Public-option to Single-payer? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 01, 2024, 01:33:03 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Public-option to Single-payer? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Public-option to Single-payer?  (Read 8103 times)
politicaladdict
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 258
« on: October 05, 2009, 07:31:10 PM »

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/08/03/still-not-convinced-the-public-option-is-a-trojan-horse-for-single-payer/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT4mV3R7vu4&feature=player_embedded
Schakowsky tells her Health Care for America Now audience: “And next to me was a guy from the insurance company who argued against the public health insurance option, saying it wouldn’t let private insurance compete. That a public option will put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single-payer. My single-payer friends, he was right. The man was right.”


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3BS4C9el98&feature=player_embedded
Frank tells a member of Single Payer Action: “I think that if we get a good public option it could lead to single-payer and that is the best way to reach single-payer. Saying you’ll do nothing till you get single-payer is a sure way never to get it. … I think the best way we’re going to get single-payer, the only way, is to have a public option and demonstrate the strength of its power.”


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FElipqE_Dl4&feature=player_embedded
Klein tells his netroots audience: “They have a sneaky strategy, the point of which is to put in place something that over time the natural incentives within its own market will move it to single-payer.”


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7WNxrySFQA&feature=player_embedded
Krugmans tells his audience: “[T]he only reason not to do [single-payer] is that politically it’s hard to do in one step…You’d have to convince people to completely give up the insurance they have, whereas something that lets people keep the insurance they have but then offers the option of a public plan, that may evolve into single-payer, but you can do it politically…

Krugman would know, he's an economist!


All of these Obama allies support a “public option” because they believe it will eventually lead to a single-payer system. Conservatives are against the “public option” because, like everybody quoted above, we also believe that a “public option” will inevitably lead to single-payer health care. There is one person, however, who vehemently disagrees with everyone quoted above about the effect a public option would have on private health care. President Barack Obama told the AMA June 15th:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk&feature=player_embedded
But does President Obama even believe his own words here? Watch this video and decide for yourself:
Logged
politicaladdict
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 258
« Reply #1 on: October 05, 2009, 07:43:07 PM »

If only this were the case.

Neither will happen.

GOOD!

Now the next would be to get these suckers out of office by 2010, hopefully!
Logged
politicaladdict
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 258
« Reply #2 on: October 31, 2009, 04:49:37 PM »

Why would you oppose it so much? I fail to see how single-payer is bad- every advanced country in the world has it besides us, and every advanced country spends less on health care than us, with better results.

If every 'advanced' country legalised throwing children into pits of acid, would you support that too?

You missed the second part of my argument, where I pointed out it was better elsewhere as compared to America.

But I bet the thrown child would be taken care of better than they would be if that situation existed in America.

America also spends the most on healthcare, yet it has the lowest life expectancy out of the G8.

We have the highest cancer survival rate.

Life expectancy isn't even related to health care necessarily.
Logged
politicaladdict
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 258
« Reply #3 on: October 31, 2009, 04:51:07 PM »


We spend alot of money on health care because this is the country where alot people spend alot of money. We are or were the most richest nation.
Logged
politicaladdict
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 258
« Reply #4 on: October 31, 2009, 04:52:19 PM »

Why would you oppose it so much? I fail to see how single-payer is bad- every advanced country in the world has it besides us, and every advanced country spends less on health care than us, with better results.

If every 'advanced' country legalised throwing children into pits of acid, would you support that too?

You missed the second part of my argument, where I pointed out it was better elsewhere as compared to America.

But I bet the thrown child would be taken care of better than they would be if that situation existed in America.

America also spends the most on healthcare, yet it has the lowest life expectancy out of the G8.

We have the highest cancer survival rate.

We've been over this, you fool.

Well, it looks like some morons still don't get it, especially you!
Logged
politicaladdict
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 258
« Reply #5 on: October 31, 2009, 04:55:48 PM »

You also have the highest infant mortality rate.

This covers some truth on the infant-mortality and life-expectancy rate.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547ComparativeHealth.html
Logged
politicaladdict
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 258
« Reply #6 on: October 31, 2009, 04:58:52 PM »

You also have the highest infant mortality rate.

This covers some truth on the infant-mortality and life-expectancy rate.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547ComparativeHealth.html

Those are the best measures we have, and they're certainly more extensive than cancer survival rates. I'm no fan of UHC, politicaladdict, but I think you're glossing over the facts.

It looks like you from Britain, you probably like single-payer, right?
Logged
politicaladdict
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 258
« Reply #7 on: October 31, 2009, 06:29:03 PM »
« Edited: October 31, 2009, 06:32:04 PM by politicaladdict »

You also have the highest infant mortality rate.

This covers some truth on the infant-mortality and life-expectancy rate.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547ComparativeHealth.html

Those are the best measures we have, and they're certainly more extensive than cancer survival rates. I'm no fan of UHC, politicaladdict, but I think you're glossing over the facts.

It looks like you from Britain, you probably like single-payer, right?

Not really. I support a system whereby the NHS would be privatised except for pregnant women, children and pensioners. I believe the free market could better allocate resources than the government. But I think you're ignoring some concrete facts.

My point was that higher health spending isn't neccesarily correlated with good healthcare systems.

So you believe in gov oversight rather than regulation, right.

Why can't they just provide free health care, for those really really needy, to those specifics who they say are needy.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.03 seconds with 12 queries.