0
Phil1111

Time For US Single Payer Health Care?

Recommended Posts

A majority of Americans say it is the federal government’s responsibility to make sure all Americans have health care coverage. And a growing share now supports a “single payer” approach to health insurance, according to a new national survey by Pew Research Center.

Currently, 60% say the federal government is responsible for ensuring health care coverage for all Americans, while 39% say this is not the government’s responsibility. These views are unchanged from January, but the share saying health coverage is a government responsibility remains at its highest level in nearly a decade.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/23/public-support-for-single-payer-health-coverage-grows-driven-by-democrats/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DJL

Yes, with elimination of private insurance control of the healthcare business.



I also think that health insurance is one of the major contributors to the problems with health care in America. However, what makes you think that having the federal government as the sole insurer will be any better?

I'm not saying that won't be an improvement or that I could not support it. I'm just saying I don't have a lot of faith in the federal government to do any better job of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NewGuy2005

***Yes, with elimination of private insurance control of the healthcare business.



I also think that health insurance is one of the major contributors to the problems with health care in America. However, what makes you think that having the federal government as the sole insurer will be any better?

I'm not saying that won't be an improvement or that I could not support it. I'm just saying I don't have a lot of faith in the federal government to do any better job of it..

It seems to work for every industrialized country in the world, I think it's about time we do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NewGuy2005

***Yes, with elimination of private insurance control of the healthcare business.



I also think that health insurance is one of the major contributors to the problems with health care in America. However, what makes you think that having the federal government as the sole insurer will be any better?

I'm not saying that won't be an improvement or that I could not support it. I'm just saying I don't have a lot of faith in the federal government to do any better job of it.

That's a concept many people bring up but we're also talking about a government that hosts the most powerful and effective military in the world something that takes no faith in understanding. Being government operated doesn't equate to being poorly run. It also doesn't equate to destroying the private sector for those who want more coverage. The question becomes: Do we want healthcare to be a right of all people in the country? If so then how have other countries in the world dealt with covering their people. The overwhelming answer to that question has been Single Payer.
"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi 2005,

Quote

I don't have a lot of faith in the federal government to do any better job of it.



I spent 4 yrs working in a military hospital while in the service. The military medical program is first rate.

I also spent 30 yrs working for the federal gov't in an agency that runs a very large electrical transmission system.

The federal gov't is very good at a lot of things. It really comes down to financing.

I believe that a single-payer system ran like the military's medical program could work much better than the current so-called health plans, where their primary mission is to keep costs at a minimum.

Just my $0.02,

Jerry Baumchen

PS) IMO no medical plan is perfect for everybody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The US system is now so fucked up there is no way but to move to a single payer.

It's a love triangle between hospitals, insurers, and attorneys. All 3 can get fucked now. Medicare works for those over 65. Just take the model and open it to all.
Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen



I believe that a single-payer system ran like the military's medical program could work much better than the current so-called health plans and health care system, where their primary mission is to keep costs at a minimumprofits at a maximum.



FIFY :)
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NewGuy2005


I also think that health insurance is one of the major contributors to the problems with health care in America. However, what makes you think that having the federal government as the sole insurer will be any better?



Some things should fall into the 'socialist' realm
things that we all really need, and should not be given to 'capitalists' to exploit.
Things that we all need.
Like air, water, food, and yes, medical care.
Roads too.
If you give people the right to 'charge what the market will bear'
to essentials.
You make the equation unable to provide an answer.
How much is your kid's live worth?

We, as a society, have to prevent anyone, ever, from having to answer that, in the interests of 'capitalism.'

On top of that, I think we can provide quality health care to everybody, for less money than we are currently spending for less than everybody.

Let's start by taking millionaires and billionaires out of the equation
If we quit paying them for health care, and instead concentrate on peoples' health, who knows what we can do.
But what do I know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>I'm not suggesting someone who was born with a serious defect or paralyzed in
>a car accident should have a reasonable level of care.

(assuming you meant "shouldn't have a reasonable level of care.")

Well, that's the issue, isn't it? No one decides to get cancer, or get paralyzed, or be born with a birth defect. If that's the threshold for "deserving of reasonable care" (even if they can't pay for it themselves) that's going to cover an awful lot of people.

So given that - given that such people deserve care even they can't pay for it - then the rest of us have to pay for that in some cases. That, in turn, means that preventative medical care (like prenatal vitamins; folate prevents a lot of spinal cord defects) should be free. Not because "people shouldn't be responsible for themselves" but because free folate means that we all pay less for spinal cord defects in the long run. There are several other prophylactic treatments that would cover that, like breast cancer screenings.

But what about emphysema due to smoking? You could argue that, while the person certainly didn't intend to get emphysema, he did something that increased his odds of getting it. So do you draw the line there, and make that their responsibility? Or heart disease for obese people? Or traumatic injuries for skydivers?

There aren't a lot of easy answers to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0