How do you get to "single payer" when the healthcare lobby is writing
the laws and their main objective is to keep their share of the economy growing.
They have already consumed 18% of GDP. If you had a cancerous tumor that big,
you would be on your death bed and so is our economy.
" Limited resources should be distributed based on need, not greed."Wow...straight out of Karl Marx's mouth.
@phantomblade: The other side of your 'waiting list of doom' scenario
is that, to avoid these waiting lists, we must be willing to throw the poor and
needy under a bus to serve our convenience. This, I am unwilling to do, even if
it does mean I have to wait 6 months to see a doctor. Limited resources should
be distributed based on need, not greed.
May you be correct! Let's just save time and do single-payer NOW! :)If "Obamacare will lead to single-payer" was supposed to be a
scary headline, I think it backfired. XD
Rand got it wrong...It wasn't manufacturing...It
Notice the word "socialized" Dan associated with single payer. The
suggestion is that single payer is synonymous with socialized medicine. It
isn't so any more than Medicare is socialized medicine. I use Medicare for
the same private doctors and the same hospital and other medical providers,
whether they are for profit or non profit. Medicare just pays the bills, and it
does it much more efficiently and cost effectively than does any for profit
As long as the federal government is not involved in any way, shape, or form,
(because it's not one of their Constitutional responsibilities) then
individual single-payer health-care systems for the states that want it is fine.
That way, those that don't want it can move to states that don't offer
Ya gotta love a health care system that would not disclose a price and then
charged me $315 to freeze a wart off my finger. And to add to the insult the
greedy 'doctor' likely pays a lower tax rate than I do. Tempted to
just get all my ailments fixed, rack up the bills, then skip town to Costa Rica
forever. So done with this place.
I have no objections to a single-payer system (Medicare has not been the
disaster that conservatives thought it would be in the 1960s). But the Heritage
Foundation, when it came up with the basic design of this program, certainly
didn't worry that a single-payer system was inevitable, nor is this the
case in Massachusetts where this kind of program is functioning fairly well.
@elarue:"Those of us on the left who were disappointed with the ACA
were disappointed because it fell way short - no single payer..."Here's what I see wrong with 'single payer.' The government
makes the payments. Thus, the government decides what the payments will be and
for what. Doctors' salaries will be controlled by some government agency.
Patients' healthcare needs will be decided by some government agency. If
the government decides more services are needed it will raise taxes to pay for
it. If the government decides it can't collect anymore taxes it will
decide, essentially, who shall live and who shall die (i.e., death panels).For some reason, I don't think the government should be in that
sort of business.
"Don't let the comments on this forum be your measuring stick about
public opinion. There are a whole bunch of liberals who spend all day logging in
under a dozen different usernames and "like" all the other comments they
just posted under a different name. " Well I can't disprove this but I
strongly doubt it. "marxist" is my only handle, but then I am not a
liberal. The simple truth is that a whole lot of people are priced out of
health care now, and many a scared of being so.
It is essential that we move to single-payer healthcare.Our society
believes every human life is of utmost value. Thus a baby with a bad heart
receives extraordinary care. As do 95-year-old citizens with Alzheimers. And
the rest of us in between deserve the same. A homeless/jobless/impoverished
person can go into the ER and get necessary treatment. A doctor cannot turn
anyone away.Therefore, we must "level the field" in
healthcare and insure all receive the preventive, regular and corrective care we
need. And we all share the cost.This may mean we cut back on the
excessive defense budget. But, that time has come, too.
We are 17 trillion in debt. How are we going to pay for this? When has
government ever run anything more efficiently than the private sector? It was
governmental interference that ran costs up in the first place. Either you
liberals exist on a different planet or you are willing dupes. Either way, that
thumping you are hearing in the back ground is our founding fathers rolling over
in their collective graves. Take it from someone who has lived under a single
payer system, (Japan) it sucks. It is not the Utopia you think it is. You will
realize that you have ruined the motivation for excellence in health care. You
will see fewer and fewer specialists and the overall quality of doctors will
decline. You have no idea what type of Pandora's box you have opened here.
Unfortunately for all of us, we're about to find out.
I read a mommy blog of a Canadian who lived in a city with a hospital that was
forced not to deliver babies because of socialism. She got checked at her
hospital and then they told her to drive about an hour to the nearest hospital
that could check her in. She lived in Cardston and the nearest baby-delivering
hospital was in Lethbridge. Hundreds of babies were delivered in Cardston
before socialized medicine took hold in Canada. Now, they aren't allowed.
Google it. It is in the news as recent as July 2013, but has been going on for
years.So what if its an emergency birth? The Cardston hospital puts
you in an ambulance headed for Lethbridge. You may deliver in the ambulance or
you may make it to the hospital, but they aren't authorized to deliver
babies at their hospital. It is too expensive for the government to pay for.
I don't think Dan mentioned a couple of things: Additional incentives for
employers to jump out of the coverage business -Insurance
risk....it's not just the premium, but the risk that the healthcare costs
will exceed the premium that many employers currently assume.Additional fees/taxes that employers must pay to the government for the
program....I work for a large regional company and my tiny sliver of the
company's business (about 9%) will be funding over $20 Million in Obamacare
related fees next year alone.So unfortunately, as much as I wish
that Roland's assumption was correction...obamacare will not create an
additional windfall for companies...many will simply need to get out of insuring
their employees simply to keep their financial noses above water.
The difference, oftimes, between a prosperous family who has everything -- home,
cars, vacations, college saving accounts, 401K money, all necessities and most
luxuries -- and a family living a poor existence -- struggling every moment to
stay ahead of all the medical bills and bill collectors -- is that the poor
family has a child born with handicaps, birth injuries, or genetic illness.
Income, hard work, integrity all the same, but they had an unhealthy child born
into their family. Despite all the safeguards we believe are inherent in our
system, legitimate healthcare bankrupts many.Insurance companies add
zero value to our healthcare system -- they are parasites who suck billions in
resources from the system annually.Visiting aliens would leave our
planet, unable to find intelligent life, if they examined our system of
healthcare.In reality, most Canadians are very satisfied with their
system. As a society, they spend about half of what we spend,and have better
outcomes in many areas of care.
