HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » The real reason why we do...

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 07:11 PM

 

The real reason why we don't have single payer is because nobody wants to pay for it

(1) Why didn't Vermont try to fund it?
(2) Why are the young invincibles participating in the ACA exchanges below expectations? By design, their role was to subsidize the sick and elderly but apparently they decided they would rather not.
(3) Why are the unions complaining about the Cadillac tax, so much so that it's getting postponed?

If even the bluest liberal blocs would rather not pay for someone else's health care, why makes you think a much more divided America would want to do so?

86 replies, 3328 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 86 replies Author Time Post
Reply The real reason why we don't have single payer is because nobody wants to pay for it (Original post)
hill2016 Jan 2016 OP
litlbilly Jan 2016 #1
hill2016 Jan 2016 #4
juxtaposed Jan 2016 #7
litlbilly Jan 2016 #11
Ed Suspicious Jan 2016 #51
Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #53
whathehell Jan 2016 #77
hill2016 Jan 2016 #9
enid602 Jan 2016 #62
Hoyt Jan 2016 #68
vt_native Jan 2016 #2
Karma13612 Jan 2016 #6
Fantastic Anarchist Jan 2016 #23
LuvLoogie Jan 2016 #31
Fantastic Anarchist Jan 2016 #41
LuvLoogie Jan 2016 #48
Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #54
LuvLoogie Jan 2016 #67
TIME TO PANIC Jan 2016 #56
LuvLoogie Jan 2016 #66
Fantastic Anarchist Jan 2016 #74
TIME TO PANIC Jan 2016 #78
LuvLoogie Jan 2016 #80
TIME TO PANIC Jan 2016 #82
LuvLoogie Jan 2016 #83
Wilms Jan 2016 #3
Karma13612 Jan 2016 #8
Human101948 Jan 2016 #79
juxtaposed Jan 2016 #5
The Velveteen Ocelot Jan 2016 #10
Punkingal Jan 2016 #12
hill2016 Jan 2016 #17
The Velveteen Ocelot Jan 2016 #20
hill2016 Jan 2016 #21
The Velveteen Ocelot Jan 2016 #24
Fantastic Anarchist Jan 2016 #28
Live and Learn Jan 2016 #29
hill2016 Jan 2016 #35
The Velveteen Ocelot Jan 2016 #39
Half-Century Man Jan 2016 #63
Fantastic Anarchist Jan 2016 #27
hill2016 Jan 2016 #32
The Velveteen Ocelot Jan 2016 #40
hill2016 Jan 2016 #42
The Velveteen Ocelot Jan 2016 #46
hill2016 Jan 2016 #47
Fantastic Anarchist Jan 2016 #73
dsc Jan 2016 #43
Fantastic Anarchist Jan 2016 #44
Live and Learn Jan 2016 #30
yeoman6987 Jan 2016 #57
Bread and Circus Jan 2016 #13
Live and Learn Jan 2016 #14
hill2016 Jan 2016 #18
shawn703 Jan 2016 #19
The Velveteen Ocelot Jan 2016 #25
Live and Learn Jan 2016 #26
Half-Century Man Jan 2016 #65
libdem4life Jan 2016 #15
Orangepeel Jan 2016 #16
The Velveteen Ocelot Jan 2016 #22
Orangepeel Jan 2016 #49
Armstead Jan 2016 #33
elleng Jan 2016 #34
hill2016 Jan 2016 #37
elleng Jan 2016 #50
Bluenorthwest Jan 2016 #71
MH1 Jan 2016 #36
immoderate Jan 2016 #59
Bluenorthwest Jan 2016 #70
ChiciB1 Jan 2016 #38
srobert Jan 2016 #45
Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #52
chervilant Jan 2016 #55
leveymg Jan 2016 #58
Agony Jan 2016 #60
bigwillq Jan 2016 #61
GeorgeGist Jan 2016 #64
Bluenorthwest Jan 2016 #69
mmonk Jan 2016 #72
Skwmom Jan 2016 #75
guillaumeb Jan 2016 #76
Logical Jan 2016 #81
Bread and Circus Jan 2016 #84
OrwellwasRight Jan 2016 #85
Skwmom Jan 2016 #86

Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 07:15 PM

1. Wrong, its because big insurance and big pharma would lose money so they bought the removal of

 

the public option. Try again. And, don't bring up fking Vermont, like Bernie said, ask the governor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to litlbilly (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 07:18 PM

