Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

boston bean

(36,219 posts)
Mon Oct 28, 2013, 04:43 PM Oct 2013

We need single payer

All this ridiculousness, this person pays this, that person pays that... to a fucking insurance company!

Or

I'll choose only this, I'll chose that... and take my chances....

We are frigging human beings we all deserve the care, and for it to cost the goddamned same thing for everyone!

What is so freaking hard about this concept.

110 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
We need single payer (Original Post) boston bean Oct 2013 OP
hear hear! mike_c Oct 2013 #1
Listening to people say, so what if it costs you more, or mine is cheaper... boston bean Oct 2013 #9
Right there with you, AND in addition to being more egalitarian... bvar22 Oct 2013 #101
It's inevitable. nt onehandle Oct 2013 #2
It's incompatible NoOneMan Oct 2013 #35
Then it's time, indeed long PAST time, to bring the "paradigm" to a crashing end! DissidentVoice Oct 2013 #57
That's the point! ;) grahamhgreen Oct 2013 #97
I second this. Cleita Oct 2013 #3
+1 A Public Option could have been a baby step leftstreet Oct 2013 #4
We have just taken the first step toward single payer. NYC_SKP Oct 2013 #5
+1 DinahMoeHum Oct 2013 #28
I don't see a step toward single payer. ronnie624 Oct 2013 #82
That the RW and Corporations hate is proves that it's the right thing to do. NYC_SKP Oct 2013 #86
It's taken me a while, but I agree with you now and nowadays, I always call it ACA tavalon Oct 2013 #84
I agree riverbendviewgal Oct 2013 #6
And we can exploit the ACA to get there. jeff47 Oct 2013 #7
Although some Democrats might object to "exploiting"... BlueEye Oct 2013 #81
I wish I had seen this to begin with tavalon Oct 2013 #85
We will get there. In 2017 the individual states will be able to set up their own single payer. kestrel91316 Oct 2013 #8
But we gots the bestest health care in teh world! progressoid Oct 2013 #10
Isn't he going to be surprised when he flees to Canada? Myrina Oct 2013 #71
ITA, Boston Bean. I think I know how we can get there... DevonRex Oct 2013 #11
I'm going to pray you are right, cause I'm exasperated by the whole thing. boston bean Oct 2013 #13
Just the way you and I have been talking. We TRIED it their way. Really tried. And not DevonRex Oct 2013 #42
I think single payer is inevitable too, for every reason under the sun, sustainability & clarity. nt mother earth Oct 2013 #16
Do you have the link? nt ecstatic Oct 2013 #80
Okay, how do you propose to get there? brooklynite Oct 2013 #12
The OP is a classic false dichotomy mistake Bunnahabhain Oct 2013 #14
What's a Bismarck system? cyberswede Oct 2013 #17
What are the deductibles and copays in the German system? n/t Fumesucker Oct 2013 #41
I had to look that one up, isn't that what we really are saying by "single payer"? mother earth Oct 2013 #19
When you mentioned "Bismarck," I looked it up and learned something. Maat Oct 2013 #27
K & R, single payer is the best option, we don't need the middleman & we certainly don't need all mother earth Oct 2013 #15
Single payer is inferior Bunnahabhain Oct 2013 #18
State your reasons, we are listening...I posted the qualities above that I like. mother earth Oct 2013 #20
Seems to work just fine for LittleGirl Oct 2013 #23
I love tri-care, but then I'm biased - VA saved my life a year ago. If its good enough for me ... marble falls Oct 2013 #70
Tri-care is for military & veterans, right? They EARNED it. MH1 Oct 2013 #73
We earned it, but everybody else needs it and deserves it. marble falls Oct 2013 #74
Many of them could get off their asses and out from behind their keyboards MH1 Oct 2013 #77
I agree: single payer for all, and manditory two year national service, not necessarily military. marble falls Oct 2013 #78
You're being given a golden ticket to explain your position to a bunch of really smart people tavalon Oct 2013 #87
I wish. One MRI ordered that is not needed - but profitable to the orderer- will eat up any savings. Hoyt Oct 2013 #30
Yes, we do! libodem Oct 2013 #21
I agree RedCappedBandit Oct 2013 #22
Of course we do, and it is criminal that we have not got it! DissidentVoice Oct 2013 #24
DLC/Third Way bullshit Enthusiast Oct 2013 #33
Do you mean the ACA? DissidentVoice Oct 2013 #43
While I'm happy to have the ACA Enthusiast Oct 2013 #63
I believe we are going to be stuck with the Mandate to BUY... bvar22 Oct 2013 #102
It's very hard to see it any other way. Enthusiast Oct 2013 #104
It treats human being's health care as a commodity, and while I will give nothing sabrina 1 Oct 2013 #25
The ACA is a flimsy band-aid on a fucked up beyond repair health care system quinnox Oct 2013 #26
it's just a stepping stone, not the answer passiveporcupine Oct 2013 #29
I'm not a huge ACA fan but a2liberal Oct 2013 #60
And those of us with supposed cadillac insurance (never seemed all that great to me) tavalon Oct 2013 #88
I agree on the Cadillac insurance thing a2liberal Oct 2013 #93
thanks for posting this passiveporcupine Nov 2013 #108
You're welcome :) (n/t) a2liberal Nov 2013 #110
K&R! Enthusiast Oct 2013 #31
Well, even in a single payer scenario, I'd expect that those who glowing Oct 2013 #32
Single payer is not based on a person's wealth. ConcernedCanuk Oct 2013 #53
I agree Enthusiast, but passiveporcupine Oct 2013 #34
This State Is Working Toward The Nation's First Universal Health Care System IronLionZion Oct 2013 #36
Yes! passiveporcupine Oct 2013 #38
Once California gets it, the rest of the country will follow suit IronLionZion Oct 2013 #39
Got it! passiveporcupine Oct 2013 #47
Well, of course it would be Vermont tavalon Oct 2013 #89
I'm disapointed that dental care is not included Left Coast2020 Oct 2013 #37
Spoke to... DirtyDawg Oct 2013 #40
Its all a silly game maindawg Oct 2013 #44
Yep. Seeing all these threads today makes that abundantly clear. marmar Oct 2013 #45
This concept causes extreme cognitive dissonance for those whom "got theirs" Corruption Inc Oct 2013 #46
+1000000000000000 woo me with science Oct 2013 #48
Agreed! ourfuneral Oct 2013 #49
If the truth were to be told, healthcare.gov really should be renamed healthinsurance.gov.... xocet Oct 2013 #50
agree 100% Jake2413 Oct 2013 #51
All Democrat's should be out there saying "Health Insurance is not equal to Health Care" harun Oct 2013 #52
K&R Vashta Nerada Oct 2013 #54
And let us not forget the two most important points BlueStreak Oct 2013 #55
Single payer would keep doctors and hospitals from picking and choosing which insurance they'll take Blaukraut Oct 2013 #56
If we keep Senate, and make Nancy Pelosi Speaker, Left Coast2020 Oct 2013 #58
How the hell is anyone going to get rich that way? Spitfire of ATJ Oct 2013 #59
we need to elect people... stillcool Oct 2013 #61
This is the problem right now passiveporcupine Oct 2013 #62
we need a system that encourages health. tomp Oct 2013 #64
I totally agree with you. n/t NealK Oct 2013 #65
K&R deutsey Oct 2013 #66
Agreed. I want to see a good basic health care for all - TBF Oct 2013 #67
when the bottom line is guaranteed profit, not health reddread Oct 2013 #68
I kind of naively asked that once about a year ago ... polly7 Oct 2013 #69
Get all the info right here for an excellent solution >>>> Roland99 Oct 2013 #72
Message auto-removed Name removed Oct 2013 #75
I would amend "cost the same" with this: MH1 Oct 2013 #76
We'd still have to pay into it, and I'm pretty sure it would be on a sliding scale ecstatic Oct 2013 #79
The insurance companies are terrified that we will figure out we don't really need the middle man tavalon Oct 2013 #83
Health insurance employs millions DaveJ Oct 2013 #91
You don't think there will be plenty of front end jobs in Medicare for All? tavalon Oct 2013 #106
This doesn't look "terrified" to me. bvar22 Oct 2013 #103
K & R historylovr Oct 2013 #90
Yes, you do Prophet 451 Oct 2013 #92
The concept is golden. riqster Oct 2013 #94
I'll bump every single post. It's inevitable. All this horse hockey would have been avoided, from grahamhgreen Oct 2013 #95
Yes. n/t Comrade Grumpy Oct 2013 #96
Any right-wing society, such as this, will primarily promote the welfare of the uber-wealthy indepat Oct 2013 #98
+1,000,000 I have been saying this since I came to the US gopiscrap Oct 2013 #99
It's Single Payer.... Moe Shinola Oct 2013 #100
Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Oct 2013 #105
rec 203 warrprayer Oct 2013 #107
I agree with what many are saying about the ACA being a starting point davidpdx Nov 2013 #109