@Archie1954, Mcclark and Madness7,We are just concerned that a great
healthcare system will be overburdened and become another government run debacle
with waste, fraud and less quality service.Love how Saskatoon has a
waiting list for emergency beds today? 55 very sick people can't even get a
bed. Great care right there.
The full savings to the nation for healthcare costs will not be realized until
the universal plan is in effect. The current Obama Care is a hybrid that still
costs too much. It was simply the only way the beginnings of a universal
healthcare regime could get through the Congress. Republicans are just too tied
to their insurance corporate benefactors to actually do what is right for the
Madness---My Canadian relatives think we are nuts down here. They wonder where
all the horror stories come from. I tell them lying politicians. It is too bad
so many are gullible enough to believe them.
Ask our friends across the border in Canada. They love (97% approval)
Canada's single payer health system and can't understand the
controversy in the US. Canadian businessmen are particular advocates of the
single payer system.A few previous posts here have mentioned, in a
disapproving tone, of all the 'freeloaders' who would be getting
health care that 'we' pay for. Do such posters not understand that we
currently pay for healthcare for those who can't pay? It's just more
expensive via the ER.
@winglish - what "unregulated private sector" are you talking about? Is
that in some other country other than the US... because we surely don't
have an unregulated market. In fact, we have 50 separate regulated markets.Then there is this flash back to the discussion on American
Exceptionalism - or how it has become twisted in this quote "No thanks, we
left Great Britain a long time ago and became the leader of the free world in
every facet of human growth and progress. "Really.... we
don't lead in mortality rates. There are all kinds of metrics we
don't lead in... but lets not go down that rate hole. The idea that there
are no good ideas out in the world that are worth copying is juvenile. Its time
to grow up and realize that there are smart people all over the world, and we
would be stupid not to leverage great ideas, even if we didn't think of it
first.Obamacare as written might not be the best answer possible...
but no one is putting anything elser forward. Until then... stop complaining
and start doing.
Please be correct, Dan. The Obamacare health insurance prices are sooooo much
cheaper than what insurance is going for in the unregulated private sector!
People don't understand what the government system does to service. I would
suggest you look at Canada's system. The last audit I checked on their
showed that they had met their goal of 80% customer service. What that meant was
that if you needed, say, a knee replacement you had an 80% chance that you would
get the surgery within 24 months. Compare that to getting the operation here in
the US within a week or two of diagnosis. Also the Canadian program delays some
services until you are judged "sick enough" to receive them. I recently
spent a trip with a Canadian who's wife died of cancer. He was adamant that
wait imposed by the Canadian system is what killed her. That if she had been
given care at first discovery she could have been saved. It will be entertaining
to see who gets immediate service here in the US with the IRS managing the purse
strings. No medical for Tea Party members.
@2 bitsOh geez this is getting silly, because you watched a
programme on TV you are able to say that all UK doctors are from India???? Four
of my friends are GP's and they certainly are not Indian. Indians come for
training because the UK offers a good western medical training. The doctors you
see on TV will be earning exactly the same as British doctors because they would
need residency. Oh and its not ER its called A&E.Also brilliant
casual racism there, "who wants Indian doctors!!!!!, oh nothing against
Indians though", almost like someone telling racist comments and claming at
the end that they "have black friends".Oh and another thing,
are you claiming you dont have doctors from other countries in the States? My
own experiences over there shows otherwise.
@JoeCapitalist2"There are lots of us out here who have serious
concerns about Obamacare and other "big government" programs. We just
have jobs during the day (and a part-time one at night)."...so
true, because without us there can be no transfer of wealth - and Obama and his
worshippers will die on the vine.(funny how the lib posters must
feel like their contribution to society is to blog, comment or "like"
comments that support their lifestyle)
UT Brit: Actually I don't have any problem when anything is done according
to the Constitution without violating it. It's obvious that the
constitution doesn't mean much to you, which isn't surprising since
you happen to be from Europe, that bastion of economic freedom--not! No thanks,
we left Great Britain a long time ago and became the leader of the free world in
every facet of human growth and progress. Britain may not even exist in another
ten years at the rate it is going. Of course, that doesn't stop many, like
you, from implementing the failed polices that made Great Britain, once a great
country, a mouse on the same treadmill as third world countries. No thanks.
America is different, even if many of its citizens have been temporarily blinded
by Socialism and Fascist ideaologies, including Obamacare.
To "docport1" saying that Medicare operates witha 5% overhead rate is
like saying the billing department for any major company runs at a 5% overhead
rate. You ignore the fact that there is considerable cost to collect the
Medicare taxes. Right now the government run 20% to 30% overhead. Compare that
to the 15% to 20% that private insurances run for overhead PLUS profit.Now, we can go into the fraud that is rampant in Medicare. Did you know that
Medicare loses 2 times as much money to fraud than all private insurance
companies combined, while insuring half as many as private companies? That
means that per insured person, Medicare loses 4 times as much as private
companies.So, tell us why should we let government take over health
insurance when they have higher overhead rates and lose more money to fraud?
@RedshirtI got my numbers from a Health Cover UK Market Report dated
July 2013. Think mine is a bit more accurate than yours. Take a look at
what private insurance companies (like BUPA) exclude from treating. Also take
note that if anything goes wrong with a private operation you will be put
straight onto the NHS.Private health insurance is mostly used to top up
existing NHS services. 8% of the population have private health insurance
policies. So you are trying to argue that because 8% of the population (most of
which will be topping up NHS services) sometimes use private doctors (trained on
the NHS), somehow means the NHS is a failure? The NHS remains very popular in
this country, there would be riots if it was scrapped.You did not
answer my question as well, how long have you spent living in the UK Redshirt?
Does your knowledge of the NHS match up to mine, my extended family and everyone
Maybe if we can get Universal Healthcare, and the government can control what
care you can get, and what they will pay doctors... We can have long waiting
periods for needed procedures, and hospitals that can only afford to hire
doctors from India (who are willing to work for less) like the UK. I watch
those ER shows from the UK a lot and it seems like ALL their doctors are from
India. Is the UK population really predominately Indian and middle eastern?
