Three More Join HR 676 Single Payer Bill in House

a reply to: Isurrender73

The government is not Christ, and healthcare for all should not be moderated by government. Prove that it is the most cost effective? How is it funded without a tax burden. My taxes are high enough.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Tarzan the apeman.

But what we would have is a caring govt. institution, not unlike what we have now. My thoughts are perhaps we maybe able to control health care costs. But this may not be the case.

A "caring government institution" is an oxymoron. And "controlling health care costs" means preventing you from getting healthcare. That's how you "control costs." You stop doing things for people. You take discretion and decision-making away from the primary care physician and instill it in a bureaucrat-approved system. And that's what leads to de facto "death panels." What, you need a hip replacement? And you're over 78? I'm sorry, but you have exceeded your life expectancy and will die soon anyway, so giving you a hip replacement is not cost-effective and a waste of money. Your taxpaying years are behind you and we've extracted as much as we can from you so now you're just a liability.

"I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." should strike fear in your hearts.

originally posted by: schuyler
originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Tarzan the apeman.

A "caring government institution" is an oxymoron. And "controlling health care costs" means preventing you from getting healthcare. That's how you "control costs." You stop doing things for people. You take discretion and decision-making away from the primary care physician and instill it in a bureaucrat-approved system. And that's what leads to de facto "death panels." What, you need a hip replacement? And you're over 78? I'm sorry, but you have exceeded your life expectancy and will die soon anyway, so giving you a hip replacement is not cost-effective and a waste of money. Your taxpaying years are behind you and we've extracted as much as we can from you so now you're just a liability.

"I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." should strike fear in your hearts.

Thanks for spreading unfounded fear.

Controlling cost means fixing the cost of an x-Ray at $100. Currently the cost of everything goes up every year to provide more income for capitalist hospitals.

Fixing the cost of goods for a socialized program has nothing to do with preventing people from getting health care.

a reply to: schuyler

We have a unmanageable bureaucracy now. We have to do something. We are the most expensive in the world and come in 30th for health outcomes. THis points to it is about the $$$$$.

I was saying caring govt institution in sarcasm, you didn't get it or I didn't deliver it.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Isurrender73

The government is not Christ, and healthcare for all should not be moderated by government. Prove that it is the most cost effective? How is it funded without a tax burden. My taxes are high enough.

If you have insurance you are already paying into the most expensive medical system in the world.

Paying out of your net or paying out of your gross makes little difference. The cost should go down not up, which is what we see in countries with single payer.

But you can spread fear and ignore facts so that you can keep what you have while others do without. Because God forbid we do anything Christ-Like.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Insurance is a scam that ensures high costs and poor services.

On March 21st, 2017, I went to an oral surgeon to have a wisdom tooth extracted. I drove 1 hour and 30 minutes across state lines to a surgeon who was experienced, professional, caring, and only charged a fraction of what other dental offices charge. I did the research and found the healthcare that I determined was best for me. I paid out of pocket because I don't believe in third party payers.

Notice my use of the word "I". I planned ahead. I took care of myself. I don't want interference from a self-righteous federalized single payer system. I do not surrender to socialism.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

You better never get cancer.

I don't like this idea at all.

We have seen what happens when the government is in charge of something. It becomes an expensive bureaucratic nightmare that fails to meet its goals. Our Social Security is running out. Veterans are not taken care of. The US Post Office is failing. Even their feeble attempt to fix our Health Care System is already failing terribly.

The government needs to stay OUT of our everyday lives.

A dependent populace is a controllable populace.
Why give the government another way to control our lives? This would be putting our very lives in their hands, because if they fail at this, people die. Think about the Veterans who have died waiting for their version of universal health care.

The government would need to expose the Pharma companies and medical community's cover up of the natural remedies that many pharma company drugs have studied to make patentable medicines. The ones they convinced us are better than the natural and adequate natural chemistries they are derived from. The medical drug industry in this country is out of control. They hack the chemical of berberine at six bucks a month, create a medicine from it, then sell the medicine for fourteen grand a year. The chemistry of the plant based medicine is just as good, but you need to take it two weeks on then a week off so there are no side effects. The medicine is probably weaker some how but has the same problem, hard on the liver. But then most NSAIDs are hard on the liver or kidneys too. Eat a little blueberries instead of the nsaids, I like blueberry pie..

a reply to: seasonal

Sorry, but I don't let fear drive me into submission to bureaucracy. Somewhere in the world, there must be some kind of affordable cancer treatment (even if it is unconventional). If not, then guess what? Everyone dies eventually. That doesn't make me want to run like a 3 year old child, screaming with tears in my eyes for the nanny state to wipe my back end for me.

