Politics Thread

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

08-02-2018, 03:25 PM
Xville

Quote:

Originally Posted by X-man

Apparently not. Nor do they understand that healthcare is not a free good no matter how it is paid for. If it isn't paid for by taxes, it is paid for by insurance. But the point is that it costs less per capita no matter how it is paid for in single payer countries (at least some of them). And the outcomes in terms of impact on healthcare are better in single payer systems. This isn't high math here, just facts.

It's facts in some countries as you pointed out...it may not be so in this country if it went to single payer. The outcomes in terms of impact are better? Are you trying to say the services are better? Because that simply isn't so...yes in some countries, no in others.
08-02-2018, 03:29 PM
X-man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xville

So your buddy does very well for himself, has option for "free healthcare" yet chooses not to...I thought the healthcare there was so fantastic? So not only is he paying into crappy mandated plan, but supplemental as well because why? He just feels like it, or is it because services suck

I suspect that we all can agree here that healthcare is no different than most other necessities in our society; even though they are necessities, it doesn't mean that everyone has the right to the same quality of care. Assuming that to be the case, the goal in good single payer systems is to guarantee a base level of access to healthcare for everyone regardless of income, pre-existing conditions, etc. Those wanting better access and the means to pay for it, have every right to do so. And so in single payer systems, many people buy better care through supplemental or alternative insurance plans that should also be available. It makes no more sense that we all get the same level of care as it does to say we all should live in the same quality house, or drive the same quality car.

But in our country, without something akin to a single payer or its equivalent, people stay in jobs later than they would otherwise so they can get access to affordable health insurance. They put off retiring until they are 65 and qualify for Medicare. How fucked up is that when we make a decision on when to retire based on access to health insurance?
08-02-2018, 03:30 PM
X-man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xville

It's facts in some countries as you pointed out...it may not be so in this country if it went to single payer. The outcomes in terms of impact are better? Are you trying to say the services are better? Because that simply isn't so...yes in some countries, no in others.

Actually we have evidence that it does work in this country. It's called Medicare.
08-02-2018, 03:31 PM
Xville

Quote:

Originally Posted by X-man

Actually we have evidence that it does work in this country. It's called Medicare.

40 trillion in the red means it is working? thats interesting.
08-02-2018, 03:33 PM
Xville

Quote:

Originally Posted by X-man

I suspect that we all can agree here that healthcare is no different than most other necessities in our society; even though they are necessities, it doesn't mean that everyone has the right to the same quality of care. Assuming that to be the case, the goal in good single payer systems is to guarantee a base level of access to healthcare for everyone regardless of income, pre-existing conditions, etc. Those wanting better access and the means to pay for it, have every right to do so. And so in single payer systems, many people buy better care through supplemental or alternative insurance plans that should also be available. It makes no more sense that we all get the same level of care as it does to say we all should live in the same quality house, or drive the same quality car.

But in our country, without something akin to a single payer or its equivalent, people stay in jobs later than they would otherwise so they can get access to affordable health insurance. They put off retiring until they are 65 and qualify for Medicare. How fucked up is that when we make a decision on when to retire based on access to health insurance?

So, free market...which is basically what we have now...except in single payer i can pay more taxes and supplemental insurance to receive the same level of care i do now.
08-02-2018, 03:35 PM
ArizonaXUGrad

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xville

So your buddy does very well for himself, has option for "free healthcare" yet chooses not to...I thought the healthcare there was so fantastic? So not only is he paying into crappy mandated plan, but supplemental as well because why? He just feels like it, or is it because services suck

So again your ignorance of their system shows, you can be on the German system or you can pay for supplemental additional coverage. In my friend's case, he gets a few things like his own room when he or his family are in the hospital. There are a few other differences but they are negligible.

The Germans run a non-profit single payer system. The non-profit sets the price and the entire profit motive for healthcare has been removed.
08-02-2018, 03:40 PM
ArizonaXUGrad

Quote:

Originally Posted by bjf123

For the record, I think we'll ultimately end up with a single payer system. The costs are spiraling out of control and I don't see that stopping without government price controls which would be implemented the easiest with a single payer system where they can tell the ER that they won't pay $50 for an aspirin, $100 for a needle, $500 for a bag of saline that costs less than $1 to make, etc.

I work with someone who lived in both the UK and Canada. Had an ACL tear playing soccer in the UK. Didn't get to see a doc for weeks, but when she did get in, no MRI was allowed and the diagnosis was a slight knee sprain. Ice it and you'll be fine. Got back to the US months later and the knee hadn't gotten any better. Went to a doctor here and was immediately sent for an MRI. Yep, clearly a tear. I guess her experience was the one exception to the rule?

These reports from Canada also seems to disagree with the experiences of your family. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/stud...in-canada-2016
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0db570d3778ff

Fraser Institute is a Koch funded group. I go ahead and toss that right in the trash along with my copy of Atlas Shrugged. Your second post is a one off anecdote. I can find millions in the US where treatment was restricted, limited, or bankrupted the patient. My friend got non-hodgkin's lymphoma. He had it detected late and barely survived. His medical debt now isn't manageable. It's not even close. Bankruptcy is his only option.
08-02-2018, 03:41 PM
ArizonaXUGrad

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xville

So, free market...which is basically what we have now...except in single payer i can pay more taxes and supplemental insurance to receive the same level of care i do now.

Except the free market would contain an intrinsic profit motive, that is the biggest issue with healthcare in the US today. Take that out, and we have a good start to getting things under control.
08-02-2018, 03:46 PM
X-man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xville

40 trillion in the red means it is working? thats interesting.

All the data show clearly that Medicare delivers access to healthcare more efficiently than the private sector does in our country. The funding deficit is yet another red herring in this conversation.
08-02-2018, 03:52 PM
Caf

Quote:

Originally Posted by X-man

All the data show clearly that Medicare delivers access to healthcare more efficiently than the private sector does in our country. The funding deficit is yet another red herring in this conversation.

Yeah I'm beginning to wonder if Xville believes state healthcare should be a money maker.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page