I can't wait!Nothing against people from India...
they are great people.
Are you saying that is a problem?
Single payer? Great! Medicare is single payer. It's not socialized and it
works at a 5% overhead unlike the 15-30% in the private sector. Bring it on.
To "elarue" Romneycare was a failure too. However, there is a huge
difference. The original Romneycare bill ws 2 pages. If the federal program
was modeled after that, why did it take 2700 pages?Lets see about
the "success" of Romneycare.From NY Times "Massachusetts
in Suit Over Cost of Universal Care" there we find that hospitals are
running deficits because of Medicaid reimbursement rates that were lowered.From Washington Times "Romney-fication of health care reform"
there we find that along with Romneycare came a bump up in the cost of
insurance.There are many articles out there that point out the
failures of Romneycare. Everything from raising the cost of insurance, to
budget problems, to doctor shortages.Knowing that Romneycare failed
on so many fronts, why support a national system modeled after a failing state
@Yorkshire "Guess from the first few of the comments that I'm one of
the FEW who is worried about all this Obamalove."Don't let
the comments on this forum be your measuring stick about public opinion. There
are a whole bunch of liberals who spend all day logging in under a dozen
different usernames and "like" all the other comments they just posted
under a different name. It gives the impression that there are more of them and
that their opinions are more popular than they really are.There are
lots of us out here who have serious concerns about Obamacare and other "big
government" programs. We just have jobs during the day (and a part-time one
And folks the hospital crowding in Saskatoon, a larger Canadian city, was for
EMERGENCY bed space.
Just a little north of the border news from Saskatchewan, Canada. Birthplace of
North American single payer government health care.Google
"Hospital crowding could lead to tough decisions" from the Saskatoon
Star-Phoenix news paper today.Saskatchewan was the first government
body to implement state run health care.Just a sign of things to
Oh, and let's not forget that much of Obamacare was actually modeled after
Romneycare. Why? Obama was trying to get something Republicans would sign
onto. Of course, that didn't work, because this time, it had Obama's
name on it (if Obama supports it, it must be an evil socialist plot, right?) So
while those of you on the right take a moment to look in the mirror, I will go
back to pushing for single payer, thank you. :-)
When has government ever been more efficient than the business sector in
administering anything? Those who think that big government will do even an
adequate job of administering health care are fooling themselves. This will just
turn into another entitlement program that will bankrupt the US a little sooner.
Here come the death panels and you can't do anything about it.
To "elarue" you are wrong. Just look to England and see what will
happen. With private insurance companies you control those businesses. Under
single payer, you lose control because there is no alternate. They become a
monopoly and will end in abuse of the consumer.Grandma may not get
the hip replacement. If you smoke, eventually they will deny treatments for
you. Hospitals will get over crowded because once they control the payment for
medical procedures, they will then control how many hospitals are located in
your area.The single payer systems end up denying care for the
elderly because the elderly won't be returning to work and paying into th
system. They create "end of life" plans.Democrats are not
interested in "preserving" families. They are interested in control.
Wow. It seems that a lot of people have no idea how bad healthcare can be in
single-payer areas of the world. Or they approve of health care being difficult
to access by the elderly and infirm, overwhelmed hospitals, etc. It is
surprising how many folks don't do their homework. Maybe I am fortunate to
know personal experiences of people living in other countries (Mainly Europe and
Canada). Dan has a valid concern for those of us who know the negative aspects
of 'single-payer' systems.
"Maybe you suggest we just pay the greedy doctors and evil drug companies
less and don't let hospitals make any money? That will work for a few
months until drug companies go out or business, hospitals close (as many have
already in big cities filled with non-paying patients) and doctors get new jobs
that pay better."If that were to happen, it would have happened
in both Great Britain and Canada by now. But they still have doctors, and their
doctors are still able to buy nice houses and nice cars and provide well for
their family. This is just another right wing myth, easily disproved.
To "UT Brit" I don't know where you are getting your info from, but
according to "Private health insurance takes a dive" in the GUardian
from 2010, the 3 previous years saw an average growth rate of 31% for dental
plans, and and in 2006 medical plans grew 31%, 2007 they grew another 10%, 2008
they grew another 1.5%. The article cites that the only reason why there was a
contraction was because of the recession, not because people think the NHS is
great.So again, if the NHS is so great, why is it that the private
insurance businesses are able to hold onto their subscribers so well even during
a recession when money is tight? Doesn't that indicate that people are
willing to pay more so that they can get proper medical care?
@bandersenThats funny your location says Utah, you must be posting
from Somalia surely? I am glad they have a stable communications infrastrucure
setup now.I hope you also take this approach to the military, roads,
utility infrastructure, emergency services etc.....
The funny thing is how often I hear the health care reform debate, and the
people who compare proposals for single payer in the U.S., not to Canada, the
UK, or France, but to _Russia._Well, let me tell you something. My
wife is Russian. And while I don't have first hand experience with the
Russian health care system, she does. Some people have even been so brazen as
to say to me directly, "You don't want to have health care like your
wife had back in Russia, do you?" But the amazing thing is we've had
plenty of occasions where we've had a billing issue, or waiting in a
doctor's office, or some other problem, where she would say, "This
would never happen in Russia!"Still don't want a system
like they have in Russia? I don't know, it doesn't sound so bad to
Okay, I guess we shouldn't be surprised that the guy who tried to primary
Orrin Hatch, an elder statesman right up there with Richard Lugar (who did get
primaried out this last election) would try to present the move to single-payer
as a boogeyman to be afraid of. But really, all of us who love our families
should be cheering the move to single payer. Those of us on the left who were
disappointed with the ACA were disappointed because it fell way short - no
single payer, no public option, not even Alan Grayson's "Medicare you
pay into" coverage. Honestly, single payer would be a lot better than the
private insurance market, because we would own the people who run it - our
elected officials. And if it's ensuring that the Democrats stay in power,
it's only because the Democrats are more interested in preserving our
families' welfare than the Republicans are. If you don't want a one
party system, then vote Green. :-)
I'm borrowing a comment from another DesNews story today--Just replace
"king" with "socialized government-controlled health care". (all
the other progressive countries do... blah blah blah.)(from) Third
try screen nameMapleton, UT"Once upon a time the chosen
wanted a king. The prophet asked. God said no.Then they said, "All the
sophisticated countries have a king." We should have one, too. The prophet
asked. God again said no.Finally, the chosen people said, "This is
getting embarrassing. We are looked upon as a backward people because we
don't have kings." The prophet asked. God said, "Have it your
way."That turned out to be a bad move.As did the showing of the
manuscript pages...."So many commenters here think we should get
with the program like Sweden or Canada or Switzerland and stop being
backward......and its all going to be rosy and perfect.But its going
to turn out to be a bad idea....