boston bean

(36,219 posts)
9. Listening to people say, so what if it costs you more, or mine is cheaper...
Mon Oct 28, 2013, 05:13 PM
Oct 2013

It's just tearing me up, cause it just shouldn't be like this. Everyone deserves healthcare regardless of wealth or poverty. A percentage of income in the form of a tax to the fed gov't is the way to go. And allowing costs to be set.

I'm happy for those who will now have some access when they were refused prior, but that's fricken common sense and should have never been a problem. That in itself is grotesque to me.

To subsidize this through higher costs for some by charging them more made payable to an insurance middleman, is just yuck, if you ask me.

Never mind all the issues with access still being a problem due to out of pocket expenses and high deductibles. They are hiding the cost of the premium in those costs.

What I like about it, no refusal due to pre existing conditions, and caps. Those go away to with single payer.

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
101. Right there with you, AND in addition to being more egalitarian...
Tue Oct 29, 2013, 03:22 PM
Oct 2013

... National, Government Administered Health Care would be FAR cheaper than
our current "Uniquely American Solution" that enshrines the worthless
Health Insurance Industry as the Gateway to health Care,
and SUBSIDIZES these vampires to the tune of BILLIONS of dollars of Public Money...
for NOTHING.

The Health Insurance Industry:

*manufactures NOTHING

*Provides NO useful service

*Creates NO (Value Added) Wealth for our Nation



I don't see HOW this is a step in the right direction.
We need to rid ourselves of these parasites, not let them gorge at the Public Trough.
That will only make them Richer & Stronger.




 

NoOneMan

(4,795 posts)
35. It's incompatible
Mon Oct 28, 2013, 07:10 PM
Oct 2013

Its incompatible with the current American paradigm of health care and class tiers

DissidentVoice

(813 posts)
57. Then it's time, indeed long PAST time, to bring the "paradigm" to a crashing end!
Mon Oct 28, 2013, 11:51 PM
Oct 2013

I have long been an advocate of "starving the beast," to borrow a term from the odious Grover Norquist.

In this case, the "beast" is the corrupt health care non-system that has been propped up by the Republican Party and complicit Democrats for far, far, too long.

Everyone - and I mean EVERYONE - must STOP paying the extortionate insurance premiums and medical bills.

I am currently making my first strike, by going head-to-head with a hospital collection department. I have Medicare, thank God.

