« prev   random   next »

8
11

Why I'm glad ObamaCare is dead and single payer along with it

By Goran_K following x   2018 Feb 6, 8:31am 4,607 views   60 comments   watch   sfw   quote     share    




4.5 years! Hope that brain cancer clears up on its own!

Comments 1 - 40 of 60    Next »    Last »

1   anonymous   ignore (null)   2018 Feb 6, 9:40am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

"please let us know as soon as possible" lol
2   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 6, 9:44am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (3)   quote   flag        

anon_4480e says
"please let us know as soon as possible" lol


Thought someone might find that funny.
3   anonymous   ignore (null)   2018 Feb 6, 10:00am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (3)   quote   flag        

So what are you calling what we have now?

How is it better?
4   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (0)   2018 Feb 6, 10:02am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

You have a single provider for water and electricity, right? Do you ever get water and electricity?
You have a single road network, right? it's a miracle you can get anywhere.
5   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 6, 10:04am   ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike (3)   quote   flag        

errc says
So what are you calling what we have now?

How is it better?


What we have now needs improvement (especially with price transparency), but Leftist want to go the "other way" for full socialized medicine.
6   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 6, 10:05am   ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike (4)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says
You have a single provider for water and electricity, right? Do you ever get water and electricity?
You have a single road network, right? it's a miracle you can get anywhere.

There were plenty of roads and water before Federal income tax.
Apples and Kiwis.
7   anonymous   ignore (null)   2018 Feb 6, 10:07am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
errc says
So what are you calling what we have now?

How is it better?


What we have now needs improvement (especially with price transparency), but Leftist want to go the "other way" for full socialized medicine.


How is what we have now better?

What changed, and what is different?

Specific questions require specific answers.

Saying but leftists want, is not an answer. May as well just drool #Maga googoo gaga
8   TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce   ignore (4)   2018 Feb 6, 10:07am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

We need to make cross-state health insurance legal, and allow companies to collude to create insurance companies for the benefit of employees.

No reason 50 local businesses shouldn't be allowed to combine into a pool and buy or start health insurance for their employees. Other than big Donor Insurance Companies.
9   anonymous   ignore (null)   2018 Feb 6, 10:08am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
Heraclitusstudent says
You have a single provider for water and electricity, right? Do you ever get water and electricity?
You have a single road network, right? it's a miracle you can get anywhere.

There were plenty of roads and water before Federal income tax.
Apples and Kiwis.


So should we make the roads look like the 1900’s? Or are you saying do away with the federal income tax?
10   Tenpoundbass   ignore (11)   2018 Feb 6, 10:09am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

The Liberal leader of the Donner party, Chewing on Castor beans "It's better than nothing!"
11   HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 6, 10:14am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

Yep, it's amazing that, as bad as others characterize the health care systems of Canada or the UK, they deliver better care (by any measurable result) for ~1/2 the cost.

Personally, I'm typically in favor of systems that deliver better results for less money, but that's just me.
12   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (0)   2018 Feb 6, 10:15am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
There were plenty of roads and water before Federal income tax.

What were they paid with?
13   Patrick   ignore (0)   2018 Feb 6, 10:18am   ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
What we have now needs improvement (especially with price transparency)


Amen.

The free market can definitely improve non-emergency health care in the US. What we have now is hidden random prices which are not even the same for every patient of the same provider. "For you? Let's see, I think I'll charge you more than I charge others because you're trying to escape the insurance cartel..."

Insurance should be completely de-coupled from work and from any specific provider. But there's 3.2 trillion (yes, trillion) to be made by hiding prices and fucking over the public. Takes only a tiny sliver of that to get all of Congress to sell out and keep the scam going.
14   HEYYOU   ignore (18)   2018 Feb 6, 10:21am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Anyone that allows HEYYOU to be taxed is a REDISTRIBUTION SOCIALIST.
Those that are Free Market Capitalist Entrepreneurial Successes don't need insurance,debt or help.
They are true American Patriots.They pay cash!
15   anonymous   ignore (null)   2018 Feb 6, 10:27am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

TwoScoopsPlissken says
We need to make cross-state health insurance legal, and allow companies to collude to create insurance companies for the benefit of employees.

No reason 50 local businesses shouldn't be allowed to combine into a pool and buy or start health insurance for their employees. Other than big Donor Insurance Companies.


Why should the burden of health care be tasked to employers?

