It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bernie Sanders to introduce single payer healthcare bill

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2017 @ 09:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Dudemo5

How can it be the insurance companies fault?



I didn't say it was their fault. I said getting rid of them would lower cost.




posted on Jul, 30 2017 @ 09:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Dudemo5
It can't be done at the state level. Well, it could, but costs can be controlled much better at the national level. Plus, there has to be federal reform of Big Pharma.


Controlling costs -> decrease in supply -> rationing.


Zoobats -->Monkeyfoo-->snortblats.



posted on Jul, 30 2017 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Dudemo5

(funny)



posted on Jul, 30 2017 @ 09:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dudemo5

Zoobats -->Monkeyfoo-->snortblats.


That was one of the best responses I've ever seen here at ATS.

It makes one stop dead and analyze just what the hell we're all thinking and saying.




posted on Jul, 30 2017 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: TacSite18

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: VengefulGhost

Correct, the system has been on self destruct for the last 30-40 years. We are headed for a crash, and like it or not a change is going to have to be made.

If we outlaw insurance, I would not want to have any healthcare emergencies for 2 years after that mess is instituted.

Or single payer (Canada-Euro style) or medicare for all will be a smoother adjustment. I just wonder who is going to take less money? Our health care system is a money making venture that happens to see sick people.


Medicare/Medicaid is single payer.


And they are failing.

I don't need to respond to the rest.

The many failures:

dailysignal.com...

www.forbes.com... cf7fda

www.mercatus.org...

The unfunded liabilities:

www.cato.org...

www.forbes.com...

Highest percentage of denied claims:

healthcare-economist.com...

www.post-gazette.com...


Medicare/Medicaid are not the answer.


You really have no concept of what single payer is, how it is funded, or how it is implemented, do you?
[snipped]

I really don't need to address the rest..
edit on Mon Jul 31 2017 by DontTreadOnMe because: Community Announcement re: Decorum



posted on Jul, 30 2017 @ 10:14 PM
link   
When it comes to government run health care, there are a couple of things that we should consider.

First, if you want an example of government medical care, look no further than the VA.

Second, keep in mind that what the government giveth, the government can taketh away. Just last year, some congress people were trying to pass legislation to bar anyone on the government's no-fly list from being able to buy a gun. You can bet that somewhere down the road, someone will try to pass legislation tying medical care to gun bans. More immediately, you will see your medical care limited or denied if you smoke, drink, have a poor diet, don't get enough exercise, etc. Not only would vaccines be mandatory to obtain medical care, but so would any other drug that the pharmaceutical lobby decides to push, safe or not.

When the CIA wants to test a new experimental drug, they won't have to sneak it into the vaccines of third world countries anymore. Plenty of guinea pigs right here in the US of A. Also gone would be your right to seek compensation for medical malpractice. So what if your doctor got his degree to fill affirmative action quotas, he was government approved.

You'll be able to count your medical care being dependent on any behavior desired by the government, and by extension the powerful lobbies that control the government.

You think medical care is expensive now? Wait till it's "free."
edit on 30-7-2017 by VictorVonDoom because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2017 @ 10:34 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 30 2017 @ 10:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Dudemo5

Zoobats -->Monkeyfoo-->snortblats.


That was one of the best responses I've ever seen here at ATS.

It makes one stop dead and analyze just what the hell we're all thinking and saying.



It makes as much sense (if not more) as any other advocacy of single payer, that's for sure.



posted on Jul, 30 2017 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Not sure if this was posted -




Not one of Sanders better moments.



posted on Jul, 30 2017 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Bernie seems to be right.

Everything else aside, if single payer is so dangerous, how does all the other countries do health care cheaper and have better health out comes.



posted on Jul, 30 2017 @ 11:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Xcathdra

Bernie seems to be right.

Everything else aside, if single payer is so dangerous, how does all the other countries do health care cheaper and have better health out comes.


Good question. Lets ask the Canadians who cross the border into the US for surgeries since they have to wait years to have them in Canada. Or we can ask Charlie Gards parents why the government of the UK decided their son was going to die since their health care is so wonderful.

Or we can ask the Democrats in California and Vermont why they killed single payer systems they were wanting to put into place. CA is in enough debt and their single payer system was going to cost around 400 billion to start.
edit on 30-7-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2017 @ 12:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

California is already estimated to spend $370 billion in 2017 already. So going to $400 isn't exactly ground breaking. It's not as if we're not already spending almost that amount anyway.

