Why a Singler Payer System Will Be a Failure: healthcare and Big Oil

reply to post by lifeissacred


out of curiousity what is the national debt of the uk and how much are they borrowing?

reply to post by neo96


It doesn't matter what the national debt is. We've had the NHS since the end of WW2. Our foreign aid and military spending are what should be cut, not the NHS. Also, If I had my way the top 1% would be taxed much higher, but we both know that will never happen...

reply to post by lifeissacred


i never said that they should be cut i dont live in the uk so i dont presume to tell what they should be doing.

the thing i was trying to bring up is you enjoy healthcare now and your nation is heavily in debt

much like mine and sooner or later somethings gotta give.

reply to post by neo96


I might add my comments to that question as well as the Uk and Australia have similar health systems although i would say the UK is slightly more generous and covers more items.


The AU GDP is about 1.2 trillion and about 9-10% of that is spent on healthcare.


Although think about this, the US spends about 15% of it's GDP on healthcare.

reply to post by neo96


Tax revenues are around 496 billion. Healthcare spending is around 104 billion. If increasing taxes for the upper classes means the NHS can continue to operate as it has in the past then I don't see that as an issue. There's alot we could do without which would decrease our spending, our public services aren't what needs to be cut however.

reply to post by Havick007


www.usdebtclock.org...

this is this nations debt clock now what do you think is going to happen when there are no more insurance companies employing people and paying taxes nor those people paying taxes and how much do you think revenue this nation will lose from it and from all those people buying goods and services and other goods and services and from other people etc.

reply to post by lifeissacred


oh take more from other people to pay for those services.

not a fan of that.

reply to post by neo96


I know it's hard to compare to contries that have different GDP and population figures.

Obviously if the US government covered help for the majority of the population the annual spend would be much more. Although i always look at the US defence spending and wonder is it all really nessesary.

Just imagine how much money a peaceful world would save......

reply to post by neo96


We have that as well here if you earn above 49,000 you will be taxed a higher amount for the medicare levy unless you have private healthcare then you wont be taxed the higher amount.

Actually people with private healthcare get a rebate in their tax return each year as well but that also depends on what tax bracket you are in.

reply to post by Havick007


we are already spending over 2 trillion just for medicaid and medicare both substandard quality of care and no dental or vision and what little coverage there is is cosmetic.

anything the us government does is half assed.


and when the "Rich" are taxes to death and gone how is it maintained?

answer it wont be cuts will be made and care ration because the system is unsustainable.

reply to post by neo96


Have you seen the Micheal Moore movie - Sicko?

A documentary comparing the highly profitable American health care industry to other nations, and HMO horror stories

Sicko (IMDb)

These parts put things into perspective;


Micheal interviews a doctor from the UK






9/11 victims smuggled INTO Cuba for healthcare





It's a great movie but very sad, some people may not like Micheal Moore but i think this is one of his best movies.

reply to post by Havick007


sorry cant stand moore

he is a healthcare providers worst nightmare and not because of his "films"

the health risks and care moore will be needing will be great and he has a better chance with his millions and private care than he ever would of government care that would more than likely write him off.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Havick007

 

we are already spending over 2 trillion just for medicaid and medicare both substandard quality of care

Well Neo, that statement is not true... care is the physical side of it, you are referring to payment
systems which do not provide anything but guidelines and payments. I think healthcare is not
a luxery, a doctor likely birthed you and will likely look you over when you are cold and dead,
it is my opinion that it should be a cost that is held up by everyone, like roads, military, postal service and libraries. If you notice in all of those cases there is still a very vital private sector too, same can be
done with healthcare delivery, screw insurance, I mean the real care.

reply to post by neo96


Government care doesn't "write off" anyone. No matter what, in a national healthcare system, you get the treatment you need.

Originally posted by neo96
and here it is agian for the people who dont bother to read.

would you want a single oil company in this country calling all the shots and setting the prices of gas?

I already answered, but you chose to not read it.

If you are asking if I want the energy systems in this country to be nationalized - turned into public hands - then yes. Absolutely.

What you are getting confused about is that the government is not a company. The government's role is to provide services to its people, while the company's role is to provide profits to its investors. These are very different roles.

For better or worse, we are currently dependent on fossil fuels. I would rather the control of these mandatory resource be in the hands of people who stand to gain from people using it at low costs, than in theh ands of those who would rather shorten supply and raise cost.

reply to post by ldyserenity


Well, we all know what SS is and how well it is doing as a single-payer system. Wanna do that with health care too? Also, Barry wants to raid Medicare to pay for Obamacare. That's robbing Peter to pay Paul. Sounds like old skool Robin hood, or was that robbin the hood?

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Havick007

 

we are already spending over 2 trillion just for medicaid and medicare both substandard quality of care

Well Neo, that statement is not true... care is the physical side of it, you are referring to payment
systems which do not provide anything but guidelines and payments. I think healthcare is not
a luxery, a doctor likely birthed you and will likely look you over when you are cold and dead,
it is my opinion that it should be a cost that is held up by everyone, like roads, military, postal service and libraries. If you notice in all of those cases there is still a very vital private sector too, same can be
done with healthcare delivery, screw insurance, I mean the real care.

edit on 10-6-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)

Interesting point you mention about doctors birthing us. This is a relatively new practice, as in older times there were midwives, not doctors, and it was not done in the hospital.
www.naturalchildbirth.org...
According to the CDC however, there is a new trend toward home births, albeit still small in comparison to that of hospital births.
abcnews.go.com...

Also, there has been a trend in doctors not wanting to deliver babies due to the enormous risk and lawsuits and the cost of insurance.

Whats wrong with single payer system? We have single payer system here, and its working well. Its the most logical form of healthcare possible.
Seems like you want mutually impossible thing Neo - to provide quality healthcare for those poor who cant afford it, without taking money from others.

- stealing money through taxes to pay for poor peoples healthcare
- poor people dying from treateble ilnesses

Pick lesser evil, Neo. There is simply no third option.

reply to post by neo96


Yet the majority of Humans are going to need a hospital at least once in their lives. Most people are born in a hospital, with trained doctors and midwives to ensure babies enter the world safely. Its also highly likely that you or a member of your family will need the hospital at some point, not to mention trips to the doctors for check ups.

So when the vast majority of people are going to need a hospital and medical treatment in their lives, int it better we all pay for it together. Something to provide all citizens of the nation a good standard of healthcare.

Considering the United States spends nearly double the amount of their GDP on health care than the UK and still does not provide a Universal system should raise some questions.