Our current health care system needs an overhaul, for sure. But, single payer,
socialized health care will create changes for the worse, with seniors and
special needs taking the brunt of a bad situation. This is nothing more than a
huge power grab by an over-sized government that will eventually implode, like
where Europe is heading. But, worse, we are losing more of our rights and
The Federal government already borrows 40 cents of every dollar it spends. Now
with the Federal government subsidizing the health care of all these families,
how much more into debt will we go? This is very frightening. We are mortgaging
our children's future.
Guess from the first few of the comments that I'm one of the FEW who is
worried about all this Obamalove. Thought this a very troubling part
of the article:"...employers who do not provide health care
insurance will pay the federal government a “tax” or penalty,
beginning in 2015, of up to $2,000 per employee.Employers, whose finance
personnel are usually pretty good at math, are realizing that they can save a
bunch of money if they (1) stop providing health care to their employees, (2)
push their employees to the federal insurance exchanges, and (3) pay the per
employee “tax.”"THAT SOUND you hear now is big
companies (who currently provide insurance to employees) collectively chuckling,
licking their lips, rubbing their hands together and lacing up their tennies to
race to be the first one to sign up to pay the $2000 fine................
My single payer plan:36. Institute a 3% National Sales Tax (NST) with NO
exceptions for resale, charity, non-profits, religious, education, or
government. The many cannot be continually supported by the diminishing few. A
3% NST may raise up to $7 Trillion annually, double the current budget, reduce
national debt, spread tax burden to all residents, legal or not. Allocation: the
1st 1% toward Budget, the 2nd 1% toward debt reduction, the 3rd 1% for Universal
Medicare for all legal residents.37. Dedicate first 1% NST to
Universal Medicare to automatically eliminate most State Medicaid benefit
requirements, costs, and overhead. State Medicaid mandated costs are virtually
eliminated, reducing State budget shortfalls and tax requirements.38. According to a 7/6/10 analysis by attorney Lanny Davis published in The
Hill, there were $755 Trillion in total transactions in the U.S. in 2008; $443
Trillion if exempting stock transactions. Accordingly NST on stock market
transactions should be set at 1/2 of 1%, beating the International movement
toward the inevitability of this type of tax. This 1/2% stock market transaction
tax will inhibit the negative and controversial effects of High Frequency
Trading (HFT) that causes artificial volatility.
"All the short-sighted folks cheering for single payer..." DN Subscriber 2 - Nice straw man argument. You assume something based on your
misinformed belief and then create a whole essay refuting that claim. How about assuming this: No one expects a single payer system to be free but
they believe, as has been shown by a single payer system in countless other
countries, that we can provide decent and more than adequate healthcare to
everyone and the delivery of that healthcare will cost all of us less than what
we are paying now. We might also believe (although I am admitting this is my
personal hope) that we as a country will transfer some of the money that now
pays for our vast war machine called the military industrial complex (over $700B
in 2009 compared to $90B spent by China) and use that money to at least
partially pay for the cost of covering all of our citizens with decent
healthcare. We also believe that in taking those measure the general health of
the nation will improve and that will further reduce the cost of a single payer
system. So there's my straw man argument.
To all the 'do-gooder' socialists: Live up to what you espouse! If
you are so absolute about compelling others to live up to your 'kind',
'charitible' means for delivering healthcare,i.e. compelling everyone
to live by your theft,then show us first. Give all that you have to the
government first, before asking others. Isn't that what the good book
says, 'Do unto others... Stand by the principles you espouse. Give up
your capitalistic income to your dear sweet government first. Hypocrisy is a
difficult thing to push out of the way. Put your full names down, addresses,
and your organization. Come on, live up to your principles!
@RedShirtPrivate insurance grew 1.1 percent this year following
contractions of 8% the previous 4 years. Where are you getting your "massive
growth" numbers from? Urgent surgeries are done urgently. I have no cap on
the amount of times I can see a doctor and I have never not got same day
appointments to see a GP. How long have you lived in the UK Redshirt?@Snack PACI have never seen a beaurocrat in my meetings with a
doctor, surgeon or specialist.Luckily in the States you dont have things
like insurance companies imposing lifetime caps and excluding people due to pre
exisiting conditions right?Why do 10 times the amount of people
leave the US to get health care in other countries than those coming in?@glendenbgTechnically GPs are self employed, they contract
out to the government.@ute alumniWhere are you getting
your 100K number from? The last study conducted said 0.5% of the Canadian
responders went to the US for healthcare. 25% of that 0.5% only went for the
express purpose of being treated in the US.
A new study on Canadian healthcare has been released. In it, the authors examine
the deleterious effects of socialized medicine on patient wait times and the
delivery of care. It offers Americans a revealing glimpse of the future economic
implications of Obamacare. The survey of specialists reveals that
Canadians are now waiting 17.7 weeks between the referral to a specialist and
the delivery of treatment. In essence, wait times in Canada have
doubled in the past 20 years. Sadly, the rationing of care that results in
lengthy wait times for patients is a predictable consequence of government
interference in the medical system. Currently, Canadians are
awaiting an estimated 870,462 procedures. Life on a waiting list isn’t
pretty. It involves living in a state of poorer health, in constant fear that
treatment will come too late, increased suffering and lower quality of life, and
financial and economic loss. Some patients even die without treatment. Others
will travel in search of health care. In fact, an estimated 0.9 percent of
patients left the country in 2012 in preference for treatment outside of Canada.