I am taking the position that what Medicare has paid them for a procedure is QUITE ENOUGH. If they want to go to court with it, it will be very bad PR for them...a disabled veteran on Medicare being taken to court over $45.00.

I have already been face-to-face with them and basically told to leave.

Am I saying I'll "win?" No.

But every resistance movement has to start SOMEWHERE.

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
5. We have just taken the first step toward single payer.
Mon Oct 28, 2013, 04:48 PM
Oct 2013

Small step compared to where you and I would have gone in one move, but you have to realize that americans aren't that bright and TPTB are very powerful.

We have to hang on to ACA and help it thrive, and it will reveal that, just as ACA is better than what came before, single payer will be better than ACA, we will move in that direction.

ronnie624

(5,764 posts)
82. I don't see a step toward single payer.
Tue Oct 29, 2013, 11:19 AM
Oct 2013

The overall trend for American society doesn't seem to favor the strengthening of social programs of any kind. In fact, the opposite is true. The consolidation of power by the wealthy over our lives and our political institutions during the last decade has been discussed endlessly here. It is a given. This trend is absolutely inconsistent with a move toward socialized medical insurance. I fully expect the further erosion of our 'social safety net' in the coming years.

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
86. That the RW and Corporations hate is proves that it's the right thing to do.
Tue Oct 29, 2013, 11:27 AM
Oct 2013

It is unarguably less "free market" and they hate that.

It's certainly not further from single payer and, with safeguards to secure care for people with pre-existing conditions and for portability, I say it is definitely moving in the right direction.

tavalon

(27,985 posts)
84. It's taken me a while, but I agree with you now and nowadays, I always call it ACA
Tue Oct 29, 2013, 11:22 AM
Oct 2013

and encourage all of my fellow Democrats to follow suit. It is less threatening to the idiots who most need it when it's called Affordable instead of Obama. I find it strange but it really does help.

riverbendviewgal

(4,252 posts)
6. I agree
Mon Oct 28, 2013, 04:49 PM
Oct 2013

Up here in Ontario...
We don't have bills on our main medical care.

Now, dental, hearing aid equip (OHIP pays $500 every 3 years), Semi private rooms...prescription drugs, eye glasses/contacts , and massages we have to get private health care..if we choose to or can afford it.
But we want that covered too.

I pay about 1200 for private insurance...as a senior my prescription drugs are free except for an $100 annually.. not bad

Gosh that reminds me...I have to get my flu shot today...they are giving it at our town Arena. FREE.

Bye bye.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
7. And we can exploit the ACA to get there.
Mon Oct 28, 2013, 04:53 PM
Oct 2013

Time to start lobbying for public options and single payer in blue states. That will be much easier than a national battle. Once we're successful, the lack of dead bodies in blue states will destroy most of the anti-single-payer FUD.

Once we've got it in blue states, we expand to the rest of the country.

Ironically, the states that failed to set up their own exchanges will be easier to turn single-payer than if they had set up their own exchanges.

BlueEye

(449 posts)
81. Although some Democrats might object to "exploiting"...
Tue Oct 29, 2013, 11:03 AM
Oct 2013

the President's law before it has a chance to thrive on it's own, I think you are EXACTLY right. Single-payer has to be the end game if we're serious about fixing health care in America. The ACA is a great first step. Vermont is working on having single-payer by 2017 and Massachusetts is considering a similar move:

http://www.columbian.com/news/2013/oct/27/vermont-tests-single-payer-waters/

I think it's telling that the idea behind our current ACA was first tested in MA. If they go to single-payer, that should be a bellwether for where the rest of the country can be in ten years time. Blue states need to lead the way.

tavalon

(27,985 posts)
85. I wish I had seen this to begin with
Tue Oct 29, 2013, 11:24 AM
Oct 2013

I was so hurt by what looked like a backroom deal that I didn't see the long game. Unfortunately, just as gay marriage has been a long game, so to will single payer.

Myrina

(12,296 posts)
71. Isn't he going to be surprised when he flees to Canada?
Tue Oct 29, 2013, 09:09 AM
Oct 2013

.... and realizes they have that nasty, evil socialized medicine he raves against?

DevonRex

(22,541 posts)
11. ITA, Boston Bean. I think I know how we can get there...
Mon Oct 28, 2013, 05:21 PM
Oct 2013

On the Kaiser website where everybody went to get an estimate of their subsidy and premium, they could do the same thing for any state and compare them. I did. It blew me away. People in Mississippi pay exorbitant premiums. I'm sure it's due to high rates of obesity, diabetes and heart disease. So they also NEED insurance. And they don't make nearly what people in my state earn. But we're the healthiest so our premiums are low.

Anyway, the more people come to realize what capitalism and insurance companies do to "coverage" for health care, the more they'll understand and get just as pissed off. But WE have to take advantage of the moment. We have to do it the right way, though. At least we got something done. Medicaid expansion was the best part. We just can't force it on the states who wouldn't do it. We have to take advantage of that, too. And THAT is where we'll get to single payer. Medicaid/Medicare for all is where we're headed. Much simpler. We can even use the overcrowded website as a good reason for it. One simple plan. Period.

boston bean

(36,219 posts)
13. I'm going to pray you are right, cause I'm exasperated by the whole thing.
Mon Oct 28, 2013, 05:35 PM
Oct 2013

What I also see happening is more and more companies moving to these higher deductible plans, which I think are just evil! They were evil in the private insurance industry prior to ACA, imho.

And they are using the standard of the ACA to justify this.

