Why I oppose Single Payer...

34 posts / 0 new
Last post
Toolsmith
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 9 hours ago
Joined: 07/14/2016 - 11:22am
Why I oppose Single Payer...

The Government can't do anything efficiently, so why does anyone think Government healthcare is a good idea?

We've already got Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA as examples of how it would work. Oh, those are so great!

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/50382

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 10 hours ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
Agreed. It would be a

Agreed. It would be a disaster. And it still doesn't solve the problem of keeping costs down, it just moves it into legislation.

Ugenetoo
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 7 min ago
Joined: 08/05/2011 - 12:32pm
Remove the insurance

Remove the insurance companies from the equation.
Let the chips fall where they may.

Toolsmith
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 9 hours ago
Joined: 07/14/2016 - 11:22am
Remove the Government from

Remove the Government from the Equation. All they add is red tape and regulations...

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 14 hours 52 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
And "one size fits all"

And "one size fits all" framework. Shaped by Nebraska kickback type horse-trading.

The "sum of all pork."

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 10 hours ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
"Remove the insurance

"Remove the insurance companies from the equation.
Let the chips fall where they may."

Huh? How exactly do we do that?

Ugenetoo
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 7 min ago
Joined: 08/05/2011 - 12:32pm
I don't really know how to do

I don't really know how to do it other than single payer, distasteful as that is.
What I do know is that nowhere, nor at any time, has an insurance company diagnosed, treated, or cured a sick person.
Insurance is a purely socialist construct.

Watcher
Offline
Last seen: 20 hours 8 min ago
Joined: 03/23/2008 - 12:32pm
Alinski inspired Socialist

Alinski inspired Socialist/Slime knew that control of health care is the most important tactic for tking over a democracy and turning it socialist. Obozo and Clit-on knew this strategy well.

"The 8 point plan describes how to implement Socialism. This plan was not enumerated in Alinsky’s book, but Alinsky inspired two Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven to devise the “Cloward-Piven Strategy” which seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse. This strategy is often attributed to Alinsky and left wing websites like Snopes have tried to discredit the plan by declaring it false because Alinsky didn’t actually write the 8 steps in his book. But Snopes conveniently fails to correctly attribute the work to Cloward and Piven.

The second is the 12 “Rules” for implementation of this plan. The tactics or “rules” work equally as well on the left to fight the plan, which is in it’s final stages of implementation.
Section 1:
How to create a social state – The Cloward-Piven Strategy:

There are eight levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state.

The first is the most important.

Healthcare– Control healthcare and you control the people.
Poverty – Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.
Debt – Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.
Gun Control – Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state
Welfare – Take control of every aspect of their lives. (Food, Housing, and Income)
Education – Take control of what people read and listen to us“ take control of what children learn in school.
Religion – Remove the belief in the God from the Government and schools.
Class Warfare – Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor."

Yep...socailism is here to stay

Gerald Weinand
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 hours ago
Joined: 01/28/2014 - 7:41am
Toolsmith:

Toolsmith:

Providing universal service, by definition, is inefficient. Whether it's the postal service, public schools, or basic health care coverage, when the organization has to provide service to anyone that asks for it, it is inefficient.

Take UPS, for example. They can provide shipping that is faster and in most cases cheaper than the US Postal Service can. But they also don't ship to everywhere - instead, UPS relies on USPS to complete deliveries to addresses well off the beaten path.

The first question that we need to answer is:

Is access to basic health care or to coverage of basic care an entitlement?

If the answer is yes, then simply expanding Medicare (and the tax revenues to pay for it) is the simple solution. While I disagree, I understand that some don't think this should be an entitlement.

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 14 hours 52 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
http://www.afcm.org/hcinar
Toolsmith
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 9 hours ago
Joined: 07/14/2016 - 11:22am
Gerald, where do you live?

Gerald, where do you live?

I live on a gravel fire road in Maine. USPS won't deliver to my house, I had to put in a mailbox at the paved road. UPS and FEDEX drive right to the house, even with my long gravel driveway (with telephone pole) in addition to the fire road.

Where does USPS cover for UPS? Is it for PO Box addresses?

