Should the US adopt a single-payer health care system?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:57:06 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)
  Should the US adopt a single-payer health care system?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Poll
Question: ?
#1
Yes (D)
 
#2
Yes (R)
 
#3
Yes (I/O)
 
#4
No (D)
 
#5
No (R)
 
#6
No (I/O)
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 99

Author Topic: Should the US adopt a single-payer health care system?  (Read 6268 times)
TDAS04
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,463
Bhutan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 15, 2014, 09:40:05 AM »

What do you think?
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 15, 2014, 10:00:01 AM »

I don't believe single payer is the best way of doing healthcare, but at this point, the US really should just because any other "compromise" will be organized in some godawful way that will likely almost defeat the purpose of the reform.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,079
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 15, 2014, 10:28:59 AM »

We haven't got the actual numbers yet, but word on the street is my health insurance costs are going to go up a LOT this year....and they've been going up a lot for the last several years.  If the numbers hold, I'm going to have financial issues next year.  I'm guessing I'm not alone.  The system seems to be broken, but admittedly, I don't really understand the system.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 15, 2014, 10:39:33 AM »
« Edited: October 15, 2014, 10:42:18 AM by King »

Our health insurance industry is a massive employer. It would take about two decades for us to transition without any negative economic repercussions. It's the same problem I have with the ideas of simplifying the tax code or making college education 100% free. There are jobs at stake when we do these things. People make a living off the complexities of our systems.

I think the ACA system is severely underrated and will work provided saboteurs stop saboteuring and expand Medicaid.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 15, 2014, 11:20:27 AM »

Our health insurance industry is a massive employer. It would take about two decades for us to transition without any negative economic repercussions. It's the same problem I have with the ideas of simplifying the tax code or making college education 100% free. There are jobs at stake when we do these things. People make a living off the complexities of our systems.

I think the ACA system is severely underrated and will work provided saboteurs stop saboteuring and expand Medicaid.

This. The ACA is our last chance to avoid a "hard landing" of the health care industry. At this point, the alternatives are very unattractive.
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 15, 2014, 11:46:22 AM »

No, a Bismarck system is both more efficient and more likely in the current climate.
Logged
Bojack Horseman
Wolverine22
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,368
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 15, 2014, 01:10:59 PM »

Absolutely.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 15, 2014, 01:46:35 PM »

No, but we already pay for it so I'm not going to complain if someone brings sanity to the current insane Medicare/Medicaid system by creating catastrophic single-payer without raising taxes. As long as we don't dive headfirst into some socialist boondoggle, like comprehensive single-payer insurance or nationalized healthcare assets, we'll be fine. I'd prefer not to mess with a public option, either, just reform the current tax-exemption rules, especially for plans with flat-rate copay.
Logged
TDAS04
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,463
Bhutan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 15, 2014, 03:04:52 PM »

I voted yes because it would be far superior to our current system and I believe that health care should be a right, though I am somewhat undecided whether or not single-payer is the best way to achieve universal health care.
Logged
DemPGH
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,755
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 15, 2014, 03:20:32 PM »

Voted Yes because I think it's the most straight-forward way to deal with the problem, I think healthcare access is a right, and I don't think it should be the responsibility of an employer to provide healthcare access, or the responsibility of the person to go buy it at this point.
Logged
Clarko95 📚💰📈
Clarko95
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,590
Sweden


Political Matrix
E: -5.61, S: -1.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 15, 2014, 04:58:46 PM »

I'll have to pass, thanks though. (I/O)
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: October 15, 2014, 05:05:47 PM »

At this point, its unavoidable.
Logged
anvi
anvikshiki
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,400
Netherlands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: October 15, 2014, 08:17:38 PM »

No, a Bismarck system is both more efficient and more likely in the current climate.

This. 
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: October 15, 2014, 09:53:14 PM »

Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,509
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: October 15, 2014, 10:10:38 PM »
« Edited: October 18, 2014, 11:34:01 AM by Frodo »

No, a Bismarck system is both more efficient and more likely in the current climate.

^^^^^^^

While I believe in universal health care, I don't have quite the same, uncritical (almost touching) faith in government that my more leftist friends share.  

 
Logged
H. Ross Peron
General Mung Beans
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,406
Korea, Republic of


Political Matrix
E: -6.58, S: -1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: October 15, 2014, 10:47:21 PM »

No, a Bismarck system is both more efficient and more likely in the current climate.
Logged
Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck
HockeyDude
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,376
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: October 16, 2014, 09:49:36 AM »

A methodical transition into such a system is not only an economic matter but also a moral one, so yes, we should adopt a single-payer system.  The UK started implementing the NHS in 1947!  This is after effectively existing as a monarchy not 30 years ago and two wars. 