@phantomblade:When your name, or the name of a loved one, is added to a
waiting list for urgent surgery and they tell you it'll be at least six
months to a year before they can get to you, and you feel that sinking feeling
that you, or your loved one, may not be able to last that long, remember to
thank Obamacare."With the government in more and more of control
of Americans' lives someone has to get the short end of the stick. Under
government controlled healthcare (which Obamacare is leading to) it will be the
elderly who have lived past their useful years. It could even reach to the
handicapped who can't contribute to society. Where have we seen this
scenario played out before?This move toward Obamacare and eventually
single payer, government-controlled healthcare we will be putting ourselves in
the hands of government. And if the government gets powerful and corrupt as
governments can and do, we will all eventually be sad and sorry. Our very
prescient Founding Fathers envisioned this when they created the US Constitution
which they designed to limit federal government power and control.
I love the completely unfounded and anecdotal speculation that employers will
simply end offering insurance, or that businesses will simply fire all their FT
employees. Please! Businesses, good businesses recruit good employees. If the
economy is remotely decent, its and arms race. You want the best to come work
for you? You offer them Full time, good pay plus benefits! If you don't,
you'll die on the vine or you'll attract the not-so-best in the field.
That's the free market!
azreader1 - you give me all kinds of giggles. You actually think that the
United Health Care, Blue Cross Blue Shields of the world are just letting
doctors charge what they want? That the insurance companies are worried about
the standard of living that doctors enjoy.I have to burst your
bubble, but they all work on margin, and minimizing their expenses - aka
payouts to providers - is a chief way they try to increase their profits.
Please don't tell me you think the share holders of Intermountain Health
aren't all about making money, minimizing expense.This other
world you all have created where insurance companies don't prescribe what
treatments they will pay doctors for is some relic of a bad leave it to beaver
world. If you actually knew the industry, you would understand how lowering
the pool of un - or under insured reduces cost at the individual level - because
the cost of treating the uninsured doesn't vaporize.....it is baked in the
cost of every doctors appointment you make.Let the doctors go get
regular jobs if they think they can make more elsewhere, let them.
@wrz Phoenix, AZObama has already told us how it will work...
he told us 'if you're old and need some serious healthcare like heart
stents forget it, just go home and take a painkiller.'10:23 p.m.
Sept. 26, 2013====== I think you just making stuff up
now.I'm afraid I'm gonna have to call you on this one wrz
-- quote your source. -->BTW - the closest thing I found
to any sort of reality was 2 major medical studies conducted since 2007 which
showed that many heart stents were unnecessary and actually increased the risk
of heart attacks, while drug therapy would have been the better and safer
Re:Cinncinatus1) In 1978, the Canadian Supreme Court limited damages
for pain and suffering. Adjusted for inflation, the cap now is just over
$300,000. Several states, like CA, have similar caps.2) Instead of
buying insurance from a for-profit company, as most U.S. doctors do, Canadian
physicians are covered through their membership in the nonprofit Canadian
Medical Protective Association.3)Membership fees vary only by the
type of work and region of the country. All neurosurgeons in Ontario, for
example, pay the same amount regardless of how many times each may have been hit
with a claim.4) Moreover, the association provides legal counsel for
doctors who are sued and pays the damages, no matter how much.But
malpractice lawsuits account for less than 1% of the U.S. health care tab. The
same is true in Canada.Canadian law firms, unlike U.S. firms, often
require plaintiffs to pay for an initial investigation to determine whether the
claim has merit. That cost discourages many people from pursuing a lawsuit.The CBO estimated torrt reform would save $54 billion over 10 yrs., and
a public option would save $115 billion over 10 yrs.
@louie:"The Swiss have had a highly regulated program utilizing
private insurance companies for years."Obama didn't need
16,000 pages document (bill plus implementation regs) to bring healthcare to
citizens who don't have it. All he and Congress needed to do was expand
Medicare/Medicaid to all. Can be done on about 10 sheets of paper.@marxist:"All of which goes to prove, Dan, that capitalism as we
know it cannot deliver health care to a huge chunk of our citizenry."That's why Obamacare will bring the US another step closer to
socialism... where the government controls all aspects of citizens' lives.
As the saying goes, 'you can't have your cake (freedom) and eat it
too.'@Open Minded Mormon:"FOR Profit Insurance
Corporations should never have the final say deciding who should live and who
should die..."You will soon find it will be the government who
decides who will live and who will die with Obamacare. Obama has already told
us how it will work... he told us 'if you're old and need some serious
healthcare like heart stents forget it, just go home and take a
@the truthThere's more to it than that. While that $199 eye
surgery MAY be somewhat subsidized, under the Canadian system, they are
certainly not subsidizing and additional $4300 worth.That's
because within the Canadian system, with single payer, you don't have
CEO's and other insurance executives raking millions of dollars in
compensation, you don't have individual and institutional investors
expecting the insurance companies to squeeze out every cent in profit to pay out
in dividends. Much like the cheaper drugs available in Canada,
medical equipment is also cheaper, meaning less costs passed on to patients.Their laws on malpractice and other types of torts are different than
ours and limit monetary damages, thus bringing down malpractice insurance
considerably.There is a lot built into the cost of the $4500 eye
surgery in the US, that isn't built into the Canadian system.
All the short-sighted folks cheering for single payer seem to think that
translates into "FREE healthcare." Well, you may not pay at the door,
but someone will have to pay at tax time. Of course, with 47% not paying any
income taxes, 47% of the people think this is just great.However,
our country is bankrupt and nearly $17 Trillion in debt already, so there is no
money to pay for any healthcare. (Medicare and Medicaid are deeply in debt as
well). Maybe you suggest we just pay the greedy doctors and evil
drug companies less and don't let hospitals make any money? That will work
for a few months until drug companies go out or business, hospitals close (as
many have already in big cities filled with non-paying patients) and doctors get
new jobs that pay better.Be careful of what you wish for. But,
please do come back and tell us 10 years from now how much better single payer
is, and how much shorter the wait is and how much better the care is.Obama is destroying this great country's foundations one at a time.