4. fortunately

 

Clinton doesn't say "ask the Governor". She got on the Governor's ass over Flint, Michigan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Reply #4)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 07:20 PM

7. she's our champion!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Reply #4)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 07:21 PM

11. And you people call us Republican Right wingers? Bernie said it last night at the debate

 

So did Bernie on that Gov, you must not have listened at all. Unbelievable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Reply #4)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 09:36 PM

51. Why doesn't Arkansas have Universal Health care then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Reply #4)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 09:37 PM

53. yep, they have clean water now

 

She fixed it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Reply #4)

Tue Jan 19, 2016, 11:42 AM

77. Flint is in a different state and it's a different issue. n/t

Last edited Tue Jan 19, 2016, 06:15 PM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to litlbilly (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 07:20 PM

9. take a guess

 

out of the entire health care spend in the US, how much do drug spend and health care insurance profit account for?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to litlbilly (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 09:59 PM

62. costs

Clearly, Big Pharma and the Insurace Industry are two of the rhree reasons our per capita health costs are twice those of othet industrialized countries. The third, of couurse is our lack of tort reform. Why, we are the ONLY country in the world with Universal Health Care (we were reconized by the WHO in 2014 as having it for the first time) that DOES NOT have some form of tort reform. Of course Bernie's not afraid of powerful lobbying interests like the ABA. Still, he's voted against tort reform twice while in Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to enid602 (Reply #62)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 10:39 PM

68. Drugs make up 10% of expenditures and save tons of money in hospitalization, doctor visits,

etc. If you put tough controls on costs you might save 2—4%. I'd rather see government do drug research, but the billions of $ needed aren't there with our Congressm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 07:16 PM

2. Hillary, is that you?

If people understood the nominal tax increase would eliminate outrageous insurance premiums, which are often unattainable, people would flock to single payer. It takes time to overcome 70 years of propaganda against "socialized medicine".

Peter Shumlin ran as a progressive and governed as a third wayer, he is not well liked after he sold out on his primary campaign issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vt_native (Reply #2)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 07:19 PM

6. And, funny thing: Shumlin has already endorsed, yup: Hillary Rodham Clinton. yea, I know, it is so

flippin' transparent, just wanna scream.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vt_native (Reply #2)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 07:38 PM

23. Thank you for saying what needed to be said!

If people knew about the tax vs. premiums, deductibles, co-pays, etc., they would would be far ahead.

It's disgusting that Hillary wants to continue with the propaganda. What a horrible candidate. What a horrible person to have as a leader to fight for progressive causes and the middle class.

What a horrible person all around. She flat out disgusts me now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fantastic Anarchist (Reply #23)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 07:47 PM

31. Does Bernie's bill include

Unemployment benefits and workforce retraining for the hundreds of thousands who work for private insurance providers. Does it include subsidized mortgage and car payments?

Will the displaced workers have first crack at the new government administrative jobs?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LuvLoogie (Reply #31)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 08:10 PM

41. I know that HR 676 does, but that came out of the House under Kucinich

And I do remember hearing Bernie saying that part of the bill was geared toward retraining. As far as subsidized mortgage or car payments, I don't know.

Does the Obamacare cover everyone?

We know the answer to that one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fantastic Anarchist (Reply #41)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 08:28 PM

48. There's money in the ACA to cover more through expanded

Medicaid. The newly elected governor of Louisiana just added a bunch of people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LuvLoogie (Reply #48)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 09:39 PM

54. and Kentucky?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #54)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 10:38 PM

67. The money is there in the ACA for Kentucky as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LuvLoogie (Reply #31)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 09:41 PM

56. Better to lose your job than your life. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TIME TO PANIC (Reply #56)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 10:36 PM

66. Should the people displaced by Bernie's bill get unemployment benefits,

training for a new job, first crack at the new BernieCare jobs? Mortgage and car loan forbearance?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LuvLoogie (Reply #66)

Tue Jan 19, 2016, 11:38 AM

74. First, I know Bernie's proposal is very similar to HR 676.

Go ahead and read all 30 pages for it. It does allow for retraining.