I understand that people who make more, even with single payer, will pay more in taxes, that's just the way it should be. But to try and offset insurance losses by charging some more, made payable to insurance companies get my goat. And to me it seems the costs aren't really decreasing (one can't just look at the premium). And people won't be seek care because the deductible makes it out of reach. Win Win for insurance companies....

I'm trying to convince myself we will see single payer out of this. But we won't if we just accept this as being great. Republicans are disgusting and work against my goal, and I don't want to add my concern to their voice in any way.

So, what is the careful way we can make our issues rise to the top?

DevonRex

(22,541 posts)
42. Just the way you and I have been talking. We TRIED it their way. Really tried. And not
Mon Oct 28, 2013, 07:58 PM
Oct 2013

just because we were weak and capitulated but because at that time, when the economy was teetering off a cliff practically the only thing making any money at all was the health INDUSTRY. But we can't kid ourselves any longer. It IS an industry. (This is US talking to the nation now) We gave them even more people to to sign up and even subsidized their insurance with our tax dollars. And what did those BASTARDS do? They charged the good people in some of our rural states TWICE as much! Well, we can't have that!

Medicare works for Grandma and it's good enough for us, too!

 

Bunnahabhain

(857 posts)
14. The OP is a classic false dichotomy mistake
Mon Oct 28, 2013, 05:39 PM
Oct 2013

We need a Bismarck system. Why would you want to settle for second best? The country with the world's best healthcare, 10 years in a row, is not single payer.

cyberswede

(26,117 posts)
17. What's a Bismarck system?
Mon Oct 28, 2013, 05:54 PM
Oct 2013

And what country uses it? And do you have a link to something that explains how/why it provides the best healthcare? Sorry to be obtuse...

mother earth

(6,002 posts)
19. I had to look that one up, isn't that what we really are saying by "single payer"?
Mon Oct 28, 2013, 05:57 PM
Oct 2013
http://healthmatters4.blogspot.com/2011/01/bismarck-model.html

I totally agree,

•Short waits, quality care, relatively low costs, and simplified administration
•Tight regulation of insurance which is often (but not always) sold on a nonprofit basis
•Claims paid without challenge
•No exclusion for pre-existing conditions
•Prices for most procedures fixed by the state
•Private hospitals and physician practices
•Generally high positions in the World Health Organization's overall rankings

Maat

(13,809 posts)
27. When you mentioned "Bismarck," I looked it up and learned something.
Mon Oct 28, 2013, 06:09 PM
Oct 2013

I think that I could live with any of the models, except for the "out-of-pocket" model. Smile. The following link was very helpful.

http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resources/health_care_systems_four_basic_models.php

mother earth

(6,002 posts)
15. K & R, single payer is the best option, we don't need the middleman & we certainly don't need all
Mon Oct 28, 2013, 05:52 PM
Oct 2013

the paperwork, which is another sore point that medical offices are always dealing with. When doctors are free to choose what's best & not have to be constantly worrying about restrictions and what's covered it makes their jobs easier. The complications are what's costing everyone.

Single payer would have made so much more sense. ONE PLAN & the rules are the same for all.

mother earth

(6,002 posts)
20. State your reasons, we are listening...I posted the qualities above that I like.
Mon Oct 28, 2013, 05:58 PM
Oct 2013
Prices fixed by the state - I'm in!

LittleGirl

(8,280 posts)
23. Seems to work just fine for
Mon Oct 28, 2013, 06:00 PM
Oct 2013

Medicaid and Medicare. And aren't the veterans on Tri-Care? Why do we need a middle man/insurance?
We need the gov't to negotiate drug prices against the gougers and UN-privatize health care for each and every citizen, no matter their station in life. There are several very successful health care network systems around the world to base ours on and we'd save a boat load of tax payer money in the process. Win Win.
Remove the greed and profit from health care and all is solved.

marble falls

(57,022 posts)
70. I love tri-care, but then I'm biased - VA saved my life a year ago. If its good enough for me ...
Tue Oct 29, 2013, 08:43 AM
Oct 2013

its the minimum everybody else should be able to get. The French love their single payer and I bet the US would, too.

MH1

(17,581 posts)
73. Tri-care is for military & veterans, right? They EARNED it.
Tue Oct 29, 2013, 10:27 AM
Oct 2013

Ok, I am for single payer actually, but I have to point out that those eligible for Tri-Care DO pay for it, albeit a much different kind of price. And it's a price a diminishing number seem to want to pay, especially certain chickenhawk types.

MH1

(17,581 posts)
77. Many of them could get off their asses and out from behind their keyboards
Tue Oct 29, 2013, 10:40 AM
Oct 2013

and join the military.

Those who are beating the war drums from the sidelines, DON'T deserve Tri-Care in our current model. (As to those working against war and who don't join the military for reasons of conscience, they deserve a true single payer system. But IMHO everyone should do some civic duty for a couple years (not necessarily military service - there's lots of stuff this country needs done that doesn't involve guns).)

If we had true single-payer, there would not be Medicare, Medicaid, Tri-Care, FEHB, and all the other different programs. There would be one system.

marble falls

(57,022 posts)
78. I agree: single payer for all, and manditory two year national service, not necessarily military.
Tue Oct 29, 2013, 10:45 AM
Oct 2013

tavalon

(27,985 posts)
87. You're being given a golden ticket to explain your position to a bunch of really smart people
Tue Oct 29, 2013, 11:28 AM
Oct 2013

It's like being on a TED talk but in blog form. Take us up on it. We are listening to all ideas. And yeah, we may throw some hard questions at you but I've had that and it ended up helping me get stronger on my position.

I really want to hear about this.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
30. I wish. One MRI ordered that is not needed - but profitable to the orderer- will eat up any savings.
Mon Oct 28, 2013, 06:24 PM
Oct 2013

Or a doc -- who likes the drug sales rep who comes by his office and flirts with him -- who orders a drug that is 10 times the cost of a generic that does the same thing, because they've repackaged it and the patient is influenced by the dang ads they put on TV and won't settle for less.