Wouldn’t it be much easier to ban employers from being involved in the healthcare of employees?
16   HeadSet   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 6, 10:27am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Free Market Approach:
Allow insurance across state lines
Allow off shore procedures
Allow Catastrophic coverage (paying out of pocket for immunizations and routine medicine would lower costs)
Allow club or employer co-ops to buy medical insurance wholesale

Free for Everyone National Medical Service:
Set up Medical Academies and Medical ROTC where the graduate serve a 5 year commitment and are assigned locations where they are needed.
Set up High School medical tracks to train medics, equipment technicians, dental hygienists and the like
17   anonymous   ignore (null)   2018 Feb 6, 10:32am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

HeadSet says
Free Market Approach:
Allow insurance across state lines
Allow off shore procedures
Allow Catastrophic coverage (paying out of pocket for immunizations and routine medicine would lower costs)
Allow club or employer co-ops to buy medical insurance wholesale

Free for Everyone National Medical Service:
Set up Medical Academies and Medical ROTC where the graduate serve a 5 year commitment and are assigned locations where they are needed.
Set up High School medical tracks to train medics, equipment technicians, dental hygienists and the like


Most importantly, do away with the OTC vs prescription barrier.

No free market can exist as long as the government dictates which medicine is legal or illegal, and which cures and remedies require a permission slip from a government approved doctor.

You never hear people suggest these solutions because they get straight to the point at the heart of the issue, and most people are only capable of regurgitating talking points.
18   Patrick   ignore (0)   2018 Feb 6, 10:34am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

errc says
Why should the burden of health care be tasked to employers?

Wouldn’t it be much easier to ban employers from being involved in the healthcare of employees?


Lol, burden? Employers want it that way, so that employees have the problem of changing insurance when they change jobs.

The enemy is really the US Chamber of Commerce, the biggest lobbyist in DC by a long shot, which is for "strengthening the employer-sponsored system".

https://www.uschamber.com/health-care
19   anonymous   ignore (null)   2018 Feb 6, 10:39am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Patrick says
errc says
Why should the burden of health care be tasked to employers?

Wouldn’t it be much easier to ban employers from being involved in the healthcare of employees?


Lol, burden? Employers want it that way, so that employees have the problem of changing insurance when they change jobs.

The enemy is really the US Chamber of Commerce, the biggest lobbyist in DC by a long shot, which wants "strengthening the employer-sponsored system".


Health Insurance is not a 401k. One does not change insurance when they change jobs, they lose insurance altogether. Poof, gone. Every last cent you ever pissed down that rabbit hole.

What is the ratio of employer provided 401k/retirement investment to “health” “insurance”?
20   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (0)   2018 Feb 6, 10:50am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
Why I'm glad ObamaCare is dead and single payer along with it

Obama care is based on private insurances. No relation with single payer. Not sure how the death of 1 (assuming it is dead) implies the death of the other.
All other countries have socialized healthcare.
21   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 6, 10:57am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (4)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says
Obama care is based on private insurances.


You can't call something "privatized" when the government is forcing you to buy it. That's the antithesis of a free market.
22   anonymous   ignore (null)   2018 Feb 6, 11:06am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
Heraclitusstudent says
Obama care is based on private insurances.


You can't call something "privatized" when the government is forcing you to buy it. That's the antithesis of a free market.


When did the government force anyone to buy private health insurance?
23   anonymous   ignore (null)   2018 Feb 6, 11:23am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HappyGilmore says
Yep, it's amazing that, as bad as others characterize the health care systems of Canada or the UK, they deliver better care (by any measurable result) for ~1/2 the cost.

Personally, I'm typically in favor of systems that deliver better results for less money, but that's just me.


OK, here it is, when are you moving?

N.H.S. Overwhelmed in Britain, Leaving Patients to Wait.

Cuts to the National Health Service budget in Britain have left hospitals stretched over the winter for years, but this time a flu outbreak, colder weather and high levels of respiratory illnesses have put the N.H.S. under the highest strain in decades.

The situation has become so dire that the head of the health service is warning that the system is overwhelmed.

“The N.H.S. waiting list will grow to five million people by 2021,” Mr. Stevens said in an impassioned speech to health care leaders in November. “That is one million more people, equivalent to one in 10 of us, the highest number ever.”

What’s more, he said, “after seven years of understandable but unprecedented constraint on the current budget, the N.H.S. can no longer do everything that is being asked of it.”

Other patients said they had been turned away and referred to a pharmacy or general practitioner because their cases were not deemed urgent enough.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/world/europe/uk-national-health-service.html
24   anonymous   ignore (null)   2018 Feb 6, 11:23am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HappyGilmore says
Personally, I'm typically in favor of systems that deliver better results for less money, but that's just me.