As far as mortgage, we could include that in the bill - I don't see any reason not to. We should compensate these people for transforming health care and covering everyone. The initial costs may be a little high, but that works for everyone, and the system would pay for itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LuvLoogie (Reply #66)

Tue Jan 19, 2016, 12:19 PM

78. Should people die because they can't afford health care?

We are the wealthiest nation in history, we can transition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TIME TO PANIC (Reply #78)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 10:32 PM

80. How long should the displaced insurance workers

Receive unemployment benefits? At what percentage of their previous earnings? Should they get mortgage and loan forbearance or subsidies ? These aren't trick questions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LuvLoogie (Reply #80)

Sun Jan 24, 2016, 01:41 AM

82. I'm sure we can transition. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TIME TO PANIC (Reply #82)

Mon Jan 25, 2016, 10:11 PM

83. You are begging the question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 07:16 PM

3. We pay MORE for LESS of it than any industrial nation.

 

I hear what you're saying. I hear it over and over again.

And we pay MORE for LESS healthcare than any industrial nation.

We're #!1!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wilms (Reply #3)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 07:20 PM

8. The very definition of 'exceptionalism', dontchaknow! eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wilms (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 19, 2016, 12:20 PM

79. The argument is so stupid it makes me sick...

 

This entire argument about paying for healthcare is based on the idea that U.S. costs are necessarily sky high to provide good care. They are not!

The United States health care system is the most expensive in the world, but this report and prior editions consistently show the U.S. underperforms relative to other countries on most dimensions of performance. Among the 11 nations studied in this report—Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States—the U.S. ranks last, as it did in the 2010, 2007, 2006, and 2004 editions of Mirror, Mirror. Most troubling, the U.S. fails to achieve better health outcomes than the other countries, and as shown in the earlier editions, the U.S. is last or near last on dimensions of access, efficiency, and equity.


http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror

Even Cuba with a very, very poorly funded system does better!

Figures from the World Health Organization clearly show that The United States lags behind 36 other countries in overall health system performance ranging from infant mortality, to adult mortality, to life expectancy.

20 countries in Europe and four countries in Asia have a better life expectancy than the U.S. If you are a male between the ages of 15 and 59, your chances of dying are higher in the U.S. (140 per thousand) than in Canada, 95, Costa Rica 127, Chile 134, and Cuba, 138.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blake-fleetwood/cuba-has-better-medical-c_b_19664.html

It is not about needing more money, it's about capitalists sucking the blood out of the populace like the slimey leeches they are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 07:18 PM

5. cut it out

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 07:20 PM

10. Do people like paying thousands of dollars to private insurance companies

to fatten the wallets of their CEOs? When even after paying those premiums they have to use up thousands of dollars in deductibles before the insurance kicks in, plus copays? Good example is a relative of mine: He pays about $700/mo. in premiums, then has a deductible of $10,000 before insurance pays anything. So there's $18,400 down the sewer (or into the insurance company's coffers) before they pay anything at all. It's good for nothing but asset protection in case they have some catastrophic illness. If we got single payer insurance do you seriously think his taxes would go up by $18,400 per year? And even if they did, at least he'd have his medical bills paid. Seems to me that when people figure out that any increase in taxes will be more than offset by not having to pay outrageous premiums to buy new BMWs for insurance executives, and that they will actually get health care, all that libertarian bullshit will go right down the toilet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #10)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 07:22 PM

12. +1000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #10)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 07:25 PM

17. yeah

 

but at least 80 - 85% of those premiums (as a pool) go to medical claims.

The rest go to the insurance company (claims processing, underwriting, salaries, and of course profits). So the actual profits are much less than you imagine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Reply #17)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 07:33 PM

20. Then where is all this money coming from?

http://www.fiercehealthpayer.com/story/top-health-insurance-ceo-pay-exceeds-10-million-2014/2015-04-10

If for-profit health insurance companies aren't gouging individuals and their employers to pay these parasites, where else are these multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses coming from? Bake sales? If we had government-run single-payer, money wouldn't be wasted paying those salaries. That's just one reason single-payer would be cheaper.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #20)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 07:36 PM

21. um...

 

10m is not a lot for a CEO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Reply #21)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 07:39 PM

24. It's too fucking much. And it doesn't include the stock options and bonuses

that are handed out to these parasites like candy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #24)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 07:46 PM

29. +10,000 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #24)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 07:56 PM

35. according to your link

 

that includes the stock options and bonuses.

their base is only about $1m.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Reply #35)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 08:04 PM

39. Still too fucking much.

Whatever it is, there's no reason to be paying big bucks to executives and their minions when the whole thing can be done for a fraction of the cost, like Medicare, with a less than 2% overhead. Private insurers' overhead costs are 20-25%. Why should we be paying that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Reply #21)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 10:17 PM

63. 10 million is heaven sent salvation for 100 families.