Besides what you've seen or read others have also put in the work to figure out if it's possible and it is possible. Or was possible before it was shelved by a single official even though it had about 70% support in the state.

They killed it without even trying to make it work.



posted on Jul, 31 2017 @ 04:35 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Yeah 370 billion on a partial system as opposed to taking on the entire system itself financially. The 400 billion is an estimate for the first year. It is projected to climb, and continue climbing from there.

After all the work the 2 bluest states in the union who want single payer systems said no to it because they cant pay for it.



posted on Jul, 31 2017 @ 05:10 AM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

It's been commonly said that single payer is more efficient, and it is, but this is on the dollar spent power.

The bureaucratic nature is what they're complaining about and it's not even a fully implemented system yet, the speed the dollar moves while strong is 'slow' according to them. And we're not even definitively talking about any specific system.


Canada's system is strong because it addresses the lower end with single payer, and the higher end with tax deductible donations towards the single payer systems.

In America, medical donations are direct, not to a whole system, so while Canada seems 'bogged' down funneling money through it all, America ends up with bottlenecks and pinch points, and things overfunded and underfunded or missed all together, making multiple pool subsidy ultimately less efficient overall from constant need to 'tweak'.

But how long does it take to CREATE an insurance company in America? Essentially no time at all due to design of our system. Creating new companies isn't the strength we need though, just one that works. Our system benefits the Insurance Industry, and they will fight to the end against single-payer systems that provide better care.



posted on Jul, 31 2017 @ 06:33 AM
link   
even though europeans have universal healthcare not all costs are actually payed for by the state like many americans seem to think and in many european countries you can fully opt out and buy private healthcare if you want.

from what i'm reading it seems obamacare was heavily influenced by the french system with the whole group shared cost payed for by work bit, but the whole mandate with no opt out is not even done in france, so yea...

i think americans should research the french system more when talking about universal healthcare rather than canada or the U.K or wherever, it seems to fit our system a lot better considering how the modern french republic modeled itself after our republic.

full on government payed healthcare will not work, it needs some element of private payed healthcare and group payed healthcare to not bankrupt the country.

now that i think about it the whole out of state plan is also one of the best ways to reduce cost and get around the decentralized nature of our government without violating the constitution or states rights.

i think we need to change a few things around but many parts of obamacare are the basic parts needed to set us on the right path and this single payer idea would set us back years and not help us at all.

our government is not centralized and people need to start remembering that when making these universal healthcare arguments that don't fit the nature of our system.



posted on Jul, 31 2017 @ 06:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: namehere

full on government payed healthcare will not work, it needs some element of private payed healthcare and group payed healthcare to not bankrupt the country.



That's precisely why they talk about Canada.

Canada's system runs on 25% tax deducted donations.

This is a huge tax credit that can be applied, and it's dumped into a single umbrella single payer system for the poor, benefiting both sides, and it works all-in-1.
edit on 31-7-2017 by LooksLocked because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2017 @ 06:40 AM
link   
a reply to: LooksLocked

Canada's system is hardly strong. Don't even bother going to the hospital unless you are totally messed up. Who wants to sit there waiting hours to see a doctor? Not me.



posted on Jul, 31 2017 @ 06:47 AM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

Plenty of Americans that have no option would like to wait there for hours.

Sorry that's not your tea.

You seem to think private insurance is adequate without being insanely rich, cute.

My roommate has cheap private insurance. He basically does not go to the Doctor because it's so terrible, pays it anyway though, still blames Obama for the mandate. The guy literally says "I need to get health insurance" like he doesn't have it, when he does(Speaking about name brand insurance companies as opposed to his $20 option).

Private is a simple system, there is actually being insured, and people who have mock-insurance so they can sleep at night over their social-standing. It has nothing to do with healthcare at all and ultimately leads to a setting identical to having no insurance anyway.*

This also isn't some side-story. This exactly describes American insurance prior to the socialization of it, and is obviously what it will return to.

*What specifically makes brand-name companies successful? Their enormous subsidy pool. So why not 1 pool-single-payer again? The extra interest allocated from a single pool alone probably realistically cuts edges.
edit on 31-7-2017 by LooksLocked because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2017 @ 06:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: carewemust

Democrats are in the pocket of the insurance lobby. See my first post. Not a single Democrat voted for single payer.


Not true. It almost past in Cali. until one Democrat, who ran on a platform of single payer, sold out and shelved it. But other Democrats did vote for it.



They couldn't make it happen in Vermont either.

www.theblaze.com...

and







posted on Jul, 31 2017 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Sources



new topics




 
5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join