Remember, you get what you pay for in every case:

Low taxes or free, high-quality medical services: Pick one.

Can a relatively low-tax country run a high-quality, taxpayer-funded health service that's free to all?

Britain's National Health Service suggests the answer is NO.

The NHS is good at some things but bad, bordering on disastrous, at others. Its great virtue is truly universal coverage, no questions asked -- and by international standards, the system is also cheap to run. As a result, though, it's perpetually short of money, and the service is erratic. Today the NHS is yet again dealing with a financial crisis and a surge of complaints about standards.

The NHS's problems -- too many patients and not enough staff -- aren't seasonal. Britain's population is growing and getting older, and as medicine advances, treatments become more sophisticated and expensive.

The public's devotion to the principle underlying the NHS is undiminished: The British see health care as a right. Increasingly, though, they are also demanding higher standards of care, and those come at a price. Taxpayers must either dig deeper to maintain the current service -- deeper still to improve it -- or else accept that the NHS will continue to disappoint.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-09/britain-s-unavoidable-health-care-choice
25   anonymous   ignore (null)   2018 Feb 6, 11:23am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I like that they blacked out the Drs name in the text but left it in the FAX notes at the top.
26   anonymous   ignore (null)   2018 Feb 6, 11:23am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

errc says
When did the government force anyone to buy private health insurance?


27   WookieMan   ignore (0)   2018 Feb 6, 12:01pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

anon_8f378 says
I like that they blacked out the Drs name in the text but left it in the FAX notes at the top.


I noticed that too. I'm sure that's a private fax number though, with no link to the good 'ole doc ;) I'm going to fax a copy of my ass later today when I have the time.
28   anonymous   ignore (null)   2018 Feb 6, 12:53pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

WookieMan says
anon_8f378 says
I like that they blacked out the Drs name in the text but left it in the FAX notes at the top.


I noticed that too. I'm sure that's a private fax number though


If you search that fax number, it comes back to the doctor, so it appears it's a good number.
29   WookieMan   ignore (0)   2018 Feb 6, 1:00pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

anon_318b7 says

If you search that fax number, it comes back to the doctor, so it appears it's a good number.


Sorry, I was being sarcastic. I figured it was a real number. I am still faxing him an image of my ass.
30   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (0)   2018 Feb 6, 4:29pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
You can't call something "privatized" when the government is forcing you to buy it. That's the antithesis of a free market.


Some people still don't get how it works: bums show up at emergencies without insurance. They do get healthcare. Who pays?
Answer: YOU.
Whatever the system you pay for it.
Before Obama care, you paid for it. After Obamacare you will pay for it.

The system in which you pay the LESS for other people, is in fact when these other people are "forced" to buy insurance.
31   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (0)   2018 Feb 6, 4:31pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

An insurance is a socialist systems whereby the people who are healthy pay for the rest - until they are sick.
32   bob2356   ignore (2)   2018 Feb 6, 6:34pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

anon_01142 says

Britain's National Health Service suggests the answer is NO.


NHS is only one of 58 countries with public health care. It was poorly designed and has been chronically underfunded since day 1. Odd how a bunch of first rate systems that blow the US health care away for half the price never get mentioned.

The original post is just moronic. One office isn't taking new patients. There are plenty of specialists as well as GP's all over the US that arn't taking new patients either. Last time I checked the most popular GP in my town has a 3 year waiting list for new patients.

Canada is listed at the 16th best health system in the world. The US is 37th. That doesn't include prices.
33   bob2356   ignore (2)   2018 Feb 6, 6:42pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

Patrick says

The free market can definitely improve non-emergency health care in the US. What we have now is hidden random prices which are not even the same for every patient of the same provider. "For you? Let's see, I think I'll charge you more than I charge others because you're trying to escape the insurance cartel...


I'll ask again, how will this happen under the insurance company billing system? You keep spewing out these lame platitudes that mean nothing. How about some nuts and bolts details of how posting prices, which anyone can find out anyway if they wanted, will create a free market and lower prices? People go to the doctors that are on their insurance.

Still waiting for this information from the last 10 times I've asked. It's true because I believe it should be true doesn't count.
34   bob2356   ignore (2)   2018 Feb 6, 6:45pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says

4.5 years! Hope that brain cancer clears up on its own!