Or the surgeon that only knows only how to cut, who orders surgery when there are other treatments.

The current reimbursement system would have to be changed, and even then there will be fraud and abuse. Not to mention patients that game the system, or require the most expensive -- though less effective -- treatments.

To achieve a better system, a lot of people are going to have to change. I honestly don't think most are ready for it. I wish they were, but they aren't.

RedCappedBandit

(5,514 posts)
22. I agree
Mon Oct 28, 2013, 06:00 PM
Oct 2013

I feel like this is all a big distraction from the real issue.

No matter what side of the fence you sit on regarding the ACA, we're still giving money to insurance companies.

Fuck that.

DissidentVoice

(813 posts)
24. Of course we do, and it is criminal that we have not got it!
Mon Oct 28, 2013, 06:04 PM
Oct 2013

Instead of REAL single-payer covering EVERYONE, we have got watered-down DLC/Third Way bullshit which is barely-reworked crap that the Heritage Foundation came out with and the Republican Party in the 1990's promoted during the Clinton years.

It is still hard for me to forgive Bill Clinton for rolling over and letting the Republicans pistol-whip him on health care, or Barack Obama being cowed by Max Baucus.

I am not saying that the ACA is without merit. It is worlds better than anything from the GOP, but it is NOT UNIVERSAL CARE.

WHY the Democratic Party seems so anxious to "preserve what we have" is beyond me. Do you "preserve" a foundation that has been about to collapse for several DECADES now and has only been held together with Kleenex, spit and the money of the Republican Party?

I made up my mind I will not vote for a candidate that does not support single-payer.

Combine Medicare and the FEHBP and EVERYONE will have the same care that CONGRESS has.

And I am SO DAMN SICK of hearing the tired old refrain "the political will isn't there" for single-payer. That is just a thinly-disguised way of saying "we do not have the guts to push for it."

DissidentVoice

(813 posts)
43. Do you mean the ACA?
Mon Oct 28, 2013, 08:14 PM
Oct 2013

Or is there another, more nefarious, act that didn't go by the title you gave but was intended to do that?

Enthusiast

(50,983 posts)
63. While I'm happy to have the ACA
Tue Oct 29, 2013, 04:47 AM
Oct 2013

I do believe it might delay the inevitable adoption of some sort of not for profit system. I hope I'm wrong. This is a crisis.

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
102. I believe we are going to be stuck with the Mandate to BUY...
Tue Oct 29, 2013, 03:35 PM
Oct 2013

....Health Insurance from private Corporations for a LONG time.

We have codified these parasites as the Gateway to Health Care in America, and have given them access to the Public Treasury to the tune of many BILLIONS of Dollars per year in subsidies. They will grow Stronger, Richer, and Fatter feeding on our dollars,
and give NOTHING in return....The Uniquely American Dream!.

We will have to reform our electoral system before we can knock these pigs away from the trough.

Enthusiast

(50,983 posts)
104. It's very hard to see it any other way.
Wed Oct 30, 2013, 04:16 AM
Oct 2013

If we stop kidding ourselves. They serve absolutely no purpose other than to generate wealth for a tiny few at the expense of tens of millions.

There are many pigs at the trough.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
25. It treats human being's health care as a commodity, and while I will give nothing
Mon Oct 28, 2013, 06:04 PM
Oct 2013

to Republicans, I am appalled frankly to see people rushing to websites to try to get a 'deal' on their LIVES the same way people push and shove their way into stores when a cartoon character is on sale.

Single Payer, Medicare for all, A National HC System is all that I can in conscience, support.

The callous responses here to people who have reported the problems they have, even to someone with a sick child are turning people off in a major fashion. Someone needs to reign in those who are mocking people who are honestly worried about the HC costs they are facing for their families.

I don't discuss it much here, DU is not the place to get answers to real problems on this issue. There are other sources where you are not attacked for simply telling what your situation is.

 

quinnox

(20,600 posts)
26. The ACA is a flimsy band-aid on a fucked up beyond repair health care system
Mon Oct 28, 2013, 06:07 PM
Oct 2013

The health care system based on profit we have here in America is morally indefensible and morally bankrupt.

Time to scrap our health care system and go to a non-profit universal health care model, its the civilized thing to do.

K&R!

passiveporcupine

(8,175 posts)
29. it's just a stepping stone, not the answer
Mon Oct 28, 2013, 06:17 PM
Oct 2013

The new exchanges will help a lot of people who make enough money to use them, but couldn't get it before because of prohibitive pricing. They will not help people who are making too much to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to pay the deductibles to actually get any "treatment" under the new exchanges.

It's not just the premiums that should be subsidized for the low income...it's also the deductibles. What good is an insurance plan if you can't even get "preventive care" and still end up in an emergency situation with a deductible you can't afford.

I'm all for the ACA as a stepping stone. As a requirement to get more people covered, because the sooner everyone is paying for insurance, the sooner they will all start fighting for more affordable care, and that is the real issue, not catastrophic insurance. The reason people end up in the ER is because they don't get the preventive care they need before it becomes an emergency.