It is over two hundred times the median wage of the USA.
It is over four hundred times what I am trying to raise a family of four on.

10million dollars salary is an abomination.
For a person in Healthcare that can't write a prescription? For a person who doesn't add value to the process? For a person who should have no legal standing what so ever in making a decision about someone else's healthcare?

No matter who the CEO is, with over 317 million people in the USA, it is mathematically impossible to not be able to find someone who can do the job better for far less money.

Salaries like that are key indicators of over priced products and ripped off stock holders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Reply #17)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 07:43 PM

27. Under single-payer ...

Administrative costs for single-payer is far less than what a multiple-payer system costs. Medicare operates around 1.3%.

So, even with your dubious 80-85% (which assumes honest accounting), your system costs almost 15 to 20 times as much as single-payer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fantastic Anarchist (Reply #27)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 07:53 PM

32. most of your costs are actually

 

in the medical claims paid.

So you cut the overhead. But you still have the medical claims to actually pay out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Reply #32)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 08:06 PM

40. How is Medicare managing with a less than 2% overhead?

Medicare pays medical claims for lots of sick old people and its operating costs are still less than 10% of private insurers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #40)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 08:10 PM

42. well

 

sick old people have much higher claims per person while private insurers have to deal with much smaller claims. So there's one distortion there.

Medicare doesn't need underwriting (everyone is covered according to statutory requirements), marketing, payment collection (done by the IRS), etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Reply #42)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 08:19 PM

46. You made my point for me.

Single payer wouldn't need underwriting, marketing or payment collection either. Another reason it would be cheaper.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #46)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 08:24 PM

47. sure you can save on that

 

but the bulk of your costs are still medical claims

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Reply #47)

Tue Jan 19, 2016, 11:34 AM

73. Which are still cheaper overall.

Especially with the risk pool spread out among a healthier population.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fantastic Anarchist (Reply #27)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 08:11 PM

43. nope

Medicare is 3, private insurance is 20. that is less than 7 times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #43)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 08:16 PM

44. No, Medicare is 1.3%

But even for the sake of argument, private insurance costs 7 times as much as single-payer.

Thank you for making my argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Reply #17)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 07:47 PM

30. Now who is naive?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #10)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 09:43 PM

57. He does not pay 18K a year

 

Annual checkup and other medical appointments are not part of the deductible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 07:23 PM

13. no. we already pay more for health care than single payer would cost.

Single payer is a SAVINGS.

Why can't you understand that?

The REAL reason we can't have single payer is exactly as stated by Sanders said: the vested moneyed interests own the politicians.

Why can't you understand that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 07:23 PM

14. The only one I have heard say they don't want to pay for it is you.

Most of us realize it will be far cheaper, fairer and better than what we currently have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Live and Learn (Reply #14)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 07:26 PM

18. answer my three questions please

 

I've pointed out three blocs of people who would rather not pay for other people's health care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Reply #18)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 07:31 PM

19. Do they complain about social security?

Nope. Because everyone needs it eventually.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shawn703 (Reply #19)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 07:40 PM

25. I'm getting Social Security and Medicare and I am sure as hell not complaining.

Everyone should get Medicare.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Reply #18)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 07:40 PM

26. Why don't you post your sources first since your questions are suspect?

But here are some advance answers.

Single payer will only work nationwide not statewide.

From what I have read, 'the invincibles' as you call them, have been some of the major beneficiaries of the ACA.

What do the Cadillac Tax or the 'invincibles' have to do with single payer? Single payer would eliminate both problems. In effect, we would all have 'Cadillac' insurance and the 'invincibles' would automatically be covered.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Reply #18)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 10:28 PM

65. You have listed three groups of people.

Links to proof they wouldn't support National Single Payer Healthcare.
If you would be so kind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 07:25 PM

15. Yep...that's why were the only civilized nation without it. Just can't figure it out Can't be done

 

We're not No. 1 in anything but milit..., oh wait, maybe that's a clue. We can blast the globe to kingdom come but can't find the funds to provide health care for all. Might as well just go curl up in the corner and hope we don't get sick.

The last sentence with its question provides an answer..."I've got mine, so it sucks to be you." The answer: Americans have no clue other than what the monied interests tell them via the MSM and every other 1% organization and their political leaders to do and say...one exception.