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 10 hours ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
The answer is to have

The answer is to have insurance cover basic preventative stuff, change the structure so prices of services are transparent (not negotiated behind closed doors), and raise the retirement age to reflect the fact that we are living longer, so that Medicaid can remain solvent.

Most importantly, the way we pay for services needs to pass on the cost of extremely expensive procedures to the patient. I know, that's the opposite of what insurance is supposed to do, but until there is downward pricing pressure on medical services, the R&D won't be focused on keeping costs down, it will be on doing whatever it takes to extend life (which is great until no one can afford premiums).

Ugenetoo
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 7 min ago
Joined: 08/05/2011 - 12:32pm
We as a country cannot afford

We as a country cannot afford to pay for healthcare and a bloated insurance company bureaucracy as well.

Toolsmith
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 9 hours ago
Joined: 07/14/2016 - 11:22am
Our two socialists announce

Our two socialists announce that:

ugenetoo:
"We as a country cannot afford to pay for healthcare and a bloated insurance company bureaucracy as well."

We cannot afford to pay for a government bureaucracy. It will be even less efficient, and it will be POLITICAL as well. It's bad enough to have non-medical people involved in medical decisions. Single-payer adds politicians. Special groups will get better healthcare than you will. Your expensive surgery WON'T be covered, but gender-reassignment WILL BE.

ugenetoo:
"What I do know is that nowhere, nor at any time, has an insurance company diagnosed, treated, or cured a sick person. Insurance is a purely socialist construct."

No government single-payer has done so either. And insurance, especially mutual insurance, is much closer to the insured than a heartless government bureaucracy ever will be. Socialists amaze me. They are always labeling business as heartless, but genuinely believe governments are compassionate. Government isn't compassionate, it's political.

Gerald:
"Providing universal service, by definition, is inefficient."

Gerald proceeded with the example of government covering gaps in business service (dealt with in my previous post above). Government is far less efficient than any business. We should not justify inefficiency with excuses; things should be done as efficiently as possible. This is where government really stinks. The VA is the classic example. Of course we could require a single-payer to operate under business rules, as we have with USPS, but what's the point of that? Might as well just keep insurance...

Cheech
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 25 min ago
Joined: 03/15/2014 - 8:56am
Government controlled single

Government controlled single payer insurance can best be summed up with the name Charlie Gard, and the self-serving bureaucratic barbarism inflicted on him and his family for the convenience of the system. Exactly that will cross the pond if we allow this. As Watcher mentioned, is there a more effective of manner coercion than holding treatment hostage to the whim of government? Better than holding a gun to your head in some circumstances. The past decade should have by now given all the demonstration needed of the good will and veracity of the government. Alinsky would be proud.........if you like your doctor blah blah blah.

Ugenetoo
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 7 min ago
Joined: 08/05/2011 - 12:32pm
So, Cheech, you bitch and

So, Cheech, you bitch and moan about this problem, but have offered no solutions.
What's your plan?
As I said, I find government run healthcare distasteful, but until we can eliminate the cash pipeline between the insurance industry and the politicians' pocketbooks, it seems to be going that way more and more.
BTW
Here's a good start towards affordable healthcare:
http://tomwoods.com/capitalism-vs-american-health-care/
For episode 481 of my show I talked to Dr. Josh Umbehr, whose practice in Wichita, Kansas, will knock your socks off, for reasons you’ll see below. The cost savings he and his patients enjoy because they stay away from insurance and government are absolutely staggering.

A good read explaining the problem and possible solutions.

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 14 hours 52 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
Will not read your link right

Will not read your link right now, but you can look up Dr. Michael Ciampi right here in southern Maine...a pioneer in Direct Patient Care.

Cheech
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 25 min ago
Joined: 03/15/2014 - 8:56am
http://ciampifamilypractice

http://ciampifamilypractice.com/

This may be part of an answer for the everyday needs of some families. It is a start, rather than the rush to single payer where I feel medicare/medicaide (Mainecare) will be used as the levers to complete the government's total control of healthcare. It seems obvious that prohibitions to selling insurance over state lines, shopping prescriptions, and mandated obstetrical services for old men, are pure bought and paid for politics. The more involvement by bureaucrats, the more cost & the less competence. I have heard of healthcare co-ops that are being used in some areas, apparently with some modicum of success. The idea that government can bring anything to the table that is constructive simply defies logic and any form of accounting stadard that is credible. The practice in Kansas, from what I understand is getting really close to what would make sense. They have proven, I think, that a great deal of cost in the equation is simply to NO benefit to the consumer. Would you like Maxine Waters to dictate the terms of your medical care?