I know why some people are posting about how great it is to afford to be on an exchange. It's necessary to offset the people complaining about ACA and those who already have employer coverage who are complaining about raising the prices. I know ACA is not the answer, but there is no magic wand that will give us what we need with one "wave of the wand". It will be a progressive change over time.

a2liberal

(1,524 posts)
60. I'm not a huge ACA fan but
Tue Oct 29, 2013, 12:20 AM
Oct 2013

FYI deductibles actually are subsidized for "low income" people (for the law's definition at least). Also, certain things classed as preventative care are in fact covered pre-deductible.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/features/insuring-your-health/2013/070913-michelle-andrews-on-cost-sharing-subsidies.aspx

In addition, people who earn 250 percent of the federal poverty level or less will also have their maximum out-of-pocket spending capped at lower levels than will be the case for others who buy plans on the exchange. In 2014, the out-of-pocket limits for most plans will be $6,350 for an individual and $12,700 for a family. But people who qualify for cost-sharing subsidies will see their maximum out-of-pocket spending capped at $2,250 or $4,500 for single or family coverage, respectively, if their incomes are less than 200 percent of the poverty level, and $5,200 or $10,400 if their incomes are between 200 and 250 percent of poverty.

Insurers have some flexibility in how they structure their plans to meet cost-sharing reductions. But in states that will require plans to standardize deductibles, copayments and coinsurance amounts, it's possible to see how out-of-pocket costs may vary.

In California, for example, a standard silver plan will have a $2,000 deductible, a $6,400 maximum out-of-pocket limit and a $45 copayment for a primary care office visit. Someone whose income is between 150 and 200 of the poverty level, on the other hand, will have a silver plan with a $500 deductible, a $2,250 maximum out-of-pocket limit and $15 copays for primary care doctor visits.


https://www.google.com/search?q=aca+first+dollar+coverage

P.S. Welcome to DU!

tavalon

(27,985 posts)
88. And those of us with supposed cadillac insurance (never seemed all that great to me)
Tue Oct 29, 2013, 11:35 AM
Oct 2013

Are seeing our deductibles rise and we are losing some benefits. In the short term, that pisses me off - at my company. But I'll get the last laugh because they are slitting their middleman throats. Next Friday is our Health Benefits fair and if I'm not mistaken, I think most of the vendors, especially vision (was covered since forever but no more) will especially require ice, because I don't think they are going to have the reception they've gotten in the past. I can smell the burning tail feathers right now and I just hope no one brings tar.

Now, having said this, I will gladly give up some of my benefits if it directly affects someone who needs better benefits. I just think this is one last howl of a price gouge.

ACA will turn this awful industry on its ear. Booo hooo.

a2liberal

(1,524 posts)
93. I agree on the Cadillac insurance thing
Tue Oct 29, 2013, 12:13 PM
Oct 2013

That's one of the several things I dislike about the ACA. If we had to stick with private insurance, they should at least have been pushing for full-coverage (no deductibles, co-pays, etc.) insurance and incentivizing it, not demonizing and disincentivizing it with taxes.

passiveporcupine

(8,175 posts)
108. thanks for posting this
Sun Nov 3, 2013, 02:24 AM
Nov 2013

I'm not eligible for an exchange because I'm on Medicare, but I looked into it and did not see any kind of subsidy for deductibles or spending caps. Maybe you needed to get further into the system than I did. I am also in Oregon, and that may also make a difference. I know the exchanges would be much more affordable for me for premiums, but not with the deductibles that were listed in the programs I would qualify for. And I am under 200% poverty level. But I am also old enough to fall into the higher priced plans, and Oregon is pretty steep when it applies to age.

Enthusiast

(50,983 posts)
31. K&R!
Mon Oct 28, 2013, 06:26 PM
Oct 2013

I argued with a DU zealot yesterday. He was arguing in favor of Chained CPI as a response to the debt. He posted a right wing graph showing the effects of "entitlements" on the debt. Of course medicare was depicted as the worst culprit.

We could drastically cut the debt if single payer would be adopted. This is now is far beyond a matter of opinion. We see the results in other nations. They get better results with around 55% of the expenditure.

The only valid argument against single payer is concern over the loss of fat cat profits. Their profit doesn't add a thing to the quality of care or the well being of the citizen. We should actually not give one shit about some insurance company CEO losing 80% of his annual salary. It shouldn't even enter the list of considerations.

 

glowing

(12,233 posts)
32. Well, even in a single payer scenario, I'd expect that those who
Mon Oct 28, 2013, 06:41 PM
Oct 2013

are wealthier would pay more cost toward the system. I wouldn't expect the CEO to pay the same rate as the cashier of McDonalds... That wouldn't be a progressive tax to have a flat tax fee.

 

ConcernedCanuk

(13,509 posts)
53. Single payer is not based on a person's wealth.
Mon Oct 28, 2013, 11:37 PM
Oct 2013

.
.
.

It's based on their income, at least here in Canada.

A percentage of each paycheck is taxed for healthcare, the more you make, the more you pay;

but I do believe there is a cap on the maximum you have to pay.

Federal Regulations set the minimum coverage/benefits - Provinces can raise the bar, and set their own tax rate,

but the Federal government legislates the maximum any person has to pay - after a certain level of income,

the amount per paycheck is frozen.

CC

passiveporcupine

(8,175 posts)
34. I agree Enthusiast, but
Mon Oct 28, 2013, 07:06 PM
Oct 2013

I think it will have to be done in steps. Over 80% of the population has health care already (and as of 2009, about 61% of that is through employer subsidized plans that are far better than the exchanges being offered now. Because of that. those employees who have those good and inexpensive (subsidized) plans, are not going to willingly give them up for single payer. And those who have health care through Medicare or Military or whatever, are not worried about single payer now. We have a lot of minds to change, and it will happen, but slowly.

It's going to take an attitude change, and that takes time. Obama knew that. He knew what he would be up against in trying to push through single payer, which is why he opted not to (IMHO). Not only would he have been fighting big money, but public attitudes of people who are afraid of losing what they already have.

passiveporcupine

(8,175 posts)
38. Yes!
Mon Oct 28, 2013, 07:34 PM
Oct 2013

This is probably the way it will be done. State by state, until enough states can drag everyone else along with them. The red states will be hard to drag.

