Bernie Sanders to introduce single payer healthcare bill

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.

It saddens me that politicians will sell out their constituents for peanuts. I could see if maybe a $5 Billion trust fund was set up for the politician and his/her family, but the kind of money that's taking them off-track is minor.

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: seasonal

True. America is the only country where insurance companies go to the federal government and get billions of free money every once in a while. It's the most subsidized industry in the world.

obamacarefacts.com...

We can all agree that corporate cronyism has to go in this scenario. That starts with getting government OUT of the health insurance racket.

originally posted by: seasonal

Something is fishy with the approach.

Something dirty and evil no doubt.

a reply to: xuenchen

It's called politics, lobbying and no giving an F about the citizens until election time.

Don't be silly, they don't care about the citizens then either

a reply to: Teikiatsu

By the same token, you could move there and see if it's trash or fantastic before you pass YOUR judgment.

tit4tat, sir.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

All three examples, regardless of what discipline they're rooted in, show that we've successfully accomplished what was once said to be "impossible". Just like you're saying now.

There is no Law in Economics or Math that says Universal Healthcare is impossible.

It might be complicated to figure out how to do it and might take adjusting it from time to time or changing things around but it most certainly can be done. Just because you can't figure out how to do something doesn't mean it can't be done. It just means you lack the ability or vision to figure it out yourself. Doesn't mean others can't though.

Going back to what we already had that didn't work isn't going to help anything either. That is the definition of insanity.

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: Teikiatsu

By the same token, you could move there and see if it's trash or fantastic before you pass YOUR judgment.

tit4tat, sir.

Why would I do that? I'm not calling for single payer. Let those who want it, get it. Elsewhere.

a reply to: mOjOm

I'm sure there is some magical amount of taxation that could accomplish it, at the cost of everything else.

There comes a time and place when the adults have to smack the kids upside the head and say "Stop it"

The costs outweigh the benefits. This is called 'reality.'

www.cnbc.com...

Read it multiple times. California realized it would bankrupt their already heavily taxed state.

Single Payer is not a workable option.

Rinse. Repeat.

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. Cut off the age and income requirements and you are done - single payer.

Realistically, we should phase this in over maybe a 10 year period to allow the federal infrastructure at CMMI to ramp up, and not crash the insurance market. People would still buy insurance to cover the 20% that medicare/Medicaid does not pay for certain things.

If we raised the eligibilty rate for Medicaid (currently at 138% of the poverty level) by 11% a year we would cover 95 % of U.S. Citizens in 10 years. I figured this out on a spread sheet about 8 months ago. Took me about 5 minutes. I should send it to congress, and the bill would read "the eligibility for Medicaid shall be raised by 11% for the next ten years, based upon 2017 dollars".

And of heath care discussions.

Back to fighting over gays, bridges to nowhere and pork projects.

end of story.

Health care is not that hard.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Some people thought it wouldn't work. Others thought the very opposite and had their own figures to show how it could work.

But since nothing was even tried we don't actually know.

What we do know however, is what has already failed us and what we have tried. Which is what you are claiming is the answer. But if it didn't work for us then I don't see how it will work for us now.

Since everything else we've tried has already failed, seems to me that we should try something different. All it can do is fail like everything else we've tried so we can't really lose anymore than we already have.

You're trying to push old ideas as if they're new. They aren't new. They aren't different than what we've already tried. So why would the result be any different???

I can't say for sure what the right answer is. Be it single payer or something else. But at least trying something that hasn't already failed us in the past is a new approach. There is no point in doing what has already not worked for us again.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Some people thought it wouldn't work. Others thought the very opposite and had their own figures to show how it could work.

But since nothing was even tried we don't actually know.

What we do know however, is what has already failed us and what we have tried. Which is what you are claiming is the answer. But if it didn't work for us then I don't see how it will work for us now.

Since everything else we've tried has already failed, seems to me that we should try something different. All it can do is fail like everything else we've tried so we can't really lose anymore than we already have.

You're trying to push old ideas as if they're new. They aren't new. They aren't different than what we've already tried. So why would the result be any different???

I can't say for sure what the right answer is. Be it single payer or something else. But at least trying something that hasn't already failed us in the past is a new approach. There is no point in doing what has already not worked for us again.

Government has failed us. That's why it needs to get out instead of take over more.

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.

edit on 30-7-2017 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)

Single Payer absolutely could work here, but I would want to see a balanced budget including its funding FIRST. For starters, eliminating the insurance companies would lower costs across the board for reasons that have been hashed to death elsewhere, plus all the "red tape" employees would no longer be needed. There are more office support personnel than there are care providers, by a wide margin.

Plus, all the money that employers currently dump into insurance could be funneled into single payer, along with all the money employees are currently paying on insurance. There's a ton of money already being dumped into the system.

But like I said, I'd want to see all that on an accounting sheet. We do not need the AHCA version of Single Payer, where it's conceived as an afterthought by brain-dead politicians.

originally posted by: Dudemo5
Single Payer absolutely could work here, but I would want to see a balanced budget including its funding FIRST. For starters, eliminating the insurance companies would lower costs across the board for reasons that have been hashed to death elsewhere, plus all the "red tape" employees would no longer be needed. There are more office support personnel than there are care providers, by a wide margin.

Plus, all the money that employers currently dump into insurance could be funneled into single payer, along with all the money employees are currently paying on insurance. There's a ton of money already being dumped into the system.

But like I said, I'd want to see all that on an accounting sheet. We do not need the AHCA version of Single Payer, where it's conceived as an afterthought by brain-dead politicians.

California realizes it is too expensive:

www.cnbc.com...

The study tried to be a bit more optimistic, noting that private employers currently pay between $100 and $150 billion per year to provide health insurance for their workers and hypothesizing that money "could" be made available to the single payer plan. But that assumes those employers and employees would be okay with choosing a government-run option instead of their private insurance.

Yeah, none of that is going to work.

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.

a reply to: allsee4eye

He did say "major" country, not all countries. And just because one has insurance does not mean that the healthcare is all that great either. Sometimes one has to fight the insurance company just for coverage, which can then be denied with little or no recourse. (Because insurance companies actually drive the country and make the rules.)

check this out

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek
a reply to: allsee4eye
(Because insurance companies actually drive the country and make the rules.)

check this out

Yep, which is why the insurance companies were retained as the center of power in the ACA.

a reply to: Dudemo5

How can it be the insurance companies fault?

They have to pay out 80% - 85% of the "take" by law.

It's the medical/government/banking complex that's got the "costs" skyrocketing.

Don't forget the "Liability" insurance that all Medical people and facilities pay for.

Lassoed

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.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

So let's fix the Government.

We actually have that power not to mention responsibility to do so anyway.

That's our job within a Democratic Republic. Government By, For and Of the People remember.

We have no control over Private Business. We cannot do anything about Private Business because they are Private. We can only make changes to our Government which then can make changes to Private Business.

That's why Privatizing everything and removing Government is not a good idea. Because The People only have constitutional power over Government not Private Business. We've let those two forces join against the People and now the Corps. are taking over Government too. Once in total control we have no way out. Our control of Government is our only control over Private Business.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Continue the way it is-> un-affordable-> collapse