Some policies currently are being offered with deductibles so high, that in some cases, the policyholder is simply priced out of using it. That begs the question of, lacking a mandate, why would you buy it?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/11/10/aca-architect-the-...

The Gruber insider's analysis of what it takes for government healthcare-as in OUR stupidity.

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 10 hours ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
@toolsmith: "We cannot afford

@toolsmith: "We cannot afford to pay for a government bureaucracy. It will be even less efficient, and it will be POLITICAL as well. It's bad enough to have non-medical people involved in medical decisions. Single-payer adds politicians. Special groups will get better healthcare than you will. Your expensive surgery WON'T be covered, but gender-reassignment WILL BE."

This is exactly correct. While the entire government negotiating for services would reduce prices in the short term (particularly drug prices), the political aspect is a HUGE problem which would only get worse over time.

One of the reasons why government organizations are less efficient than private is because a private organization can make difficult staffing decisions (layoffs) but a public organization cannot because what should be a business decision (need to run with fewer employees) suddenly becomes a political one (government killing jobs), which makes it impossible to execute the difficult decisions that need to be implemented to run efficiently.

With healthcare, the problem becomes even more magnified, because now we're talking about lives instead of just jobs.

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 10 hours ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
@Cheech:

@Cheech:

http://ciampifamilypractice.com/terms-conditions/

Read the fine print. Doesn't even cover MRIs or X-rays. No specialists. This is essentially a bare bones policy.

Which... I do think there should be a bare bones policy available (if you read my prior posts, I have railed on Obamacare because of it's mandating increase procedure coverage), but just know that if you have cancer, this isn't going to pay for your treatment, other than consultations with your oncologist.

Cheech
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 25 min ago
Joined: 03/15/2014 - 8:56am
@coward,

@coward,

"This may be part of an answer for the everyday needs of some families. It is a start, rather than the rush to single payer where I feel medicare/medicaide (Mainecare) will be used as the levers to complete government total control of healthcare."

I realize what a shock this may be, but apparently you failed to read and/or comprehend the very straightforward comment above-no "fine print" needed. Your opinion may in your mind be something unique to be engraved in stone for the hoi pol-loi, but it remains just another pebble on the beach. A basic care policy makes more sense, than an overpriced policy with co-pays that make them unaffordable to use. My wording stated that it may be a start? Is that your definition of ambiguity? Is it your suggestion the Ciampi group would fail to refer you should you encounter something that they couldn't deal with? I'm sure they would treasure your "opinion" almost as much as I do.

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 10 hours ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
If you bothered to read my

If you bothered to read my post, I agree that a bare bones policy should exist.

However, I felt it needed pointing out how little that covers, in case other readers did not bother to read the fine print and assumed it was a cheap version of health insurance (which it is clearly not).

Robert Reed
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
Joined: 11/08/2007 - 1:53pm
Some pieces of the ACA

Some pieces of the ACA actually helps prolong the demise of Medicare. Hard to believe but true. But we must have a true discussion about retirement and tax burden to make sure Medicare is there for those who work and pay into it for years, same as social security. the biggest problem we have now is those who never pay in but collect as as soon as possible. Cant work due to "social anxiety" but it doesn't stop you from plopping your ass in a 200 person crowded bingo hall? Seriously? When the substance abuse conditions were removed from SS eligibility than suddenly everyone had a mental health dx and while most would be true, its not all and was easy to claim. Meanwhile the guy with carpal tunnel from years as an auto mechanic cant get benefits. something has to give

Dr. Wordsmith
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 18 hours ago
Joined: 05/19/2012 - 12:53pm
"The answer is to have

"The answer is to have insurance cover basic preventative stuff"

Actually, insurance works best for sudden, big expenses. Routine, predictable expenses like a BP check or a flu shot are the last thing you want to to prepay for via insurance as that drives up the price significantly.