Oh, BTW, I'm new here and don't know how to K&R a thread. Is just posting to it, kicking it?

I K&R this thread.

IronLionZion

(45,382 posts)
39. Once California gets it, the rest of the country will follow suit
Mon Oct 28, 2013, 07:44 PM
Oct 2013

Canada started out with Saskatchewan and Alberta. It was so successful the other provinces wanted it. It can work in Vermont first because its small. California is so huge they influence the whole country, so there is big money fighting against it there.

reply to a post to kick it. Go to the first post and click the button inside that says "DU Rec" to recommend it. There's a button to bookmark if you want to save it for later.

and visit the welcome and help forum http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1256

Welcome to DU!

Left Coast2020

(2,397 posts)
37. I'm disapointed that dental care is not included
Mon Oct 28, 2013, 07:28 PM
Oct 2013

Found that out last week when I went to a health fair to get more info and hopefuly sign up.

They say dental care is important to your health. So why do it half-assed instead of doing it correctly? Or did I get bad information?

PM me if you know about this.

 

DirtyDawg

(802 posts)
40. Spoke to...
Mon Oct 28, 2013, 07:47 PM
Oct 2013

...a guy that works for one of the largest health insurance providers and asked just what would happen to their industry if we end up with a single payer system...he said that they would eventually go out of business, and should, given that they add about 30 percent to the total cost of healthcare and add little.

marmar

(77,059 posts)
45. Yep. Seeing all these threads today makes that abundantly clear.
Mon Oct 28, 2013, 09:08 PM
Oct 2013

Until the insurance vermin are extracted from the process, we'll continue to have these problems.


 

Corruption Inc

(1,568 posts)
46. This concept causes extreme cognitive dissonance for those whom "got theirs"
Mon Oct 28, 2013, 10:07 PM
Oct 2013

They refuse to look at the rest of the worlds health care systems to see how corrupt ours remains. It's a trait of republicans that infects all conservative's minds in regards to every issue. This is supposedly a democratic website but there's a huge number of conservatives here as is evidenced by their stances on every policy.

 

ourfuneral

(150 posts)
49. Agreed!
Mon Oct 28, 2013, 10:45 PM
Oct 2013

The Swedes, Brits, Canadians, Germans etc have figured it out. Then again, none of those countries have Teabaggers.

xocet

(3,871 posts)
50. If the truth were to be told, healthcare.gov really should be renamed healthinsurance.gov....
Mon Oct 28, 2013, 11:03 PM
Oct 2013

Health care and health insurance are not at all the same thing.

harun

(11,348 posts)
52. All Democrat's should be out there saying "Health Insurance is not equal to Health Care"
Mon Oct 28, 2013, 11:09 PM
Oct 2013

Just because someone has health insurance doesn't mean any of their care is going to be paid for.

The ACA institutionalized the for-profit insurance system. It will work very well to enrich Insurance Company's. It will also do well to make sure the super rich have crazy good care. The rest of us... we'll see.

At minimum we always need to have a non-profit insurance option available to everyone who wants it. Next best would be a government option available for everyone, like a Medicare Part-E (for Everyone).

 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
55. And let us not forget the two most important points
Mon Oct 28, 2013, 11:39 PM
Oct 2013

1) Single payer would cut the cost in half.

2) Single payer gives everybody access to the same provider network -- i.e. all doctors and all hospitals without discrimination.

Blaukraut

(5,693 posts)
56. Single payer would keep doctors and hospitals from picking and choosing which insurance they'll take
Mon Oct 28, 2013, 11:46 PM
Oct 2013

That seems to be a problem that won't go away until there is a law that all insurance must be accepted by all physicians and hospitals, or until single payer is implemented. The Bismarck system, in which I grew up over in Germany, worked fairly well until the conservative Kohl government started to weaken in bit by bit.

Left Coast2020

(2,397 posts)
58. If we keep Senate, and make Nancy Pelosi Speaker,
Mon Oct 28, 2013, 11:59 PM
Oct 2013

Then we should make another push for it.

You know Bernie is with us. And it SHOULD INCLUDE DENTAL COVERAGE!!

passiveporcupine

(8,175 posts)
62. This is the problem right now
Tue Oct 29, 2013, 01:55 AM
Oct 2013
nd that is the real issue, not catastrophic insurance. The reason people end up in the ER is because they don't get the preventive care they need before it becomes an emergency.

I know why some people are posting about how great it is to afford to be on an exchange. It's necessary to offset the people complaining about ACA and those who already have employer coverage who are complaining about raising the prices.


Right now too many people are getting inexpensive coverage for normal care, not catastrophic...and because their employers are kicking in to pay for it, they really don't feel the pinch of how much a plan like that would cost. This whole system that allowed people to expect almost free coverage through their jobs, while others basically had nothing...this is what perverted the whole system...and the fact that the policies to cover these "free plans" for employees, set up a system of profit for insurance companies and all health service suppliers.

The health providers and for-profit-insurance now expect to get paid like these plans used to pay. Unfortunately, this is another bust situation...just like the housing bust and the dot.com bust.

Health care booms are still the rage, but they are starting to reach a peak of being insupportable. There will be a health care bust if we continue on like this.
 

tomp

(9,512 posts)
64. we need a system that encourages health.
Tue Oct 29, 2013, 06:19 AM
Oct 2013

health education starting very early, easy access to health care and healthful lifestyle, real living wages, and very careful attention to the safety of our children in the home (adverse childhood events generate ill health, both psyhologically and physically). we also need environmental protection.

this is good for everyone: healthy people make for a healthy economy.

