Would Socialist Healthcare Be Acceptable If...

[Gipper]

Single-Payer isn't necessarily Socialist.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? Please explain.

 

[Centrehalf]

how can it fail to have massive govt oversight and intervention if they're running the show ?

but the simple fact that its nothing but more overhead is enough to render it useless.

That's the question. I really want single-payer but I am willing to admit that we as a society are probably not yet mature enough to have it as I'd like to see it. Just to really piss all of you off I'll go ahead and throw education in the same boat as medical care.

 

[Centrehalf]

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? Please explain.

All single-payer means is there's a single-payer. It could be you paying without any help from your employer, or it could be the government paying citizens medical costs with tax money. The payment method doesn't make something Socialist. If the government decided to control aspects of health-care delivery to the point that it couldn't occur without doing it the "government way"...then we're talking Socialism. BTW, I would argue that we were very close to that point before the ACA.

 

[Gipper]

That's the question. I really want single-payer but I am willing to admit that we as a society are probably not yet mature enough to have it as I'd like to see it. Just to really piss all of you off I'll go ahead and through education in the same boat as medical care.

Why? Is it because government has done such a good job with education?

 

[Centrehalf]

Why? Is it because government has done such a good job with education?

My position is that medical care and education are rights. I know many people disagree with me. You are assuming that I want the government to control all aspects of these areas. I do not.

Just out of curiosity, what problems do you think public education has today and how do you think the Federal government contributed to those problems?

 

[Centrehalf]

possibly not but what is its benefit ?

The big one for me is getting small business out from under having to arrange HC for employees. Another reason is to make people actual customers in addition to being recipients. I also think that single-payer eventually will lead to the elimination of health insurance providers, which to my way of thinking is a very good thing.

 

[Gipper]

My position is that medical care and education are rights. I know many people disagree with me. You are assuming that I want the government to control all aspects of these areas. I do not.

Just out of curiosity, what problems do you think public education has today and how do you think the Federal government contributed to those problems?

I made no such assumption. How could you conclude I did?

Problems you ask. They are to numerous to mention. The p-schools are indoctrination centers run by leftists to promote the state first and foremost, but also to protect the monopolistic position of teachers and their unions.

 

[Centrehalf]

I made no such assumption. How could you conclude I did?

Because we were talking about a program run by the Feds and education had been linked to it by me. Asking me about government involvement in education at any level other than the federal level wouldn't have made any sense in that context. My question was off-topic anyway so it doesn't really matter.

 

[dogtowner]

The big one for me is getting small business out from under having to arrange HC for employees. Another reason is to make people actual customers in addition to being recipients. I also think that single-payer eventually will lead to the elimination of health insurance providers, which to my way of thinking is a very good thing.

the idea behind making people customers is suspect due to requirements ss to what must be covered. not much magic in pricing.

this is made worse by forcing people into individual policies where they lose the benefit of spreading the cost across the group.

it does give business an out of the time and trouble but st a high.cost.to their employees.

if you are content to suffer the rampant fraud that the government tolerates then killing commercial ins lets you feel good about putting all the people who worked for them out of work.

but to eavh his own.

 

[Centrehalf]

the idea behind making people customers is suspect due to requirements ss to what must be covered. not much magic in pricing.

this is made worse by forcing people into individual policies where they lose the benefit of spreading the cost across the group..

Cost-shifting occurs right now, why do you think Tylenol pills cost what they do in hospitals? If you have an employer sponsored plan you can't do anything about it because if you walk away from the plan the employer is offering, you are now on the hook for 100% of the HC costs within a market designed for employer contributions of at least 80%. At least, it used to be 80%. The first sentence of the quote is a very good argument for eliminating health insurance companies. Un-needed bureaucracy.

it does give business an out of the time and trouble but st a high.cost.to their employees..

If everything remains the same other than the employees now paying on their own, yep, they're going to get screwed. But, at some point the cash that is now freed up will be shared in some way either through new benefits or higher wages. Especially if workers comp can be rolled into HC instead of being treated as a labor issue.

if you are content to suffer the rampant fraud that the government tolerates then killing commercial ins lets you feel good about putting all the people who worked for them out of work..

The public sector doesn't have a monopoly on fraud and I never suggested that FWA is something that should be ignored, in fact I think it would be crucial to keep it in check, as it is crucial right now.

 

[dogtowner]

Cost-shifting occurs right now, why do you think Tylenol pills cost what they do in hospitals? If you have an employer sponsored plan you can't do anything about it because if you walk away from the plan the employer is offering, you are now on the hook for 100% of the HC costs within a market designed for employer contributions of at least 80%. At least, it used to be 80%. The first sentence of the quote is a very good argument for eliminating health insurance companies. Un-needed bureaucracy.

I know why tylenol costs what it does, do you ? what would you "do about it" ?

how do you propose to pay the nurse to obtain the order from the doc, get it to pharmacy, have the tech check for interactions, fill the order and get it to the floor where the nurse then has to dispense it ? do you have a plan for that ?

will it pass muster with legal ?

the ins cos are necessary overhead, if you feel otherwise you need to do a little research.

If everything remains the same other than the employees now paying on their own, yep, they're going to get screwed. But, at some point the cash that is now freed up will be shared in some way either through new benefits or higher wages. Especially if workers comp can be rolled into HC instead of being treated as a labor issue.

what money is being freed up and how ?

The public sector doesn't have a monopoly on fraud and I never suggested that FWA is something that should be ignored, in fact I think it would be crucial to keep it in check, as it is crucial right now.

the private is demonstrably better at managing fraud as they have a critical interest in doing so that the govt never does as it is not required to make ends meet. moreover, there is a reason the AMA is so cozy a lobby with capital hill. the sshort answer is that medicare is designed specifially to be a cash cow.

the fact is that there is nothing in obamacare to reduce costs nor was there intended to be. yes I realize thats not singlempayer. but if you think the government can run healthcare more efficiently you need only look at the insolvency of medicare vs commercial insurers who manage to make a little money for its stockholders by effective manaagement.

 

[Dr.Who]

medical care is not a right in the sense that one has a right to have it given to them. it is a right in the sense that one can go and pay for it without someone interfering in their ability to get it. now that I type that i see that the aca is interfering in our right to get healthcare for ouselvelves.