"I hope he fails" was a desperate wish, unfufilled.
@bandersenGlad I read your comment - you said exactly what I would
say.I can only hope for future generations that will have become subjects
of the bondage created by power-hungry socialist ideology.
@azreader1tucson, AZWow, the socialists are coming out of the
woodwork. I'm not a socialist, and I don't want to live in a country
run on socialist principles, including a government-run health care system.6:48 p.m. Sept. 26, 2013======= Wow, Then I
guess you live by yourself on an island, because FAMILIES and Civilizations are
Socialist.But, this is America.You are always free to go live
as a recluse in a cabin, in the woods, grow your own food, hunt your own meat,
live or die, not pay any taxes and nobody will bother you -- even the Federal
Government will leave you alone. honest.Ted Kaczynski would even
still be there today, if he hadn't decided to start mailing bombs to
Be careful what you wish for because it looks like you are going to get it.We are going to really enjoy paying for all the baby boomers as the
workforce shrinks.All you looters are in for a big surprise.Thanks Obama.
We can only hope. The employer-based system certainly wasn't working.
Leaving American's health care and financial future to the whims of your
boss' decision to provide health care was such an untenable proposition,
I'm surprised it lasted as long as it had. I warned the medical industry
that if they keep over-charging their patients, the good times will end for them
at some point. I know some would argue that there will be waiting lists in a
single payer system, but when you have a parent who was unable to even purchase
insurance because she had heart surgery (to repair a hole in the heart) when she
was 15, you see things a little differently. I would rather wait in a line than
be denied a spot in the line. The individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act
(Obamacare) was designed by the American Heritage Foundation under Newt
Gingrich, to be an alternative to the single-payer system. You would think that
Republicans would embrace it and work on legislation to make it better rather
than throw a tantrum over their own idea and then push us towards a single payer
system. They make no sense.
Some above applaud that Obomacare will lead to a single payer system.
Here's why we should be careful applauding such an outcome.If
Obamacare leads to single-payer health care system ---> A Single-payer
health care system eliminates competition in the marketplace ---> The
absences of competition degrades the quality of products and services provided
in any industry.Nobody should seek inferior products/services for
the same price and thus we should seek to avoid the single-payer system which
I've shown above leads to exactly that outcome.
@UtahBlueDevil, "Medicare isn't single payer.... and it seems to work
reasonable well..."Really? You obviously don't know anyone
in the health care profession because the declining medicare reimbursement rates
are quickly undermining the medical profession and will radically change (and
not for the better) how medical service is provided in this country. You
can't keep squeezing the doctors' incomes and expect them to stay in
the game. It just isn't going to happen, no matter how "hopeful"
anyone in favor of this atrocity (socialized medicine) is.
@zareader1"I'm not a socialist, and I don't want to
live in a country run on socialist principles, including a government-run health
care system."Well, I'm not a conservative, and I don't
want to live in a country where people die or are bankrupted because of medical
needs. Please remember where the ideas for this "socialist"
Obamacare came from. Let me clue you in - it was from the liberals.....
Liberty has been almost dealt a death blow. The rich, the powerful, and the
Kingmen won out today. The poor, the powerless, and the common man lost. All
have been 'played' by the Democrats and the Republicans. The kingmen
are all laughing at the loss of liberty and the theft of 'choice' by
the lazy, the irresponsible, and the entitlement generation. The delusion of
getting something for nothing just won a big victory. It's all free, with
no consequences! You can live your life without having to be moral, thrifty, or
responsible. The con job has almost been made complete. The Kingmen and
Gadiantons are protected in their Washington D.C. cocoon, supported by an amoral
media and a passive and undisciplined electorate. How convenient for them.
@the truth"But then again liberals are all about forcing, and
leaching off, others to take care of them, no personal responsibility."Sounds like private health insurance, which you apparently know nothing
about. I pay for health insurance, and use far less than I pay in.
That's how it works. Some people use more, some people use less.
Insurance companies make billions using that model.
maybe it will..... but that will be the outcome of two factions not working well
together on a real solution. If that happens, it will be because partisanship
trumped solution finding. Neither side is doing all it can.... and both should
be held responsible. Medicare isn't single payer.... and it seems to work
reasonable well... I think we will end up with a like voucher system where we
pick our private provider.
Wow, the socialists are coming out of the woodwork. I'm not a socialist,
and I don't want to live in a country run on socialist principles,
including a government-run health care system.
lds lib,adios. 100k plus Canadians get treatment in the US.
@LDS LiberalIf they are only paying $199,That only means
hard working Canadians were forced to pay the other 4300 for them through taxes
and what not.sounds like the people you know are leaches. But then again liberals are all about forcing, and leaching off, others to
take care of them, no personal responsibility.The funny thing is, if
the horrendous monstrosity of obamacare is allowed to go forward, your liberal
leachy friends will no longer have any place to go
"Medical tourism" refers to traveling to another country for medical
care. It's estimated that up to 750,000 US residents travel abroad for care
each year. ======== Kobe BryantAlex RodriguezRush Limbaugh promised to go Costa Rica for his medical treatment [it must
also include the Viagra]I know of a least a dozen friends I knew
back in Seattle who went to Vancouver BC for LASIK eye surgery.$199 cash
US for both eyes.The same procedure, same machines, and same Doctors
60 miles south here in the United States -- $2,000 to $4,500 for both eyes.Even with one of the best Insurance policies in America -- It was
still cheaper to hop the border, stay at a nice hotel, enjoy a relaxing
mini-vacation AND get great healthcare.We also used to watch
CharterBus after CharterBus filled with SeniorCitizens going on "drug
runs" over the border to Canada. Prescriptions filled - pennies on the US
dollar. Basically a free vacation and coming home with cash left over.So, I don't need a radio talk show or politician to tell me the
truth.I search it out, discover it, and witness it for myself.
