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.

 

The only people who want Socialism are people who don't produce

page: 9
24
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

One pool is the point of single payer.

The single payer is the one in charge of the pool.

Single payer does not MEAN Government, it means one person responsible for fiance, that is POOLED by everyone else.


Universal Healthcare doesn't mean single pool. The law is not the same as math, in insurance 1 pool means more efficiency. Single Payer implies 1 pool, because 1 entity is responsible. I'm sorry you do not see this for what it means. It doesn't have to be the Government, only a single pool, for there to be single payer. The government is just best equip to do it quickly, that is all.




posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 10:27 PM
link   
dp
edit on 29-8-2017 by CarlsBad because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 10:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: ketsuko


Like any use of force in the social contract you get fined. What happens when you want to 60 instead of 35?

If who doesn't have it? You can buy any extra insurance you want but the base line is required to keep the population from endlessly complaining of the cost since the pools are too small.


And therein lies the rub - it's so great, you have to force people to have it. If it was that good, they'd choose to do it of their own volition.

The problem is this: Haven't you heard those sayings about how you can't please everyone?

Yeah, this is the same. No single-payer policy can work adequately for everyone, but what you can do is force everyone to have it whether they want or need it. That's what Obamacare did, and you can see how well it worked out.

You're like the person who says, "You can absolutely buy your Chinese food, but only after you pay for your cut of the pizza you neither want nor need and will never use. If that means you can no longer afford your Chinese, too damn bad for you!"



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 10:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: CarlsBad
The government is just best equip to do it quickly, that is all.


... you think the government is the best equipped for efficiency? In which reality? When has the government *ever* shown itself to be efficient?



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 10:33 PM
link   
If we don't collect taxes how do we fund FEMA i.e



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I don't believe in a single payer.

I am saying universal health care means you have access to it. How about if you need the service you get fined heavily and they can sue you for the money you owe.

I would love to go as fast as I want on the highway too but there are certain baseline social contract agreements you have to conceed.

Is it fair you don't pay your bills and can't afford treatment so I have to pay?

You pay either way.

A base health coverage is a decent compromise with nonprofit insurance and pharmaceutical companies competing for service.



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

That is not my argument, that is reality's argument to what these simple words that should be understood in the conversation mean.

Universal Healthcare is the one that implies more Government.
Single-Payer is too much responsibility for a private entity to be trusted. This is why the Government is chosen, not because they are qualified, but out of neutrality. Again, hardly decisions being made by me.

But if you can be the one to get everyone to ditch their current insurance in favor of the one you choose, private or not, kudos, same result. Massive efficiency.


And specially the comment about efficiency has to do with how many Pools of insurance work best. The math points at 1 pool. Has nothing to do with my opinion of the efficiency of the Government if you could understand my post at all.


edit on 29-8-2017 by CarlsBad because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: CarlsBad

Single payer does not have to be the government it's just a terrible idea.

A Single payer with a for profit delivery system is moronic and leaves massive room for conflict of interest.

Universal health care systems with non single payer in Europe have lowered cost by everyone having to buy into the industry the same way car insurance laws lower the price. Coupled with competing nonprofits it's a decent market based starting point.


edit on 29-8-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 10:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
Socialism for our needs

Capitalism for our wants


What do you want?



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 10:42 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Universal Healthcare is a PRODUCT of single payer in these other countries. They have larger subsidy insurance pools than US, so they have more effective systems and a SINGLE ENTITY(Single Payer) is paying for everything.

Let me just use a simple analogy you all can relate to. You know the hat in church that is passed around?

The question is who is qualified to carry the hat around to every person in America. We've already proved 2 hats means slow speed of utilizing the money in the hat. The Government obviously has it's criticism, but it's an easy conscious option for the job.

If you want to argue about if 2 hats is better then 1 though, I have all day for that. It's not.
edit on 29-8-2017 by CarlsBad because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 10:46 PM
link   
a reply to: CarlsBad

So in what your saying is you believe all European universal health care is single payer?

That just is not the case at all..



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 10:48 PM
link   
I don't know anyone who supports full blown socialism for all things. I'm not saying these people aren't out there, but they tend to be college kids with no real world experience or hippies living in communes somewhere.

Likewise, I don't know ANYONE who wants to remove all socialist policies from our society. Most people like fire departments, police departments, common infrastructure, basic social safety nets, etc.