Can't afford $1500- $4000 for a colonoscopy ( http://www.comparemaine.org/?page=report&procedure=45380), that's because of high hospital/insurance based prices. I can get my uninsured patients a colonoscopy for $800 near Portland if they pay at time of service. That's every 10 years for most or about $80/year.

You think prevention should be insured because it saves money? Think again, most prevention measures are in the patient's interest but few save money (some vaccines are the exception). Anyone telling you prevention will save money doesn't know what they're talking about or is lying to you.

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 1 hour ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
The medical care industry,

The medical care industry, including the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies, are government protected monopolies. The pharmaceutical industry is protected by patents. The others are protected, like the schools by restricting those who can participate and allowing them to prevent internal competition through licensing or other employment restrictions.

When the government first proposed Obamacare the opposition (Republicans) claimed it would result in a run on the industry by the poor. We now have Obamacare and I don't know a single physician who doesn't take three days off per week. The poor are still prevented from making a run on the industry because the insurance industry raised the rates and increased the deductibles so the poor, still cannot obtain what is deemed "Free" healthcare. The cost of healthcare will continue to rise, just like our school costs are continually rising because of the monopoly protection.

All of this is a natural characteristic of the economic system that has been adopted by every government in recorded history where the currency is never consumed and accumulates, reducing the value of all the currency previously issued. It is a system where government decides on who gets how much through the tax code. This system is unsustainable and the government's that have adopted it have failed, or will fail regardless of the type of government employed. Democracy is the most benevolent form but also the most difficult to overturn but, if you overturn it and still keep the same system, the ultimate failure will just be prolonged.

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 10 hours ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
"The medical care industry,

"The medical care industry, including the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies, are government protected monopolies"

The definition of a monopoly is a single entity that sells to the entire market.

Since there is more than one hospital and more than one pharma company, and more than one insurance company, it's not a monopoly (if we had a single payer system, that would be a monopoly).

What you're attempting to describe is a "cartel" or an oligopoly (few sellers, many buyers).

While there is clearly government protection to a certain extent, it's a far cry from, say, the diamond cartel, or the sugar industry.

Matt
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 10 min ago
Joined: 01/21/2008 - 6:21pm
They used the term "monopoly"

They used the term "monopoly" at MIT.

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 1 hour ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
You had better check the real

You had better check the real definition of monopoly which is, according to Webster, exclusive control of a product or service in a given market. The key here is market. In Maine you only have a few hospitals and where there had been theoretical competition it was swallowed up by its supposed competitor in the same market. In Brunswick it was Parkview and Midcoast Medical Center. In the end the government allowed Midcoast to absorb Parkview and now we have only one hospital. When hospitalization is needed, say for instance in an automobile accident, the ambulance service is going to take you to the nearest hospital where the costs are just about the same save the area's cost of living. If you are in the boonies and need evacuation by helicopter you will be taken to the Maine Medical Center in Portland because it is the only one in the area with a helipad. I don't know if there is another one in Bangor or Augusta but in any case, you will not be taken to where the costs will be the least because there is no competition. That is insured by the fact that the government actually sets the price of nearly every medical procedure known to man through its administration of Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement practices.

Bruce Libby
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 55 min ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
Rest assured it was in a book

Rest assured it was in a book.
or on the box top of a game.

johnw
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 41 min ago
Joined: 03/11/2009 - 10:06am
For working folks who have

For working folks who have managed to acquire anything it is extortion.....plain and simple .If you don't have health insurance and you get sick there goes your savings,and your income......meanwhile the freeloaders get a free ride at the expense of those who are being extorted....AND it doesn't matter one iota if it's single payer, obama fraud or the "free market"....,the working folks get screwed ,the rich shrug their shoulders and the useless get a free ride......

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 1 hour ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
John: You shouldn't complain

John: You shouldn't complain, it is the nature of the economic system your government employs. Be thankful they don't follow the Constitution which stipulates they have the power to tax to pay the debts of the government. By careful manipulation of the tax code, it is the working stiffs in the middle of the income stream who would be paying for all this unconstitutional government charity. Instead, they just print more money and give it to the banks to distribute through loans that are usurious.

Pages

Log in to post comments