Hmmm. And here are we Good Democrats/Blues...saying it just can't be done. Well, just some of us.

But I do take issue about liberals of which I am a proud member...there are many, many of us who would gladly participate in this health care fix...if someone led. And someone is trying and he is getting support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 07:25 PM

16. 1/2 of the country has insurance through their employer, and many are afraid of change

Maybe they are misinformed, maybe they are selfish... But a lot of people won't want to give up their blue cross or whatever they have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orangepeel (Reply #16)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 07:37 PM

22. With single-payer insurance, employers wouldn't have to pay for

insurance as an employee benefit. The employer typically pays a lot more than the employee, on average about $15,000 for a family. Wouldn't the employee rather have that $15K in their paycheck?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #22)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 08:56 PM

49. That money (at least most of it) will still go to pay for their heathcare

The only way the plan would work is if the employer pays what the currently pay (or less) in taxes rather than as a health care expense. So at least most of it won't go to the employee, it will go to Medicare.

I'm not saying that's bad -- I'm just saying that people who have good health insurance (or think they do) are going to be reluctant to want to give it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 07:54 PM

33. Thank you Newt Gringrich

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 07:55 PM

34. Right, No more taxes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #34)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 08:00 PM

37. I'm pointing out the reality of the country we live in

 

very few people are willing to pay for other people's health care. Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Reply #37)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 09:35 PM

50. You're right, I agree with you,

and people are too foolish to understand 'insurance.'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Reply #37)

Tue Jan 19, 2016, 10:21 AM

71. So you oppose Obamacare, which involves expanded Medicaid, which low income people get for free?

 

Do you also think Americans are upset to be paying for the VA? How about all those Union members with collectively bargained benefits?
In reality, to be pragmatic about it, we have to admit that every single American already helps to pay for other people's health care. They are obviously willing because they already do that. Your entire premise is based on nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 07:57 PM

36. It pains me to agree with you, but I do.

I see I'm pretty much in the minority, too.

I'm not even a Hillary fan but I also don't deny reality.

There's a lot of sucky people in this country, and a lot of them vote.

Just look at those morons camping out at that wildlife refuge in Oregon.

That's what we're up against, folks.

I like Bernie's ideals but I think he's a little short on pragmatism.

That's why I like O'Malley, sigh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MH1 (Reply #36)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 09:47 PM

59. Bernie's pragmatism means better health care for less money.

 

You think our system is too corrupt to handle that?

--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MH1 (Reply #36)

Tue Jan 19, 2016, 10:17 AM

70. Those morons are camped out in a State with expanded Medicaid, automatic voter registration, the

 

least restrictions on abortion rights, LGBT equality, and ERA in the State Constitution, legal marijuana for all over 21 and extra taxes for the very top earners along with no sales tax because that's regressive. That's what the morons are up against.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 08:01 PM

38. I'm Not Tech Savvy Enough To Post Links, But

I did copy this information from Thom Hartmann's Show last Friday when these guess were on. All three guests agreed on the same Healthcare proposal. They also talk about what happened in VT and why it failed. There are 2 parts to this link so if someone can download this as a youtube video I think it will make it simpler. This wasn't just "quickie" discussion, it's very comprehensive and all 3 agreed with each other. He doesn't always have 3 guests who agree like this. I was very impressed by what they had to say, especially the doctor's personal views. THIS does explain pretty clearly WHY Bernie's proposal is the best way to go. If you're unwilling to see a different view from ACA then don't watch, but informed voters SHOULD WANT to see this if for no other reason than to make a fair comparison.

I so wish I could provide the video, much more effective I know... Still I believe this pretty straight forward presented by people who work in Health Care.

Dr. Robert Zarr, Physicians For a National Health Program & Dr. Eric Naumburg, Healthcare Now-Maryland/Physicians for a National Health Program (MD Chapter) & Vijay Das, Public Citizen's Congress Watch. all join Thom. Bernie Sander has proposed expanding Medicare access to all Americans in order to create single payer healthcare here in the US. But is this the only way to create a functional single payer system? And if so - how feasible are they?

For more information on the stories we've covered visit our websites at thomhartmann.com - freespeech.org - and RT.com. You can also watch tonight's show on Hulu - at Hulu.com/THE BIG PICTURE and over at The Big Picture YouTube page. And - be sure to check us out on Facebook and Twitter!

