Do you support a single payer system?

[Dr.Who]

A single payer health care system is one in which all the bills are paid from a single tax supported fund. There are no private payers and there are no self payers. Our politicians have stated several times that the goal of the new health care bills is to bring the US into a single payer system, not now, but eventually.

If you do support it why and how do you reconcile that with the fact that our constitution establishes this country as one that operates in ways that are completely incompatible with a single payer system?

 

[Dr.Who]

I voted "no".

I believe a single payer system is unconstitutional, immoral and will cost us far more than we are paying now without providing better care for most and rationing care for all.

 

[r0beph]

I voted yes. I disagree that single payer is unconstitutional as the constitution I feel that the constitution supports universal health care rather than the freemarket "if you can afford it" system that we have now. 20% of our economy is based on insurance systems, there is something very wrong with this picture. Every American deserves the right to receive equal health care treatment that is not based on economic standing. I'm not sure why you Dr.Who, put Immoral into the equation, if anything it is a highly moral intent. The ethics of ensuring that doctors have the ability to be compensated for their treatment of EVERY American who needs treatment is on high ground. To call this immoral is a misuse of the word.

The care rationing argument has been shown to be false again and again. http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf If you care to find a point where in this bill it shows that health care will be rationed (without twisting words outside their contextual intent) I'll be happy to wait for you to do so. As for single payer the health care rationing argument is quite false, I've yet to see any concrete evidence as to rationing in UK or Canada. Sure, sometimes resources are not available, but what do you expect? In Canada when this occurs the Canadian government PAYS outside doctors for the service, thus outsourcing their medical needs. This is far from the rationing that you guys keep spouting.

I think we need it and you people who would go to deny us the rights of receiving health care are the immoral ones, so caught up in your false ideas about the constitution and what its intents are. It all truly reverts to selfishness and greed on your behalf, that is all I see shining through, if using the constitution to try and support that assists you, than so be it. I personally would not mind being taxed even further in support of your medical care. I, having worked in the medical field for years, realize that more prophylactic treatment reduce the cases of disease in the population exponentially. You remove a TB patient before he infects 100 others and you've stopped it there. If he's afraid of not being able to afford treatment each of those 100 he may infect (at work, at wal-mart, at wherever he goes) could infect 100 others. My paying for his treatment is not for him but for myself and family as well.

Your suggestion that

 

[Dr.Who]

I will save rebuttals until after more have weighed in.

I would also remind people that my question is in regards to a single payer system and not regarding the present proposal that merely leads to a single payer system.

 

[r0beph]

I will save rebuttals until after more have weighed in.

I would also remind people that my question is in regards to a single payer system and not regarding the present proposal that merely leads to a single payer system.

I answered using examples in both situations, current plan and single payer. If you wish to ignore my statements on the current plan, fine.

 

[TheFranklinParty]

I voted No - The point that I would like to address is that there is "monetary friction" in collecting money only to pay it out from a single source. For example: collecting taxes and then paying it back out in the form of social welfare programs eats up almost 20% of the original taxes collected. This money is wasted in administrative and handling expenses.

This is part of the challenge with the current healthcare system. We already have too much handling of money between employers, insurers, healthcare providers, and the government. The closer we can bring the provider and the patient the more efficient the system works.

A secondary point is that a single payer system reduces the potential for profit in the healthcare system and in turn reduces the skilled workforce. We're already seeing it happen. Fewer and fewer top students are going to medical school. It costs too much and takes too long for them to have the government limit their return on investment, not to mention the facing the legal risks. This will has and will continue to create an ever increasing number of foreign born doctors taking the place of retiring American born doctors.

 

[top gun]

I voted yes... although I'd be fine with any number of compromises as long as they help to address some of the major problems with our current employer only based system.

Some type of an affordable plan available for everyone whether employer offered or not...

No deniles for pre-existing conditions...

Decreased premiums cost, or at the very least a freezing of premiums costs to the consumer

Single payer could use much of the money that would have been skimmed off the top as huge (monstrous) insurance company profits putting that money back into the system for actual care.

 

[GenSeneca]

I voted yes...

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - Ben Franklin.

That applies to selling out our freedoms for any type of security, be it physical, social, economic or in this case healthcare... But progs only seem to recognize the accuracy of that statement when talking about physical security.

Some type of an affordable plan available for everyone whether employer offered or not...

When you use a third party to pay for goods and services, the cost of those goods and services aren't reduced, they skyrocket.

If your groceries were paid for by tax dollars, you'd rack up a huge bill at the supermarket, steak, lobster, whatever you wanted and you wouldn't think twice about the bill because you'd never see it.

"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free." - P.J. O'Rourke

Decreased premiums cost, or at the very least a freezing of premiums costs to the consumer

Right... Because price controls have worked so well throughout history.

When the United States set maximum prices for gasoline in 1973 and 1979, dealers sold gas on a first-come-first-served basis, and drivers had to wait in long lines to buy gasoline, receiving in the process a taste of life in the Soviet Union.

Many consumers associate those headaches with the Arab oil embargo of 1973 or other oil shocks of the era.

But experts contend it was price controls, not a spike in oil and gas prices, that prompted rationing and gasoline shortages.

The same would be true if you used price controls under a single single payer system, long lines, rationing, and a reduction of services.

Single payer could use much of the money that would have been skimmed off the top as huge (monstrous) insurance company profits putting that money back into the system for actual care.

In 2007, national health care expenditures totaled $2.2 trillion. Health insurance profits of nearly $13 billion make up 0.6 percent of that. CEO compensation is a mere 0.005 percent of total spending.

What if that was stripped away? Well, it wouldn’t amount to a whole lot of savings for the health care system.

 

[BigRob]

I cannot think of many monopolies that have really ever worked all that well.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

yes, I think the current system is moraly bancrupt and fiscualy out of control most cant afford the costs, and more daily dont have to worry becuse they dont have any.

Where in the constituion does it say you cant have it?
2 if it did, fine I think a amendment giving all people health care beats one that says I hate guys and you cant marry becuse I am a bible thumping hick...

3. I could care less what anyone says about some other system, fact is ours sucks, and none is perfect, and we can make ours better then anyone if we want to...just becuse one fails does not mean you stop trying

 

[Dr.Who]

Where in the constituion does it say you cant have it?

The real question is where does it say you can have it. Because all rights not specifically given to the federal government are retained by the states and the individuals.

If the constitution does not specifically (the C even has an enumerated list of what the gov can do) say that the fed can create a public health benefit then it cannot. And the general welfare clause is not a blank check for gov to do anything it wants or the left would have no complaints about George Bush would it?

 

[TruthAboveAll]

I voted no. I don't even base that on whether or not single-payer plans have proven effective or not in other countries. I don't base it on whether the U.S. could do it better, and make it work better. Although both those are strongly answered in the negative.

A single payer system in the U.S. moves the Federal Government into the position of sole arbiter for the citizen in all areas of health issues. It subjugates every citizen to the whims of an overbearing centralized government. It submits total control to the Fed for all monetary and ethical issues related however remotely to health issues. It is a critical cog in the wheel of Totalitarianism.

All problems cited that single-payer program could solve can be better solved by modifications in the current system. A single-payer system, in addition to the Communist/Socialist/Totalitarian aspects would create a system with limited resources that by definition will require rationing and "quality of life" issues and limitations.

A single-payer system, and the incremental steps toward one, must be resisted at all costs.