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.
ketsuko
reply to post by jrod
The problem is that our government would run it.
Name me one government agency that is not bloated, corrupt and so inefficient that it could actually run your health care in a timely and efficient manner. Look at the NHS. It's one of the largest employers in the world with more employees than the US military has soldiers. If a country the size of Britain has that many bureaucrats to run their single payer system, then imagine the mess America's would become. Two thirds of the country would be employed by it with the rest trapped in it.
Oh, and usually there are laws keeping you from having any recourse to any other system if the one your government runs isn't any good or decides that you should just have the pain pill rather than pay for a perfectly viable treatment for you or diagnoses you with an aggressive cancer and tells you that your treatments will just begin in about six months because that's how long the waiting list is ... good luck.
edit on 26-12-2013 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)edit on 26-12-2013 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)
dukeofjive696969
Anybody wants to wager that when the republicans get back the whitehouse in 2018, that romneycare will still be there.
America has a square hole. The US Constitution defines the hole as square.
Congressional Democrats delayed these provisions in order to show only six years of spending under the plan in the original 10-year budget window (from FY2010-19) used by CBO at the time the law was enacted. Therefore, the original estimate concealed the fact that most of the law’s spending only doesn’t even begin until four years into the 10-year window. A Senate Budget Committee analysis (based on CBO estimates and growth rates) finds that that total spending under the law will amount to at least $2.6 trillion over a true 10-year period (from FY2014–23)—not $900 billion, as President Obama originally promised."
beezzer
dukeofjive696969
Anybody wants to wager that when the republicans get back the whitehouse in 2018, that romneycare will still be there.
If it is, the country won't be United States of America anymore.
ketsuko
These things really burn me.
My husband has a coworker who has a special needs child. This type of tax will hit her family right where it hurts, and then there will be the insurance Armageddon coming next fall.
beezzer
reply to post by MystikMushroom
Single payer works in Europe and Canada because the hospitals (for the most part) are state owned.
It also works well elsewhere because medical professionals are paid (again, for the most part) the same flat rate.
We'd have to restructure "America" in order for this to work.
(In other words. . . . )
There'd have to be a fundamental transformation in order to pull this-. . . . . . . oh.
dlbott
reply to post by irishchic
Hey homie love the pole, my sister is doctor and they are already putting screws to them. If they want their license they will have to take the policies. They are gonna strong arm them or regulate them into compliance.
The doctors are not going to have a choice just like we don't have a choice.
Go figure, did not expect it to be different did you.
The Bot
BubbaJoe
I have some very good friends in Canada and Europe, they are happy with their health care system.
Why shouldn't we pay our health care professionals a flat rate?
Why should someone's misery become a profit for someone else? I realize I sound like a major socialist here, but why should healthcare be a for profit industry? Serious question.
BubbaJoe
reply to post by beezzer
Beezer,
I honestly don't think anything should be determined by bean counters in DC.
Your years of learning and education should be compensated.
However I do not believe basic healthcare should be a for profit industry, as it has become.
beezzer
BubbaJoe
reply to post by beezzer
Beezer,
I honestly don't think anything should be determined by bean counters in DC.
Your years of learning and education should be compensated.
However I do not believe basic healthcare should be a for profit industry, as it has become.
What's the alternative? Either I get to negotiate my salary or I don't.
BubbaJoe
I have no problem with that, negotiate your salary.
There are a lot of healthcare companies to work for.
Why are there so many in the US, they have become for profit businesses, responding to the demands of their shareholders.
Basic healthcare should be a not for profit enterprise, not saying those providing the service should not be fairly compensated, but there should be nothing left for shareholders to collect.