A single payer system is not the same as a socialized system.The UK
has a socialized system in which the hospitals and clinics are owned by the
government, the doctors, nurses, techs, and other staffers are government
employees. Canada has a single payer system in which provincial
governments pay the insurance bills but the hospitals and clinics are not owned
by the government. Each provincial system is a littler different, some are more
generous than others. Most OECD nations have some form of universal
health care - from single payer to managed competition to government run
systems. Those nations have superior health care outcomes to the US.No system is perfect and every system will have problems. It's a matter
of which set of problems we prefer to manage. Our system leaves 1 in 6
Americans without healthcare. Other systems guarantee a minimum level of care to
everyone while limiting access to some forms of care because they extremely
expensive or aren't considered effective. It's not about finding a
perfect system, it's about finding a system whose shortcomings can be
predicted and managed.
Did Rush or Glen or Sean just sign off the air for today? There seems to be a
sudden spurt in echoes of their nonsense popping up here.
‘Dan Liljenquist: Obamacare will lead to single-payer health
care’======== If this is a platform Dan
Liljenquist is taking, He can count on my support AND my vote!
At least some Democrats are now a little more open about wanting a Socialist
Healthcare System in the United States. At least they aren't hiding
anymore.When they come right out and say what they want... most
Americans know we don't want to follow the Socialist nations, and they
rally and defeat it... From Harry S Trueman in 1947 to the last attempt
(HillaryCare) in 1993.Google "17 arguments against Socialized
Medicine" if you want something to think about.We have a good
number of budding socialists in America today. I don't know if they think
they just came up with this idea and they are so intellectually advanced that
traditional Americans can't comprehend what they are trying to do... or if
they just don't realize that Socialism has already been tried numerous
times throughout history... and always failed leaving the population in poverty
and the gov bureaucrats living in mansions (paid for by your tax dollars).
Open Minded Mormon,Canadians pay a LOT more than $30 for their
healthcare. They pay most of it in Taxes. And they don't all like it.
My parents served a mission there and said everybody complained about the
government and especially the lottery for medical treatment.I
don't know of any rich people who fly to places like Germany and France for
their medical procedures. Can you give us some examples? Because I can give
you numerous examples of foreign millionaires, Sheiks, and Presidents who have
flown to the USA for advanced medial treatment.I think there are a
LOT more flying to the USA for treatment than fly to France or Germany.I've heard of some desperate people going to Germany, but not because
they had better facilities, procedures, or doctors. They went because they will
perform experimental procedures there that don't have FDA approval in the
USA (Dang Government bureaucrats)!
To "Open Minded Mormon" actually they don't. According to
"Soaring costs force Canada to reassess health model" at Reuters 40% of
the province budget goes to healthcare. If they are paying an average of 20% on
their income taxes, then another 10% sales tax, that means that the average
Canadian, who makes about $40,000/yr is paying at least $3200/yr for healthcare,
assuming they buy nothing, but most likely pay $4800/yr for insurance out of
their pocket. That means that they pay $400/month for care that has them wait
for surgeries.In Canada and England people cant get the surgeries
they NEED, the studies don't look at what people want. That is unless you
consider people wanting to live unnecessary.So, let me get this
straight, you like the Canadian system because after paying $400/month in taxes
that go for healthcare, they then get to pay an additional $30 for healthcare.
Unless they make more than average, then they pay even more. You also like the
fact that wanting to live is not a need for people that need surgery, and you
don't mind unnecessary deaths on waiting lists.
Open Minded Mormon"Because Canadians only pay $30 for their
fully Comprehensive Healthcare. You see, they don't have FOR profit
Insurance Company middle men taking their generous slice of the economic pie
doling out.]"Don't kid yourself - there will be plenty of
inefficient government bureaucrats taking their generous slice of the pie."In nations like Canada or England -- Surgeries are based on NEED,
not WANT. In America - he who has the most gold, waits the least regardless of
the threat of life. Is that fair?]"Unfortunately, it'll be
a government bureaucrat, not you and your physician, who decides what you
NEED.Now a question for you:If those socialist
healthcare programs are so great, why do hundreds of their citizens arrive every
day in the United States to pay for surgeries out of their own pocket?
In my adult lifetime I've had two different types of health insurance for
me and my family. I've had military medical, which covered me, my wife,
and my daughter. It paid 100% of my family's medical needs in
government-run hospitals, even when overseas. We never had a problem, never had
any waits for medical procedures, never had issues, ever. Fast
forward to several years and a new job with a private health insurance company.
Every procedure has to be approved. Every hospitalization has to be
pre-authorized. Every emergency room visit has a horrendous co-pay, and
"expensive" procedures have to go before a "board" for approval.
Hospitalizations are cut short against doctor wishes because insurance refuses
to pay for more time. Yes, all of these listed things have happened to my
family.Which one do you think I like better?
@RedShirt USS Enterprise, UTFor those of you that want a
single payer system tell us why.[Because Canadians only pay $30 for their
fully Comprehensive Healthcare. You see, they don't have FOR profit
Insurance Company middle men taking their generous slice of the economic pie
doling out.]In the nations like Canada or England that have single
payer systems, surgeries are delayed, so people either die while waiting or else
they live in pain until their number comes up.[In nations like
Canada or England -- Surgeries are based on NEED, not WANT. In America - he who
has the most gold, waits the least regardless of the threat of life. Is that
fair?]BTW -- My US Military Healthcare was the best Socialized
Medical care I've ever had.Now I have a question for YOU Red,
If those "Socialist" healthcare programs are so archaic and
horrible, why do the richest Americans - who can afford only the best money can
buy -- fly to places Germany and France for their medical procedures?
Good. We should have went there first.
And the sad thing is all the liberal house slaves are going to turn a blind eye
to every atrocity that will be coming. These Government workers and
Authoritarian Democrats think they are apart of a winning team. They are on a
total power trip and are drooling at the idea that we are all going to be their
dependant subjects. What they don't know is that they are going to be
discarded once they out live their usefulness to the International Banking
cartel,but that scenario is based on the idea that nobody is going to resist and
take their country back.