TBF

(32,024 posts)
67. Agreed. I want to see a good basic health care for all -
Tue Oct 29, 2013, 08:06 AM
Oct 2013

ProSense, for example, has suggested that the military health care system could be easily expanded.

I used this system myself when I was younger - at that point it was called Champus. I had it in college because my dad is a disabled Vet. When I started working after graduation I was covered by employer plans. But Champus was good and my dad was always happy with his care. Now it is called Tri-Care I believe.

The current insurance companies would adapt. Their employees would likely move into government jobs (someone has to administer the program) and some might stay in the market as supplemental insurers. The insurance CEO's might be out of a job - but they are making zillions now so presumably they can retire on their riches and we can all move on to a better system.

 

reddread

(6,896 posts)
68. when the bottom line is guaranteed profit, not health
Tue Oct 29, 2013, 08:15 AM
Oct 2013

you better hang onto your health, because nobody is going to profit selling you any of that.

polly7

(20,582 posts)
69. I kind of naively asked that once about a year ago ...
Tue Oct 29, 2013, 08:25 AM
Oct 2013

something to the tune of "just get rid of the middle man, easy peasy!!!" and then upon reading the replies realized just how invested the big players and corporations were in these insurance companies and the clout they carried with gov'ts and corporations world-wide. But yes, it does make sense to anyone with a functioning brain that eliminating a completely unnecessary part of the equation would equal a better result in the end.

Response to boston bean (Original post)

MH1

(17,581 posts)
76. I would amend "cost the same" with this:
Tue Oct 29, 2013, 10:34 AM
Oct 2013

1) it should be funded by taxes (of various kinds), so the the cost to an individual depends what taxes they are subject to (or subject themselves to, see below)
2) cost should NEVER be a barrier to a child getting whatever treatment they need. Ergo, for some people, care for their kids should be free.
3) Taxes to fund health care should include some "voluntary" taxation on items that have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to significantly impair health and that therefore raise the costs of medical care. Such as cigarettes and liquor, on which we already have taxes. Some of those taxes should also go to providing widely accessible addiction treatment services. These taxes should NOT be used to fund non-health areas. You want better roads? Tax gas or tax income.

ecstatic

(32,655 posts)
79. We'd still have to pay into it, and I'm pretty sure it would be on a sliding scale
Tue Oct 29, 2013, 10:54 AM
Oct 2013

much like it is now (with the ACA). It would be kind of unfair if Trump paid the same amount as someone making 1/100th his salary.

Also, what difference does it make who gets paid as long as the policies are fair and sound? Right or wrong, 1/6 of our economy is based on healthcare and unilaterally shutting down dozens of insurance companies would only send us into another depression.

tavalon

(27,985 posts)
83. The insurance companies are terrified that we will figure out we don't really need the middle man
Tue Oct 29, 2013, 11:19 AM
Oct 2013

Many of us have known that for a long time.

DaveJ

(5,023 posts)
91. Health insurance employs millions
Tue Oct 29, 2013, 11:45 AM
Oct 2013

No government/politician is going purposefully wipe out an entire industry.

So our high healthcare is in large part to employ people in these (I think, crappy...) jobs, sort of like out of the kindness of our hearts(?) but for no practical reason.

tavalon

(27,985 posts)
106. You don't think there will be plenty of front end jobs in Medicare for All?
Wed Oct 30, 2013, 05:22 PM
Oct 2013

The ineffectual middle management suck ups are probably in a bit of a pickle.

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
103. This doesn't look "terrified" to me.
Tue Oct 29, 2013, 03:45 PM
Oct 2013


This looks like Champagne Corks a-Popping!
Life is GREAT in America for an Industry that:

*Manufactures NOTHING

*Creates NO Value Added Wealth

*Provides NO Useful Service

*Risks NOTHING in research & development

*Maintains NO Inventory

...but will now have mandated "customers",
and be subsidized with many BILLIONS of Dollars per year from our Public Treasury.
"The Uniquely American Solution" ...indeed.



You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS.[/font]

Prophet 451

(9,796 posts)
92. Yes, you do
Tue Oct 29, 2013, 12:05 PM
Oct 2013

I live under the single-payer NHS and, while it's far from perfect, it is a lot better than the scaremongering would have you believe. People can and still do buy private insurance here as well.

riqster

(13,986 posts)
94. The concept is golden.
Tue Oct 29, 2013, 12:29 PM
Oct 2013

To make it happen, we'll be needing to elect a lot more liberal Dems to local, state and national offices.

 

grahamhgreen

(15,741 posts)
95. I'll bump every single post. It's inevitable. All this horse hockey would have been avoided, from
Tue Oct 29, 2013, 01:23 PM
Oct 2013

the shutdown to the website, and we would crush the R's forever.

indepat

(20,899 posts)
98. Any right-wing society, such as this, will primarily promote the welfare of the uber-wealthy
Tue Oct 29, 2013, 02:26 PM
Oct 2013

and large corporations: that all human beings deserve care is anathema to right-wing core dogma.

davidpdx

(22,000 posts)
109. I agree with what many are saying about the ACA being a starting point
Sun Nov 3, 2013, 02:36 AM
Nov 2013

I am an American who lives overseas and I am lucky enough to have universal healthcare coverage. I'm committed to continuing to fight until everyone in the US has either single-payer or universal coverage.

As I've said before that's not going to happen until we have:

A majority in the House

A majority in the Senate

A Democrat in the White House

We have a good possibility of getting the House back in 2014 and keeping the Senate. It's going to take some asskicking work, good candidates, and crossing your fingers.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»We need single payer