patrick.net

Polls showed majority support for that in 2008, but the idea got hijacked by Democrats in 2010 and we ended up with Obamneycare. Since then, other studies have shown that single payer systems do not reduce baseline spending; rather, they reduce the growth rate. Also, we do have a single payer system in Medicare, and it has become part of the problem. Prior to Medicare and Medicaid, American spending looked like other similar countries. We end up with legislation written and manipulated by the revenue recipients, for the purpose of maximizing revenue, and it operates as designed.

Some other countries adopted better systems at times of national cohesion and idealism, e.g. Britain after WWII. More recently, Obamneycare's huge geyser of power (including in the form of revenue) has inspired privatization schemes even in Britain, where parts of the NHS are reportedly being privatized and sold off. I suspect also that Britain's decision to import Islam, which is inherently divisive, might have reduced cohesion. So, the question becomes, how long will it take until they become fragmented too.

Neither left or right in the U.S. pushed hard enough for a single payer system.

Obama was too weak of a leader and should have closed the government before allowing single payer to not be implemented.

You will have to have another look at the stats my friend. I did not pull 6 % out of my asmagination.

I agree with your last and think that the West is about fed up with the Muslim ideology of insidious insurgency, and really, given the small numbers of fighters, we can annihilate then relatively quickly.

They are basically just a few bunches of hooligans whom we have given respect to because we fear to insult an insulting religion like Islam.

May they rot in hell, whenever we decide to unleash hell on them.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am says

You will have to have another look at the stats my friend.

I have looked, many times, over years. Here is a link to what I referenced above (I update comments with links after posting):

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-12-23/vermonts-lessons-for-fans-of-singlepayer-health-care

Oregon's Medicaid expansion experiment was also a single payer for the eligible population, though admittedly not the entire population.

Single payer, universal healthcare, NHS: different terms for related but somewhat different concepts. Even in Britain, a substantial percentage of medical care is actually self-pay, not NHS.

Also, GDP measures spending, not wealth. If America reduces medical spending, then GDP would likely fall. One of the accurate promises made on behalf of Obamneycare was that it "creates jobs," mainly in advertising and butchering and poisoning people. Those "jobs" don't create wealth, but spending money on them does increase GDP.

curious2 says

I suspect also that Britain's decision to import Islam, which is inherently divisive, might have reduced cohesion

Can't imagine that, can you?

P N Dr Lo R says

curious2 says

I suspect also that Britain's decision to import Islam, which is inherently divisive, might have reduced cohesion

Can't imagine that, can you?

LOL, I wish that I could only imagine it, instead of actually seeing it.

www.youtube.com/embed/wq_lhlIn1e0

To anyone.

How does the quote function get activated?

Regards
DL

Greatest I am says

How does the quote function get activated?

1) Select the text you want to quote;
2) click "quote".

curious2

No argument that what we have in not perfect, but overall, the benefits of that huge 6% differential can be used to make it so.

The government must show reverence for all of the souls it represents. All must be given equal value.

The present U.S. system takes lives. It does not give lives. I gives bankruptcy be a player in medical issues, where it should have no place, as it kicks people when they are down and I do not see that as the Yankee way.

Regards
DL

curious2

That method is not working for me, although it does elsewhere.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am says

That method is not working for me, although it does elsewhere.

Your browser might be blocking scripts. If using NoScript, click Options, allow Patrick.net.

P N Dr Lo R

Islam and it's ideology of insidious insurgency is deep within many E. U states.

www.youtube.com/embed/fMJATBMebj8

For those who have ears.

Regards
DL

Trump will make American Healthcare Great Again.
Republican are keeping the plan under wraps.
They don't want to spoil the surprise.

HEY YOU

"Trump will make American Healthcare Great Again."

I do not recall it ever being great, and yes, I think Americans will be unpleasantly surprised.

Regards
DL

APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE

What can I say about the right wing.

www.youtube.com/embed/KYV7KWQ-fY4

Regards
DL

I never seen so many idiots in love with the Insurance cabal in all my life.
You folks sure do worry the fuck out about how George Soros sleeps at night.
Lawdy Mercy somebody don't let that man lose his Healthcare investments.

Let's try this another way.

Fuck the insurance companies, they aren't needed, wanted or conducive to a healthy healthcare system that is truly out to heal the sick and keep everyone healthy.

Until you Idiots can ponder why we aren't doing more to stop the blank Check fraud that goes on with Medical billing. Then ya'll don't belong in this argument.
You sonsofbitches just want to pile on more layers of obscurity and fraud.
Insurance premiums should be a $1.00 but not worth a fuck. And you pay the $100 it cost for that emergency room visit with stitches out of your own pocket.
Health Insurance should only be around for nostalgia, and totally unnecessary.

Tenpoundbass

Thanks for this.

I agree that a medical care system should be non-profit and not for profit.

Regards
DL

How much GDP we'll "gain" if we nationalize the rest of the economy? 100%?

Straw Man

Your oligarch owners will not allow that.

The only reason they might allow a better health care system is to keep their obedient but dumb workers healthier so as to have less absenteeism.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am says

Straw Man

Your oligarch owners will not allow that.

Let's set the question of who allows what aside for now.