Neurologists don't treat cancer, Neuro-oncologists treat cancers of the nervous system.
35   BlueSardine   ignore (2)   2018 Feb 6, 7:04pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Too late. The Chinese beat us to it...

errc says
So should we make the roads look like the 1900’s?
36   mell   ignore (2)   2018 Feb 6, 7:31pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

BlueSardine says
Too late. The Chinese beat us to it...

errc says
So should we make the roads look like the 1900’s?

Not true in CA they are.
37   HowdyThere   ignore (0)   2018 Feb 6, 7:42pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

There are at least two ways to look at Capitalism in relation to health care.

One way is the classic concept, where winners win and losers lose. Ideal for many aspects of society. If you can't afford a car, you don't get a car. Take public transit. If a business is inefficient, it should fail to make room for a better competitor. For health care, if you can afford great health care, you can have every need met. If you are in the middle, basic needs will be met, but worse conditions will mean death. Losers have the privilege of dying outside a hospital.

The second is a national Capitalistic competitiveness model. In order for a nation to be competitive, it needs a healthy and mobile workforce. Universal coverage is more oriented towards preventative medicine, which is very effective. Keeps workers at work. With universal coverage, workers can move from employer to employer without health insurance being a factor. More importantly, workers can become entrepreneurs without worrying about about health care. Universal health care is very conducive to supporting small business and the entrepreneurial spirit.

In case you haven't guessed, I'm more of a fan of universal coverage.
38   Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Feb 6, 7:50pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says
You have a single provider for water and electricity, right? Do you ever get water and electricity?
You have a single road network, right? it's a miracle you can get anywhere.


Have you seen your water bill lately? If your house is on a public water system. Almost all Americans used to have private water systems, called "well" and "septic tank." Even today, the majority of American houses are still on those private water systems. Half a century or so ago, more and more cities and towns decided to have public water systems; the reason cited at that time was for lower cost, and initially the public systems did deliver economy of scale. However, today, the typical house on public water systems has a quarterly water bill of $800! Compared to private wells and septic tanks that cost no more than $30/mo. Why such drastic price increase after water provision went "single-payer"? Because:

1. It's a monopoly;

2. When the public water systems were set up, they had a small number of mostly young blue collar workers; after 3 decades, not only the current workers at the water departments have to be paid but also retired workers have to be paid; more positions have to be added in order to manage more people and more retirement benefit accounts. Bureaucracy tend to grow exponentially when there is no market force to instill discipline; degree requirement for those positions also increase (along with educational expense to get those degrees), so there is an ever widening gap between what the rate payers pay vs. what the workers receive.

3. The monopoly creates nexus of power for capture by rent seekers, such as new regulations that require tens of millions of dollars of new equipment that would have to be financed by banksters . . . essentially introducing an opportunity for banksters to rip off people for having water and staying alive.

That's why city-wide indoor plumbing water works show up in human history once every 1700 years or so, lasting 200-300 years each time, then disappear! Before city-wide water works showed up in the late 19th century in North America and Western Europe, humanity had to go back to Roman time to see city-wide single-payer water works. Before the Romans had theirs between about 1 century to 4th century, the Hrappans of Indus Valley had theirs around 1700BC. Between those brief spans, people used out houses for about 1500 years each time.

That's for a system that has clear economy of scale. For medicine, while the operating rooms and expensive equipment offer some opportunity for economy of scale, the most costly part of solving medical problems is one-on-one care, which has very little economy of scale. That is, unless the solution is machine-gunning and gassing people to death . . . a solution that the socialist experiments in the 20th century were notoriously efficient at.
39   HowdyThere   ignore (0)   2018 Feb 6, 7:51pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Continued.

In some countries, universal coverage means no private system. I'm against this. Providing universal coverage for preventative medicine and basic care makes sense based on my thoughts above. But providing universal coverage for 'luxury' health care doesn't. While I tend to be liberal on social issues, I'm solidly conservative fiscally, and providing deluxe coverage is financial suicide for a nation. Have a public system for the basics, and allow a private system for more.

Comments 1 - 40 of 60    Next »    Last »





The Housing Trap
You're being set up to spend your life paying off a debt you don't need to take on, for a house that costs far more than it should. The conspirators are all around you, smiling to lure you in, carefully choosing their words and watching your reactions as they push your buttons, anxiously waiting for the moment when you sign the papers that will trap you and guarantee their payoff. Don't be just another victim of the housing market. Use this book to defend your freedom and defeat their schemes. You can win the game, but first you have to learn how to play it.
115 pages, $12.50

Kindle version available


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions