Single payer health care

[Beattie]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Beattie
http://reason.com/news/show/134553.html

Does John Stossel ever dare touch healthcare in say, Japan or Norway?

http://www.npr.org/templates/s...y.php?storyId=89626309

He's always come across as someone who cherry picks his way to argue a point.

Did you read that article? It says that doctors need to find ways to supplement their income because they are paid too little and "50 percent of hospitals are in financial deficit now."

Yea, this system will last forever.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH

1. And yet government health costs are projected to swell incredibly... we don't pay for everyone... otherwise all this UHC mumbo jumbo would not be necessary.

What you're missing is that the huge amount of money spent and wasted on private insurance, corporate red tape and administration, and benefit plan administration would end up going to the government to pay for all of it. Since we're already spending a much higher percentage of our nation's GDP on health care than any other first world nation while receiving poor service for the populace it seems like it might be possible to reduce the percentage of GDP spent while increasing the amount of service.

2. Once UHC is enacted it only a matter of time before private health insurance goes the way of the dodo bird... and they effectively, health care systems will be working for the government because the government will be the primary bill payer. Not that there is a problem there, IMO.

Private health care would still be available for the wealthy.

3. Healthcare is not a right... yet. That is again what UHC is about... making it a right that is validated and supported by the Fed government.

I agree that it is not an individual right. However, the issue is whether or not it makes economic and practical sense for it to be socialized. We already have socialized schools, roads, and utilities and those are not individual rights. In the extreme you could reduce government to merely managing the police, the military, and the courts. The question is thus, does socialized medicine make sense for us or should we adopt true laissez-faire capitalism and let the rotting and destruction of our society commence.

4. With our present view of healthcare and 100% cost for all people... we WILL see a decline in the quality and availability of healthcare... at least in the short term.

That's difficult to say since our system is already very wasteful and inefficient. It might be possible to reduce the overall cost while increasing the quality and availability.

 

[Beattie]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
I agree that it is not an individual right. However, the issue is whether or not it makes economic and practical sense for it to be socialized. We already have socialized schools, roads, and utilities and those are not individual rights. In the extreme you could reduce government to merely managing the police, the military, and the courts. The question is thus, does socialized medicine make sense for us or should we adopt true laissez-faire capitalism and let the rotting and destruction of our society commence.

I always see people comparing national healthcare to police/fire/ems/schools/whatever without realizing that all of those things are a function of state and local government. If your state or town wants UHC then go vote for it.

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: ccbadd

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: ccbadd
Again, you are missing the point. They will not be given an option. What if the government took over whatever industry you work in and decided what you charge, get paid, and what not. That is just plain wrong and UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

The government isn't taking over the health care industry. What they're proposing is Medicare "lite", a version available for everyone.

If you think Medicare is unconstitutional, please tell us why.

This whole UHC will put private insurers out of business and all that will be left is this "Medicare Lite". In effect they will be the only choice left. What employer will want to continue to provide health care if you are going to be forced to pay for the federal one anyway. Not to mention if they start taxing those who do get health care benefits, why would they stay with those rather then take the federal plan they will already be getting taxed for anyway. Only thing left will be supplemental plans maybe, but that is only if the health care industry is allowed to maintain some autonomy without threats of getting kicked off the "list" of "Medicare Lite" approved doctors and no longer have any patients. We need to take the blinders off and see the whole picture, not just the rosy parts.

See this is what doesn't make sense to me. If a lean capitalist private insurer can't compete with a bloated, bureaucratic, socialist plan then doesn't it say a whole lot about the private insurance industry?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Beattie
http://reason.com/news/show/134553.html

Does John Stossel ever dare touch healthcare in say, Japan or Norway?

http://www.npr.org/templates/s...y.php?storyId=89626309

He's always come across as someone who cherry picks his way to argue a point.

The brits pay less as well and their system is in shambles. If you think Americans will settle for British level of care you are dreaming. We will demand what we currently have even with a govt run system. Is there a state that has successfully controlled their own health insurance plans? I know Romneycare is tanking, Hawaii had to abandon their plans within months and TennCare imploded, Cal-Med is raising at 8+% a year. What is so magical about moving that to the national stage will make it become affordable? The answer is it wont.

Watch Stossel's Sick in America. It is pretty interesting to say the least.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: ccbadd

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: ccbadd
Again, you are missing the point. They will not be given an option. What if the government took over whatever industry you work in and decided what you charge, get paid, and what not. That is just plain wrong and UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

The government isn't taking over the health care industry. What they're proposing is Medicare "lite", a version available for everyone.

If you think Medicare is unconstitutional, please tell us why.

This whole UHC will put private insurers out of business and all that will be left is this "Medicare Lite". In effect they will be the only choice left. What employer will want to continue to provide health care if you are going to be forced to pay for the federal one anyway. Not to mention if they start taxing those who do get health care benefits, why would they stay with those rather then take the federal plan they will already be getting taxed for anyway. Only thing left will be supplemental plans maybe, but that is only if the health care industry is allowed to maintain some autonomy without threats of getting kicked off the "list" of "Medicare Lite" approved doctors and no longer have any patients. We need to take the blinders off and see the whole picture, not just the rosy parts.

See this is what doesn't make sense to me. If a lean capitalist private insurer can't compete with a bloated, bureaucratic, socialist plan then doesn't it say a whole lot about the private insurance industry?

Yes, they cant tax or print money to make up their shortfalls.