance industries. Some of the provisions are criminal. When the ACA was being debated, I remember when there was talk of a 'public option'. Several members of both political persuasions flipped out at the least bit of real competition being waged against their benefactors (insurance and pharma lobbies) by offering a public option. Then we got the half assed ACA, which had a few advantages for the people, but now as you see, the pharma and insurance industries are coluding to jack up prices and stick it to us again.

 

Once again you are confusing single payer with socialized medicine...stop it.
Do a lil unbiased research.

Edit: because you are a President-elect Trump supporter that may be impossible for you..ill do it for you gimme a min.
And that took all of less then 15 min. (as i was still able to put it in the Edit)

[video=youtube;Qy0Yz6q34ws]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qy0Yz6q34ws[/video]

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-faq

"Won’t this result in rationing like in Canada?

The U.S. already rations care. Rationing in U.S. health care is based on income: if you can afford care, you get it; if you can’t, you don’t. A recent study found that 45,000 Americans die every year because they don’t have health insurance. Many more skip treatments that their insurance company refuses to cover. That’s rationing. Other countries do not ration in this way.

If there is this much rationing, why don’t we hear about it? And if other countries ration less, why do we hear about them? The answer is that their systems are publicly accountable, and ours is not. Problems with their health care systems are aired in public; ours are not. For example, in Canada, when waits for care emerged in the 1990s, Parliament hotly debated the causes and solutions. Most provinces have also established formal reporting systems on waiting lists, with wait times for each hospital posted on the Internet. This public attention has led to recent falls in waits there.

In U.S. health care, no one is ultimately accountable for how the system works. No one takes full responsibility. Rationing in our system is carried out covertly through financial pressure, forcing millions of individuals to forgo care or to be shunted away by caregivers from services they can’t pay for.

The rationing that takes place in U.S. health care is unnecessary. A number of studies (notably a General Accounting Office report in 1991 and a Congressional Budget Office report in 1993) show that there is more than enough money in our health care system to serve everyone if it were spent wisely. Administrative costs are at 31% of U.S. health spending, far higher than in other countries’ systems. These inflated costs are due to our failure to have a publicly financed, universal health care system. We spend about twice as much per person as Canada or most European nations, and still deny health care to many in need. A national health program could save enough on administration to assure access to care for all Americans, without rationing."

"What about medical research?

Much current medical research is publicly financed through the National Institutes of Health. Under a universal health care system this would continue. For example, a great deal of basic drug research, for example, is funded by the government. Drug companies are invited in for the later stages of “product development,” the formulation and marketing of new drugs. AZT for HIV patients is one example. The early, expensive research was conducted with government money. After the drug was found to be effective, marketing rights went to the drug company.

Medical research does not disappear under universal health care system. Many famous discoveries have been made in countries with national health care systems. Laparoscopic gallbladder removal was pioneered in Canada. The CT scan was invented in England. The treatment for juvenile diabetes by transplanting pancreatic cells was developed in Canada.

It is also important to note that studies show that, in the U.S., the number of clinical research grants declines in areas of high HMO penetration. This suggests that managed care increasingly threatens clinical research. Another study surveyed medical school faculty and found that it was more difficult to do research in areas where high HMO penetration has enforced a more business-oriented approach to health care.

Finally, it appears that the increasing commercialization of research is beginning to slow innovation. Drug firms’ increasing reliance on contract research organizations (and for-profit ethical-review boards) has coincided with a sharp drop in innovative new drugs and a spate of “me-too” drugs - minor variations on old drugs that offer little benefit other than extended patent life."

 

Why even bring it up? There is zero chance of this ever happening without a Democrat president; majority in Congress; and SCOTUS that would affirm it.

 

I believe the Canadians can provide state of the art HC but the question is how long do you wait? According to this study http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...oad-for-treatment-increased-by-25-study-finds more than 52,000 Canadians travel abroad (mainly US) and if the care in Canada was so good and acted on in a timely fashion why would even 1 person go abroad for HC?

 

The wait times, while a popular subject, aren't as bad as portrayed. Canadians by and large are more than satisfied with their health care system. As for the 52,000 Canadians travelling abroad - this is an annual piece put out by the Fraser Institute. The number for 2015 was around 45,000. What you have to realize is the vast majority of these Canadians getting non emergency medical care in the States are snowbirds - they winter in Florida, Arizona, California etc. Over 500,000 winter in FL alone......they purchase health insurance for these visits - they aren't going to fly home every time something goes wrong, that would be kind of stupid, wouldn't it. The Fraser piece even states this and, some people will assume wrongly that 45,000 Canadians are jumping on a plane or get in their cars and head south of the border when this is NOT the case.

It is estimated around 750,000 Americans go outside the country for some form of health care, usually to Mexico. I would think cost is the big motivator. Link from the CDC below, please note the number is probably ambiguous, how the hell could anyone really know - in all cases.

https://www.cdc.gov/features/medicaltourism/

 

Doctors making record profits? Perhaps you will back this up with evidene?
And we hat does a doctor have to do with claims denial?

 

Single payer wont work. Our govt is just too inefficient and incompetent.

On top of that, check out average pay for a general practitioner in the US compared to the rest of the world. You expect them to take on a greater work load and take a pay cut?

GP makes:
25% more in the US compared to Australia.
70% more in the US compared to Germany (Germany is having a serious problem with doctor shortages due to low pay)
60% more in the US compared to the UK

This goes on for every industrialized country I looked at and I'm sure the differences would get even higher if I started looking at specialties.

 

To the underlined none...It was the inability to pay doctors when insurance denied your claim under the previous system that was the big problem for doctors and patients.

As we dont have single-payer in America yet...I cant provide evidence, as this idea only became possible after the ACA was passed and was never a possibility before.

The closest I can come to is look at Cuba's medical system, and their advances in medicine.
But they are also communist, so it would be a bad analogy.
Because in America we are a capitalist country, this would drive to such heights, it would open all kinds of economic possibility's.

Edit: I can point to studies though...gimme a min

http://pnhp.org/blog/2011/07/25/impact-of-single-payer-on-physician-income-in-canada/

The Impact of Single-Payer Health Care on Physician Income in Canada, 1850–2005

By Jacalyn Duffin, MD, PhD
American Journal of Public Health, July 2011

Over nearly 60 years, into the 21st century, physician income grew at a rate of increase that outpaced that of other Canadians. Since 1958 through the advent of medicare, until at least 1992 and probably into the present, physicians, as a professional category, were the top earners in the country.

In 2005, US doctors earned about five-and-a-half times the US GDP per capita; Canadian doctors earned about four times their country’s GDP per capita.

The observation that Canadian physicians are paid less than their American counterparts invites us to ask, what do Canadians “get” in exchange for paying their physicians less than their American counterparts? A 1990 study showed that, although per capita expenditures on health in the United States were higher than those in Canada, the actual number of services was fewer. In other words, Canadian citizens were getting more and spending less.

From this research, we observe that even when the readjustments resulting from various policy and payment alterations are taken into account, Canadian medicare did not lead to a loss in physician income. Rather, physician incomes grew more quickly than those of other Canadians and are considerably greater. In short, the medical-income argument against moving toward a Canadian-style system is feeble.

The universal, single-payer system has been good not only for Canadians but also for their doctors.