For those of you that want a single payer system tell us why.In the
nations like Canada or England that have single payer systems, surgeries are
delayed, so people either die while waiting or else they live in pain until
their number comes up.In England the growh rate of private insuranc
is huge as the government system collapses in on itself. The government system
can't keep up with the needs of the people, so they are going to private
doctors that have the capabilties to attend to them.In places like
Taiwan people are limited on how many times per year they can see a doctor.The horror stories about the policies that come with single payer
systems should be enough to scare anybody away from them.
It will get everybody dependant on the government and turn them all into slaves.
I say let them implement it. It will lead to a revolution and the destruction of
the cancerous political parties.
In yesterday's Washington Post Matt Miller relayed a conversation he had
with David Beatty - the kind of tough-minded, wealth creator who conservatives
typically cheer, who ran food processing giant Weston Foods and a holding
company called the Gardiner Group during a career that has included service on
more than 30 corporate boards. Over breakfast in Toronto, Beatty told him how
baffled he and Canadian business colleagues are when they listen to the U.S.
health-care debate. He loves Canada's single-payer system for its quality
and cost-effectiveness and for the system's administrative simplicity; you
just show your card at the point of service, and that's it. Though
he's a well-to-do man, Beatty relies on the system just as ordinary
Canadians do, including for a recent knee replacement operation. In
Beatty's view it's just common sense that government takes the lead in
assuring basic health security for its citizens. He wonders why big U.S.
companies want to be in the business of providing health care anyway (it's
a government function, he says simply).
There are two ways of rationing a scarce resource such as healthcare:Price and TimeIf you remove price from the equation, then time
becomes the rationing tool.Ever been to the DMV on a Friday at the
end of the month?That's nothing compared to what waiting in
line at the doctor's office is going to be, and that's only for a
checkup.When your name, or the name of a loved one, is added to a
waiting list for urgent surgery and they tell you it'll be at least six
months to a year before they can get to you, and you feel that sinking feeling
that you, or your loved one, may not be able to last that long, remember to
thank Obamacare.Nightmare scenario? Hardly.
"... until we beg for National (AKA 'Free') Healthcare."Where do people get the idea that "National Healthcare" is free?
At least in the countries I am familiar with, the premiums are deducted from a
person's paycheck, though they might be called a tax or contribution or
something else, rather than a premium. Those with higher incomes pay more, those
with lower incomes pay less. The only case where it would be free is for people
with no income.After all, Medicare isn't free, either. "The
current rate for Medicare is 1.45% for the employer and 1.45% for the employee,
or 2.9% total" (IRS).It would, of course, be better if the rate
for single-payer insurance was adjusted so that when a patient goes in for
treatment or prescriptions there is no deductible to pay.And,
naturally, whether or not you have coverage shouldn't depend on whether
you're employed or otherwise have an income, so those with no income should
be exempt from paying premiums.
If corporations stop offering health insurance to their employees, and dump
them all on Obamacare, the profits of corporations will soar. Ir Republican
economic theory is to be believed, all that extra wealth flowing to the "job
creators" will result in millions of new jobs being created. It could be a
new golden age, (if you believe Republican economic theory).
Dan, it's not nice to tease us like that.
I'll add my voice to the chorus. Let's hope we can adapt the ACA over
the next few years into a single-payer system. Why do we have to be so
"exceptional" in America? We're the only country that is totally
out in left field on health care.
@ Happy Valley Heretic: Many of those who do not support the ACA do not support
it because they want single payer/universal health care.Those who
oppose any government involvement in healthcare often fail to separate those who
oppose the ACA into their respective groups and lump them altogether as
opposition - but if you break the numbers down and really look at it, there is a
lot of support for single payer/universal health care, including many of those
who support the ACA.It is, however, interesting to note that
Liljenquist's conclusion is not a return to pre-ACA health care but an
advancement to single payer. This ads an interesting twist to the ongoing
I am counting on it. It's about time.
I believe this would cause the amount of americans who support ACA to increase
Good. Can we suspend all the stupidity now and just do it?
'Obamacare will lead to single-payer health care’==== I echo many previous statements.Good!The sooner the
better!FOR Profit Insurance Corporations should never have the final
say deciding who should live and who should die --- because to them, they
determine based on best business practices, NOT best medical practices, and
they only see things as what makes them the most PROFIT $$$.
All of which goes to prove, Dan, that capitalism as we know it cannot deliver
health care to a huge chunk of our citizenry. So if they can't
successfully beg for care, they should simply get sick and die?
Most hopeful headline of the week.
Dan gets the "Master of the Obvious" award for today.When
people who didn't have health insurance before find out they still have to
pay for it (and still can't afford it)... they will BEG for "Free
Healthcare" (which doesn't exist, somebody has to pay for it).Once Americans who HAD insurance before see their old policy cancelled and the
new rates... they are going to hate it so bad they will BEG for single-payer
nationalized healthcare.If the COST of healthcare continues to rise,
the RATES for insurance have to rise to pay those bills. That's an
economic fact-of-life.Once you establish federal programs like
these... they immediately become "Essential", and American's who
were once independent become DEPENDENT, and you can NEVER go back. This plan also guarantees Democrats power. Because you can NEVER vote
against the Democrat (because they will keep saying, "If you don't
re-elect me... you will lose your healthcare").It's a great
plan (to guarantee Democrats power).But we are past the
point-of-no-return now. ObamaCare is here to stay... until we beg for National
(AKA "Free") Healthcare.
swiss? 16 hospitals, US 20K plus hospitals. seems like a good comparison
Wonderful news, Dan. Thanks.
ever heard of IHC? Indian Health Care? the feds can't handle 3.5 MM
indian's health care and you expect them to be successful with 350 MM
americans? keep dreaming about change.....that all obama can do is create
Good! The sooner the better. Single payer would work best.
One can only hope!!! Then we can join the rest of the modern
The Swiss have had a highly regulated program utilizing private insurance
companies for years. If it works for them it may work for us. Granted if they
prove less cost efficient perhaps we should move to a single payer system like
most of the civilized world.
Dan, I hope you are correct. As the only first world country not to
have universal health care for its citizens, it is time for the United States to
value the health of its citizens and truly promote the general welfare of all.
Headline: "Obamacare will lead to single-payer health care"Hopefully!