Health care is expensive because of government intervention. So how is more legislation going to solve anything? Just stop. Have some dignity. Its embarrassing. This nation was founded on people who would pay for freedom with their lives. The fruit has fallen far from that tree.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest


Opinions vary

a reply to: seasonal

Which is exactly why the gov't should have no say in the matter.

Single payer was the point of Obamacare anyway. Make private insurance so obnoxious that people would choose mandatory taxation over personal choice.

Me, I think the government will end up doing that eventually regardless of what anyone wants.

The best thing would be allow all doctors to opt out of the corporate bs and form co ops. That will never happen though because it would actually work and modern man is not concerned about things actually working.

Single-payer is the only model that actually works for the patients.

Sooner or later, America will adopt a single-payer system because it is the only compassionate method to dispense healthcare. It's not perfect, but it is the least flawed.

If not now, when? How many years, how many patients, between now and when it finally happens?

For those saying Single payer..

Explain something for me please... that means the fed will be in charge of it all right?

I ask because my first thought is the Fed has failed 22 million Vets on a daily basis since the vietnam war... how in the heck will the Fed manage the nation?

Single payer would be an utter disaster in this country.

Congress is bought and paid for by providers as well as prosecutors at state and federal levels meaning no cost control via application of USC15 Chapter 1 laws and enforcement of consumer law.

As exponential increases raise deficits to unsustainable levels the one and only response by government will be to limit and ration access to point that any benefit is virtually worthless.

Further to cut costs Congress will be forced to further intrude on American daily life by dictating lifestyles, for those not in compliance coverage will be withdrawn.

I do not think we need to go down that road and encourage everyone to request enforcement of long standing law.

If you conservatives want to debate about what role the government has in various aspects of our lives, there's a debate to be had. In some fields, police, firemen, healthcare, we should recognize that when we're all in on it, not only is it safer but cheaper and more effective.

ETA: To me, a much, much more egregious use of government is stasi like spy agencies that spy on all of us. Furthermore, America used to have more economic freedom (classed as the ability to have upward economic mobility through different classes i.e., poor -> middle -> rich but now we're getting beat by countries that have medicare for all schemes like Canada)

originally posted by: Phoenix

As exponential increases raise deficits to unsustainable levels the one and only response by government will be to limit and ration access to point that any benefit is virtually worthless.

Further to cut costs Congress will be forced to further intrude on American daily life by dictating lifestyles, for those not in compliance coverage will be withdrawn.

Stop lying. I would normally grant you the word "conjecture" but that is so fantasist I can't call it anything else.

This has not happened in any country with single payer. Even with countries who have high debt like we do, and don't have the benefit of having the reserve currency of the world.

originally posted by: Phoenix
Single payer would be an utter disaster in this country.

I got to thinking something after reading this.

If the US can't so much as manage to pull off universal health care for it's people, why do we bother putting so much stock into it's "glory"? Ideas & freedoms are one thing, friggin' glorify them all you want. But they're kinda nothing but a pile o' feces if the peoples' health is decrepit. That just means we're a bunch of people free to be...sicker and die younger of worse crap.

Failing at keeping your citizens healthy is kind of a red flag of failure all around, IMO. Just take a good look at other countries with single payer systems, their overall health, and general social competency. Would this not in fact bolster the "no s#" given that the US is an incompetent country?

If so, that should be a hell of a good reason to do it, and knock it out of the ballpark while we're at it. "Incompetent" and "retarded" are not good looks for a population, are they? How many hundreds of years does the country need to exist before we cross the threshold for "get it right the first time"?

originally posted by: xuenchen

How would private insurance companies survive along with all affected employees ?

Maybe they just become administrator contractors like some companies do already?

I think there would still be room for some of those people to remain in the field as I'm sure there would still be a specialty or premium insurance market, but most would need to be retrained.

No different than coal miners now that we're at the dawn of a new clean energy era.

Just because a lot of people work in a field is not a reason that justifies keeping it around when it's no longer needed.

Automation is proving that over & over again every day.