How much gain in the GDP would we get if we nationalized 100% of the economy? Look how inefficient is what we have now! We have ten or more car makes on the market and each of them offers twenty models. Think, how much more efficient our economy would be if three nationalized carmakers offered one model each. One luxury (let's name it, say, Volga), one middle-tier (let's name it Lada) and one econobox (let's name it Zaporozhets). See? Efficiency. Same for toothpaste: why the fuck do we have 48 different toothpaste varieties? One is enough. Maybe two: regular and whitening. Toilet paper? Same shit: who the fuck needs 100 different kinds and greedy capitalist fucks getting fat on markup on this essential product. Let's make one variety, but make it cheap. Efficiency, baby.

Soooo, are we getting 100% bump in GDP or it's going to be even more than that? It feels more like 247.4%. Amirite?

Straw Man says

How much gain in the GDP would we get if we nationalized 100% of the economy?

Venezuela

Straw Man says

and one econobox (let's name it Zaporozhets

What's wrong with Trabant?

www.youtube.com/embed/No1-4GsQa-g

Straw Man

What you suggest might happen but capitalism and free enterprise would have to be scrapped for what you want.

Good luck with that as people don't even want to care for each others physical health so I doubt that they would be ready to each others financial health.

There is no other argument for what you propose which is an end to competition for the economy of scale to be allowed to make us more efficient.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am/DL,
No Patnetters should be held in any regard.lol

I am speechless.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am says

Straw Man

What you suggest might happen but capitalism and free enterprise would have to be scrapped for what you want.

Good luck with that as people don't even want to care for each others physical health so I doubt that they would be ready to each others financial health.

There is no other argument for what you propose which is an end to competition for the economy of scale to be allowed to make us more efficient.

Regards

DL

So you all see the absurdity of "nationalized shit is better than private" when applied in general, but when talking about healthcare everybody suddenly blind to the obvious?

The United states is a little different than the rest of the world

The cities tell the states to mind their own business and the states tell the Fed to get lost. Us government is very decentralized. You have your state sheriff and city police that can't collaborate.

There is no chance in this green earth you can nationalize health care in the us.

I think medicare is national and I'm pretty sure that program is bk like a mxfx.

Trump had it right. Open the market to more competition, prices fall, services improve.

GIA, prior to Obamacare, most Americans had private health insurance they were pretty happy with and that certainly was better than the Canadian and British plans that can involve long waits, and in some cases substandard care.

It's hard to get people to give up what they already like even if it's paid for with other people's money.

curious2 says

Greatest I am says

That method is not working for me, although it does elsewhere.

Your browser might be blocking scripts. If using NoScript, click Options, allow Patrick.net.

Also, quoting does not work well in mobile phones. Still trying to fix that.

Straw Man

Nationalized programs have a place is the free world. Health care being one good candidate as service to the sick should not be profit driven.

National pride has pushed other free countries to take that route and the U.S. shows it's lack of concern for the poorest and sickest by not supplying a proper system that does not bankrupt people for just getting sick.

Democracy is enhanced by a national health care program. It is not reduced. Therefore I cannot agree with your "nationalized shit is better than private", as a blanket statement. It depends on the program.

Regards
DL

SFace

Your decentralization is a part of why your governance is costing you so much.
You are not taking advantage of the economy of scale and continue to pay a high price due to that decentralization.

The U.S. does not understand that state medicine is a lot cheaper to the individual than your present system.

Unfortunately, your medical lobbyist have done a good job of bribing your elected politicians.

I agree with your comments on the U.S. being the un-united states instead of the united states.

Regards
DL

Fucking White Male

If the U.S. majority had been happy with the old bankruptcy creating system, they would not have sought to improve it.

For that reason I reject your view that prior to Obamacare you collectively were in happy state.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am says

Fucking White Male

If the U.S. majority had been happy with the old bankruptcy creating system, they would not have sought to improve it.

For that reason I reject your view that prior to Obamacare you collectively were in happy state.

Regards

DL

I said most, as in >50%

The improvements were designed to contain costs that rose primarily due to lack of competition and transparency as well as providing insurance to the indigent. Most US residents have insurance through their employers and don't fall into either of those categories.

You can dislike my answer, but it's not factually incorrect.

Fucking White Male

Even if correct, it is irrelevant as Obamacare is a reality and the republicans are showing their incompetence by not being able to come up with a better system because they will not go against their bribe paying medical lobbyists.

If your system were not corrupt, it would be cheaper than elsewhere due to the economy of scale.

Do you not recognize how huge an amount of money it is costing you as you ignore a 6% GDP gain?

Regards
DL

Greatest I am says

Do you not recognize how huge an amount of money it is costing you as you ignore a 6% GDP gain?

Many of us do recognize how much it is costing, but you seem to have the GDP "gain" backwards. If you eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse, GDP falls. GDP measures transactions, not benefits, and certainly not wealth. If a hospital corporation gives you an infection, and then treats that infection, they can collect extra money compared to doing the job right the first time. At least one hospital with idealistic doctors reduced the infection rate, and had to lay off staff. It was not a gain in GDP, it was a loss, even though the patients were better off for it. To the extent GDP is relevant, it is because that extra waste, fraud, and abuse goes into influential deep pockets, and they want that $$$.

jazz_music

U.S. the largest world economy.

Regards
DL

jazz_music

A good find buddy.

Regards
DL

curious2

I agree to a point with your view.

Your corrupted system will remain regardless of what kind of medical system you have.

At least, if you have a single payer system, even if privately run, will save lives and put profit into your pocket just from economy of scale.

Regards
DL