So what this really boils down to, for most people, is which socialist policies they favor vs. which they oppose.

The big hot button topic these days is Healthcare.

I am a producer. I make more than enough money to support my family. I have insurance through my employer. However, I do support socialized medicine because I believe that ultimately it's the only system that will work. We can argue about that all day (I won't -- that's not really the point I'm making), but it won't change the fact that the SOCIALIST vs. CAPITALIST dichotomy isn't one of absolutes and ultimately this boils down to policy debates.



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 10:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: CarlsBad
a reply to: Teikiatsu

That is not my argument, that is reality's argument to what these simple words that should be understood in the conversation mean.

Universal Healthcare is the one that implies more Government.
Single-Payer is too much responsibility for a private entity to be trusted. This is why the Government is chosen, not because they are qualified, but out of neutrality. Again, hardly decisions being made by me.

But if you can be the one to get everyone to ditch their current insurance in favor of the one you choose, private or not, kudos, same result. Massive efficiency.


And specially the comment about efficiency has to do with how many Pools of insurance work best. The math points at 1 pool. Has nothing to do with my opinion of the efficiency of the Government if you could understand my post at all.



Your premise is flawed from the start. Centralizing money into a pool means the supplier only has to make the pool-holder happy with service, not the individual.

When the individual keeps their money, then the supplier must work to make as many people happy with their service as possible, in order to earn more money.

True single payer is the individual working with the supplier. Forcing people to hand their money over to a third party reduces control and options.



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 10:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Decentralizing the money costs more money. A lot more.

'Options' themselves is the plague. It creates room to divide against you easily, and only be slightly better then competition at base standards, rather than standardizing.

In the end, multiple pools leads to less return, and this isn't even touching on basic math of how payouts work in a system with 2 options to pay into, and their profit motive for this being you can only stand to make one claim, thus one program will profit by default without competition even necessary. Think about it, if you were an insurance company, and you had monopoly, you would happily welcome another shark, because then you would only pay out 1/2 as much, but the cumulative total of money the sharks collect is still 100%. They're all in bed together. Insurance needs massive regulation for collusion if to be taken seriously privately.
edit on 29-8-2017 by CarlsBad because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

I would say the Swiss or Germans have a good system of compromise with choices and cost. I get what your saying but also you should know you pay one way or the other for people who can't.



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: CarlsBad

It's not just about math. That is the problem. It's about human beings. So the need to compromise is crucial.

Like say the Germans, swiss, dutch etc..you know those universal countries that aren't single payer and give you choices.



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

I don't think Universal Healthcare is the issue. We have Universal Healthcare, you can dodge bills. Still counts.

The issue is dodging bills wouldn't be necessary with a single pool and understanding that you're spending 'everyones' money when you use it. It creates natural responsibility in it's application, and the amount of money you actually have to put in the hat is minimal. My issue is that this when applied to smaller groups of people increases the apparent 'cost' of single payer(this killed ObamaCare movement especially), because you're doing nothing but diminishing the pool but the demand for healthcare remains static, so putting any single payer system(like the VA) under a microscope diminishes the value of using that as evidence against a single payer national healthcare system. Obviously it looks worse in smaller pockets, this is what justified the use of competitive insurance to get the industry snowballing. The problem is they are now a huge snowball, but just want to eat the snow. When talking about insurance, you better know you're speaking about the richest and most powerful people on the planet, as big or bigger than banks.
edit on 29-8-2017 by CarlsBad because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: CarlsBad

Just not on board with a single payer. It's the most efficient but not the best for care or treatment options. The Swiss have a good one to model after they have similar idiealogy as the classical liberal ideas in the US.

The Germans do well with their multi payer for their country as well.

And you can compete with non profit insurance. The noprofits compete. They just don't have shareholders and profit margins off of the sick.
edit on 29-8-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 01:22 AM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

You need to understand the difference between a theory and hypothesis. Also, you need to study some more in order to understand how socialism and neoliberalism works. You don't seem to have a clue about what you are talking about.

You could start with the book 'Politics' : Heywood, A. (2013). Politics (4.). Palgrave Macmillan.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 01:30 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

If you want to spend your own money in a single payer country, you can opt to have "preferential treatment".

It just means you have to pay for that yourself.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join