Thom Hartmann Administrator's pictureJan. 15, 2016 6:18 pm
By Thom Hartmann A...
- See more at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/bigpicture/single-payer-showdown-p1-cost-single-payer-health-care#sthash.kZfL2I5h.dpuf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 08:17 PM

45. Single Payer is Less Expensive than What We Have Now

 

We're going to pay for health insurance one way or another. Premiums to private insurance companies or taxes to government agencies. In the U.S. 17 cents out of every dollar spent is spent on health care. In Canada, where they have Medicare for All, it's closer to 11 cents. They cover everyone. We don't. In the U.S., if you lose your job you may also lose the ability to pay the private premiums for your health insurance. Very inconvenient if you should become unemployed while a family member is ill. It's a safe bet that if we had single payer, the vast majority of people would pay less in the additional taxes, than they are currently paying in premiums, And they wouldn't have to pay the premiums anymore. (Or it could cost their employers less if the insurance is a benefit of employment). The only reason this is "too contentious to be debated" is that insurance companies want to make sure it's not discussed. Hillary Clinton is smart enough to understand this, so for her to suggest that it will be costly rather than save money is a deliberate deception. She'll say anything to win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 09:36 PM

52. wrong it is

 

Because our politicians like Hillary are bought and paid for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 09:39 PM

55. Thank Gaia for my IL... n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 09:43 PM

58. Why we don't have single payer? Because private insurance can charge $15K/ yr

That's why. They have an enormous incentive to prevent Medicare for all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 09:49 PM

60. The reason we don't have War, … is because nobody wants to pay for it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 09:50 PM

61. I would gladly pay my share for it

 

Please speak for yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 10:19 PM

64. to follow on your lead ...

The reason they don't want to pay for it is because opponents won't allow a reasoned review of how it's paid for under capitalism.

Hint: it's a grand rip off. Dwarfing even the MIC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Tue Jan 19, 2016, 10:12 AM

69. And the reason we have wars is because some always see a way to pay for that, no matter how costly

 

or pointless that war might be, no matter how unethical.


The most liberal voting blocks are not as you think. Every person in a Union contributes to collective health and benefit plans.

Also, by the by, as a taxpayer each of us already pays for health care for others-Veterans, children, those on Medicaid. Do you and yours also seek to relieve yourselves of that responsibility? Obamacare involved the Medicaid expansion which is in fact us paying for others to have healthcare because those others can not afford it. Do you oppose Obamacare? If not, what are your specific metrics on who you refuse to 'pay for'?

I don't expect an answer because obviously you have not thought this through.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Tue Jan 19, 2016, 10:24 AM

72. Or a middle man wants to be paid for it and has

a lot of money to throw around Capitol Hill to keep it flowing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Tue Jan 19, 2016, 11:40 AM

75. You're right. The American people would rather continue to be ripped off by the insurance companies

and face ever rising health insurance costs than opt for something cheaper where everyone is covered.

I'm sure this makes perfect sense in your world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Tue Jan 19, 2016, 11:40 AM

76. The real reason why we don't have single payer is because

weak Democrats are too much in the pay of the financial interests that benefit from this privatized system. And many Democratic voters fall for pathetic the GOP talking points that are laid out here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 10:36 PM

81. Lol, I love this, all of a sudden the Democrats hate single payer! Nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #81)

Mon Jan 25, 2016, 10:13 PM

84. Brought to you by Hillary, Inc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Mon Jan 25, 2016, 10:17 PM

85. Baloney.

"nobody" wants to fund it means the big corporations and the 1% don't want to fund it. I would be perfectly happy, as would most people who work for a living and most small biz owners, to swap out the big bucks we currently throw to price gouging insurers and put it toward health care for all.

For most Americans it would be a costs savings. For some, it would be a wash. For a few at the top, they would have to pay more, and those are the only voters that the US political system listens to.

BTW, same for "free higher education." That would mean a savings or a wash for most of us b/c the private payments we currently make would be wiped out and replace with (lower) taxes. But the rich don't give a fuck. And they are driving this country's bus.

The Cadillac tax has ZERO to do with single payer. Get educated. The "cadillac tax" is actually a tax that drives people into shittier plans with less coverage. That is the opposite of universal care.
http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/Political-Action-Legislation/Emergency-Physicians-Cadillac-Tax-Leads-Patients-to-Delaying-Necessary-Care

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Mon Jan 25, 2016, 10:19 PM

86. It would save average Americans money but the Insurance Companies own members of Congress.

That is why we don't have it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread