OT Single-Payer Health Systems Suck

[ABM]

This guy nails it.

https://regiehammblog.wordpress.com/2020/02/27/birth-of-a-virus/

....China is back in the news with yet another deadly virus we are all wringing (and washing) our hands over. And I’m certain we’re more freaked out about it in the United States than they are in the epicenter of it. Trust me on this one. I’ve lived it.

If ONE American were to die of this virus, the marches will begin and the public outcry will be never-ending. Why? Because we are oriented to the individual, in this country. We believe – whether we practice it in our politics or want to admit it to ourselves – that one person makes a difference. And our government answers to us. We don’t answer to them.

As this virus is doing whatever it’s doing, we are also having a heated debate over our own politics as a nation. We are literally discussing the merits of “democratic socialism” in the context of a Presidential election, in the United States, in 2020. I don’t think this is an accident.

I’m watching people (even good friends) on the left, basically throw their backs out, trying to contort and explain away why “some’ socialism is a good thing and how public services are all really “socialist” constructs anyway and how it really isn’t as bad as all that and how ‘this isn’t Communism – relax” and basically try to shoe-horn themselves into possibly having to take a deep breath and vote for a guy who sees the bright side of Fidel Castro but at least is not Donald Trump.

And he has ignited the debate over “single payer” healthcare. And that notion always seems to be reasonable on the surface. Why not just streamline the whole thing? Why not get the bloated insurance companies out of it? Why not eliminate the greed and corporate bureaucracy from our health?

That all sounds very reasonable.

But here’s the thing …

Single payer also means single buyer. That means the dynamics of the market get eliminated. One of the natural checks-and-balances of finding a hot-shot surgeon willing to do the risky procedure or even just seek a second opinion, get chopped away little by little. Because now we’re answering to the government. It isn’t answering to us. After all, where are we gonna go? They’ve got us. And our cancer treatment or skin graft surgery or kidney stone blast is up to their red tape. Sure, we can get in the door for free. But we might die in there, waiting on someone with no incentive and who faces no recourse, to change our plasma bag.

I am not a registered Democrat or Republican. But if you don’t like the state of healthcare in this country, just remember that not ONE Republican has their fingerprints on it. NOT. ONE. Your current state of healthcare was voted on unanimously and signed into law by DEMOCRATS only.

And now, ten years later, we seem to need to fix it all over again. Why?.....(Continued)

 

[ABM]

Mod, please move to OT.

Thanks,

 

[tlongII]

I think Nurk would still be out anyway.

 

[UKRAINEFAN]

This guy nails it.

https://regiehammblog.wordpress.com/2020/02/27/birth-of-a-virus/

....China is back in the news with yet another deadly virus we are all wringing (and washing) our hands over. And I’m certain we’re more freaked out about it in the United States than they are in the epicenter of it. Trust me on this one. I’ve lived it.

If ONE American were to die of this virus, the marches will begin and the public outcry will be never-ending. Why? Because we are oriented to the individual, in this country. We believe – whether we practice it in our politics or want to admit it to ourselves – that one person makes a difference. And our government answers to us. We don’t answer to them.

As this virus is doing whatever it’s doing, we are also having a heated debate over our own politics as a nation. We are literally discussing the merits of “democratic socialism” in the context of a Presidential election, in the United States, in 2020. I don’t think this is an accident.

I’m watching people (even good friends) on the left, basically throw their backs out, trying to contort and explain away why “some’ socialism is a good thing and how public services are all really “socialist” constructs anyway and how it really isn’t as bad as all that and how ‘this isn’t Communism – relax” and basically try to shoe-horn themselves into possibly having to take a deep breath and vote for a guy who sees the bright side of Fidel Castro but at least is not Donald Trump.

And he has ignited the debate over “single payer” healthcare. And that notion always seems to be reasonable on the surface. Why not just streamline the whole thing? Why not get the bloated insurance companies out of it? Why not eliminate the greed and corporate bureaucracy from our health?

That all sounds very reasonable.

But here’s the thing …

Single payer also means single buyer. That means the dynamics of the market get eliminated. One of the natural checks-and-balances of finding a hot-shot surgeon willing to do the risky procedure or even just seek a second opinion, get chopped away little by little. Because now we’re answering to the government. It isn’t answering to us. After all, where are we gonna go? They’ve got us. And our cancer treatment or skin graft surgery or kidney stone blast is up to their red tape. Sure, we can get in the door for free. But we might die in there, waiting on someone with no incentive and who faces no recourse, to change our plasma bag.

I am not a registered Democrat or Republican. But if you don’t like the state of healthcare in this country, just remember that not ONE Republican has their fingerprints on it. NOT. ONE. Your current state of healthcare was voted on unanimously and signed into law by DEMOCRATS only.

And now, ten years later, we seem to need to fix it all over again. Why?.....(Continued)

Get this mindless trash out of here.

 

[julius]

But what does he think about Simons?

 

[Hoopguru]

Get this mindless trash out of here.

I thought you being a Ukrainian/Crimea fan you'd be more supportive of a non government controlled, take over of medical. A free market with some tweaks and a safety net for those in need would cover both basis.
Sure some reform would be in line like over State purchasing of Insurance, Coop of groups, loosen the current fed laws on big parma having monopolies with international purchases by distributors. Lobbyist currently pay off politicians on both sides to keep their captive market.

 

[KSF-ERIC]

What that seems to say to me is that only rich people should be able to get the best health care. That’s what he’s saying.

 

[ABM]

What that seems to say to me is that only rich people should be able to get the best health care. That’s what he’s saying.

Read some of the comments following the blog post. They're actually pretty interesting.

BTW, I'm all about finding a hybrid system that would provide care for our legitimately poor and needy. What I'm not about is subsidizing our middle class.

 

[julius]

Read some of the comments following the blog post. They're actually pretty interesting.

BTW, I'm all about finding a hybrid system that would provide care for our legitimately poor and needy. What I'm not about is subsidizing our middle class.

but you're fine subsidizing the upper class?

And what do you consider "middle class"?

 

[Hoopguru]

What that seems to say to me is that only rich people should be able to get the best health care. That’s what he’s saying.

Not at all, but why shouldn't there be an option like Pete suggest rather than strictly 100% controlled by Government.

 

[ABM]

but you're fine subsidizing the upper class?

If it means continuing to stimulate our economy, creating new jobs, etc., then, yes.

BTW, lemme ask you a question: How might you think most of the upper class actually became upper class? I would submit through hard work, creativity, entrepreneurship, etc. In other words, they made the most of the opportunities they were given. Shoot, even many less-privileged folks rose out of their conditions to make the most of every situation and effectively became self-made. There's a lot of self-entitlement goin' on out there.....which is a bane on society.

Again, there are many legitimately needy out there. I'm all for giving them a helping hand. Conversely, there's also a lot system-milkers out there, too. I don't have much patience for lazy and/or self-entitled moochers, and the like.

 

[julius]

If it means continuing to stimulate our economy, creating new jobs, etc., then, yes.

BTW, lemme ask you a question: How might you think most of the upper class actually became upper class? I would submit through hard work, creativity, entrepreneurship, etc. In other words, they made the most of the opportunities they were given. Shoot, even many less-privileged folks rose out of their conditions to make the most of every situation and effectively became self-made. There's a lot of self-entitlement goin' on out there.....which is a bane on society.

Again, there are many legitimately needy out there. I'm all for giving them a helping hand. Conversely, there's also a lot system-milkers out there, too. I don't have much patience for lazy and/or self-entitled moochers, and the like.

Many of them were given an opportunity that the vast majority of the country was not given.

You are creating a slippery slope when you talk about "hard work, creativity" etc, as if the only thing that separates someone who is middle class from being someone of the upper class, is hard work and creativity "etc".

There's a lot of gross ignorance and smugness going on here too. Especially with that incredibly condescending and factually incorrect line about "lazy and/or self-entitled moochers" and "the like".

It's like you never took a college class on economy or history.

Why aren't you saying what you consider middle class?

it can't be because you just like a blanket statement that allows you to repeat talking points and sound like you're an authority on the subject, is it?

 

[ABM]

Why aren't you saying what you consider middle class?

A guess, but I'd say somewhere between $50k-$90k (and even higher) annually per household. I'd say probably between $30k-$5ok annually per household to be lower middle class..and a level where some government subsidies might begin to kick in.

Dude, I was generalizing a bit regarding the laziness, self-entitlement. The fact is, it exists..and when the government decides it wants to give, give, give...then who could really blame them?

Oh, and you are correct, I never did go to college. I dropped out of high school in the 10th grade. So, forgive me for not being quite as edumacated as many of you fine folks in here. Actually, though, I've done pretty financially well for myself....mainly due to never being afraid of work, being dependable and on time, respecting my leaders, not being afraid to learn (asking lots of questions), and getting along with my co-workers.

 

[julius]

A guess, but I'd say somewhere between $50k-$90k (and even higher) annually per household. I'd say probably between $30k-$5ok annually per household to be lower middle class..and a level where some government subsidies might begin to kick in.

It's almost impossible for families to live on 50K a year now-a-days. Hell, it's not that easy for a single person to live on 50K a year.

Dude, I was generalizing a bit regarding the laziness, self-entitlement. The fact is, it exists..and when the government decides it wants to give, give, give...then who could really blame them?

Please look into things before you just spout off talking points. You'll find that most people who get government help would rather *not* get it, work hard and aren't lazy or self entitled. It's a gross misrepresentation of middle class people who might get 'subsidies'. Usually it's in the form of food stamps/EBT and tax credits (if they have children, or health care off-sets).

You're falling for the "welfare queen" type smear that conservatives have done for decades. It's the same line as the "drug test all those who are on unemployment/receive aid" trope. Most of them aren't on drugs (they actually use drugs at a significantly lower rate than that of those who don't receive it).

You're targeting the wrong group of people who are abusing government aid (help or whatever you want to call it). It's just an easy target to go after.

Oh, and you are correct, I never did go to college. I dropped out of high school in the 10th grade. So, forgive me for not being quite as edumacated as many of you fine folks in here. Actually, though, I've done pretty financially well for myself....mainly due to never being afraid of work, being dependable and on time, respecting my leaders, not being afraid to learn (asking lots of questions), and getting along with my co-workers.

Here's the thing, you're basically implying that poor = lazy, undependable, disrespectful, not wanting to learn/advance themselves and that they're entitled to money and afraid to work.

 

[ABM]

It's almost impossible for families to live on 50K a year now-a-days. Hell, it's not that easy for a single person to live on 50K a year.

It sure doesn't mean they need government assistance, though. Some people actually get 2nd jobs as opposed to settling for handouts.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

A guess, but I'd say somewhere between $50k-$90k (and even higher) annually per household. I'd say probably between $30k-$5ok annually per household to be lower middle class..and a level where some government subsidies might begin to kick in.

Dude, I was generalizing a bit regarding the laziness, self-entitlement. The fact is, it exists..and when the government decides it wants to give, give, give...then who could really blame them?

Oh, and you are correct, I never did go to college. I dropped out of high school in the 10th grade. So, forgive me for not being quite as edumacated as many of you fine folks in here. Actually, though, I've done pretty financially well for myself....mainly due to never being afraid of work, being dependable and on time, respecting my leaders, not being afraid to learn (asking lots of questions), and getting along with my co-workers.

Ive worked with engineers from Cornell, MIT, Darrmouth, UMass, Oregon State others, and most of them have been very intelligent. However the smartest engineer I have ever worked with was a guy who dropped out of HS in 10th grade, struggled into his mid-20’s, then took off in his career. Dude is amazingly intelligent, Education is extremely important, but having a lot of it or little of it doesnt always equate to intelligence or financial success.

 

[julius]

It sure doesn't mean they need government assistance, though. Some people actually get 2nd jobs as opposed to settling for handouts.

Not everyone can get a 2nd job you know. And some people have a 2nd and 3rd job and still barely make ends meet.

Not everyone is lucky you know.

If you want to cut off assistance to the middle class, I say cut off assistance to *everyone* then. That means you don't get your tax write off anymore. Also, I hope you refuse your social security when you get it, and I hope you refuse medicaid and medicare when it's time for you to take it. Afterall, those are handouts...

 

[ABM]

Not everyone can get a 2nd job you know. And some people have a 2nd and 3rd job and still barely make ends meet.

Not everyone is lucky you know.

If you want to cut off assistance to the middle class, I say cut off assistance to *everyone* then. That means you don't get your tax write off anymore.

Look, I'm seeing the Democrats leaning towards Socialism and I think it totally sucks.

 

[julius]

Look, I'm seeing the Democrats leaning towards Socialism and I think it totally sucks.

You have a limited understanding what what socialism actually is tho. And what is currently already forms of socialism in the US that you personally benefit from.

https://www.theatlantic.com/busines...government-benefits-and-who-gets-them/266428/

 

[SlyPokerDog]

You have a limited understanding what what socialism actually is tho. And what currently is already forms of socialism in the US that you personally benefit from.

https://www.theatlantic.com/busines...government-benefits-and-who-gets-them/266428/

ABM hates socialism so much he dropped out of his socialist high school education.

 

[julius]

ABM hates socialism so much he dropped out of his socialist high school education.

well, at least he's consistent.

 

[ABM]

ABM hates socialism so much he dropped out of his socialist high school education.

Exactly..Lakeridge High....mostly subsidized by the pretentious 1%ers.

 

[barfo]

I don't have much patience for lazy and/or self-entitled moochers, and the like.

Bullshit. You hang out here with us constantly.

barfo

 

[Minstrel]

If it means continuing to stimulate our economy, creating new jobs, etc., then, yes.

Subsidizing the middle class and poor does much more to stimulate the economy, since they spend significantly more of their total income than the rich. Wealthy people will reinvest a much smaller percentage of government largesse into the actual economy (stock investing doesn't qualify as economic "stimulus").

So since you're all about economic stimulus and jobs, rather then the investment portfolios of the rich, it sounds like you're on board for our tax money going to the people in the middle and bottom of the financial spectrum, rather than the top.

 

[Minstrel]

Not at all, but why shouldn't there be an option like Pete suggest rather than strictly 100% controlled by Government.

You're confusing single payer with socialized medicine. Socialized medicine, like the UK's NHS, involves the government running health care (or, as you put it, health care "100% controlled by the government"). Single-payer is a system that leaves the health care industry in the hands of the private sector, as it is now, and the government pays the bills for people who need to use that health care industry.

Both systems have been successful, but you should know the difference if you're going to be against one or the other.

Also, the article at the start of this thread is so riddled with terrible logic and fantasy, it's hard to even know where to start with it. It's essentially propaganda, and not even well-written propaganda.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

This might be the stupidest thread Ive read in a long time, and thats saying a lot. Its not just the OP either. You guys all get leap day and April 20th confused or something?

 

[julius]

April 20th is a Monday.

 

[ABM]

Bullshit. You hang out here with us constantly.

barfo

Sorry I'm such a mooch. LOL

 

[ABM]

You're confusing single payer with socialized medicine. Socialized medicine, like the UK's NHS, involves the government running health care (or, as you put it, health care "100% controlled by the government"). Single-payer is a system that leaves the health care industry in the hands of the private sector, as it is now, and the government pays the bills for people who need to use that health care industry.

Both systems have been successful, but you should know the difference if you're going to be against one or the other.

Also, the article at the start of this thread is so riddled with terrible logic and fantasy, it's hard to even know where to start with it. It's essentially propaganda, and not even well-written propaganda.

Glad you enjoyed it.

 

[Hoopguru]

You're confusing single payer with socialized medicine. Socialized medicine, like the UK's NHS, involves the government running health care (or, as you put it, health care "100% controlled by the government"). Single-payer is a system that leaves the health care industry in the hands of the private sector, as it is now, and the government pays the bills for people who need to use that health care industry.

Both systems have been successful, but you should know the difference if you're going to be against one or the other.

Also, the article at the start of this thread is so riddled with terrible logic and fantasy, it's hard to even know where to start with it. It's essentially propaganda, and not even well-written propaganda.

Sorry but Im not, I realize what single payer is.
Single payer health insurance is a health insurance system financed by taxes that is managed and run by one entity, such as a government, providing essential health care to all citizens. It is referred to as single payer because it is the one entity (the government) that pays the costs (a "single payer").

Managed and run by Government. Bernie & EW have advocated to do away with any insurance option. I don't agree with that.
Why should I be forced to give up my insurance and doctor if Im willing to pay for it and rather have more options than what the gov paid, would allow.
Why are you so against a social medicare program for those that need it and yes paid by the government, and allow those who want to keep insurance and shop insurance. Shouldn't there be the freedom, todo both