Our health insurance industry is a massive employer. It would take about two decades for us to transition without any negative economic repercussions. It's the same problem I have with the ideas of simplifying the tax code or making college education 100% free. There are jobs at stake when we do these things. People make a living off the complexities of our systems.

I think the ACA system is severely underrated and will work provided saboteurs stop saboteuring and expand Medicaid.

King, you had mentioned that much of our economy and many jobs are dependent on our convoluted system.  Did we not make it through the recession and collapse of the financial sector?  You just have to transition as much as possible during a "boom" period with a lot of government projects hiring and a political environment favorable to taxing the crap out of the rich (our rich are taxed so lowly that I feel people underestimate the effect of a reasonable tax hike on them, it'd be almost transformative.)
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: October 16, 2014, 01:10:24 PM »

Yeah, but the financial industry didn't stop existing. It grew back.

People will literally have to be retrained to take different jobs.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,079
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: October 16, 2014, 02:42:42 PM »

Yeah, but the financial industry didn't stop existing. It grew back.

People will literally have to be retrained to take different jobs.
But who?  Certainly not the actual medically trained people.  It will just be bureaucrats and insurance types.  And they can either find a real job, or they can get another bureaucratic job.  Actual nurses and doctors and what not will be just fine in any such transition.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: October 16, 2014, 03:29:28 PM »

Healthcare administration would probably see a downsizing. That does require a specialized degree and/or certifications.
Logged
politicallefty
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,200
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -9.22

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: October 18, 2014, 11:23:16 AM »

Most definitely. It's one of my most strongest beliefs. However, while I am idealistic in terms of healthcare, I do recognize the practical realities. Taking single-payer nationwide would be extraordinarily difficult. The ACA has allowed for a very strong foundation though. I think states should build from it and be allowed to experiment to a certain extent. Vermont already has a single-payer law set for 2017. I'm also hopeful that California will also pass such a law. With full federal waivers from all other healthcare programs (so that the money can be put into the new system), we would be able to see first-hand how single-payer can function in this country.

On the other hand, if states want to experiment with the Bismarck system, I'd be fine with that as well. The ACA is not and should not be the endpoint of the American healthcare system. I do not waver on the principle that no American should be uninsured or otherwise denied healthcare. In the meantime, let's have some states adopt a single-payer healthcare system and see how it goes.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: October 21, 2014, 11:36:18 AM »

Where would the trend that insurance companies losing its ability to compete against companies that provide doctors and access take us?
Logged
Mordecai
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,465
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: October 29, 2014, 01:04:12 PM »
« Edited: October 29, 2014, 01:12:53 PM by Mordecai »

A public option and ACA-style markets with a mandate along with the repeal of tax benefits for company insurance would probably work better with less effort.

As awesome as the end result of single-payer would be, it would be a nightmare to implement.

Edit:

Yeah, but the financial industry didn't stop existing. It grew back.

People will literally have to be retrained to take different jobs.

There could be deductions and vouchers for education and training. If people could be retrained for jobs during the Great Depression then surely they could be retrained today. It's possible, it would just take a lot of political courage and cooperation.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: October 29, 2014, 01:59:06 PM »

A public option and ACA-style markets with a mandate along with the repeal of tax benefits for company insurance would probably work better with less effort.

As awesome as the end result of single-payer would be, it would be a nightmare to implement.

We already have single-payer in the form of Medicare and Medicaid, but politicians in both parties restrict access so only 1/3 of the population receive the benefits. Republicans are terrified of the political implications derived from creating single-payer insurance for catastrophic medicine, though, it would be a huge boon to the economy. Democrats are terrified of the political fallout and ideological compromise associated with swapping pork-dispensaries for entitlements that actually work.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: November 04, 2014, 06:38:13 PM »

A public option and ACA-style markets with a mandate along with the repeal of tax benefits for company insurance would probably work better with less effort.

As awesome as the end result of single-payer would be, it would be a nightmare to implement.

We already have single-payer in the form of Medicare and Medicaid, but politicians in both parties restrict access so only 1/3 of the population receive the benefits. Republicans are terrified of the political implications derived from creating single-payer insurance for catastrophic medicine, though, it would be a huge boon to the economy. Democrats are terrified of the political fallout and ideological compromise associated with swapping pork-dispensaries for entitlements that actually work.

I heard of such a scheme in the Atlantic but what would be catastrophic and when would end of life termination of care be determined or how?
I'm guessing that anything short of catastrophic care could then be taken care of in Walmart or Walgreens or something like that?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« previous next »
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 0.047 seconds with 15 queries.