Obamacare vs Single-Payer Health Care
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 10:06:33 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Obamacare vs Single-Payer Health Care
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: What is the best for Americans ?
#1
Obamacare
 
#2
Single-Payer Health Care
 
#3
Both
 
#4
Other option
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 77

Author Topic: Obamacare vs Single-Payer Health Care  (Read 1849 times)
American2020
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,493
Côte d'Ivoire


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 06, 2017, 04:41:23 PM »

What is the best for Americans ?

http://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2017/04/06/single-payer_health_care_is_not_the_answer_110207.html
Logged
Hindsight was 2020
Hindsight is 2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,198
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 06, 2017, 04:52:51 PM »

A better question is Obamacare with a public opition vs single payer
Logged
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,217
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 06, 2017, 04:59:05 PM »

Private single payer in which each state contracts with a high quality health insurer of its choice to cover all citizens at low premium, low cost-sharing policies that emphasize preventive services, exercise, no smoking, healthy diets, etc. The federal government would help fund, giving extra grants to poorer states. All hospitals would be mandatorily non-profit.
Logged
RI
realisticidealist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,713


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: April 06, 2017, 05:11:56 PM »

I've grown partial to the idea of universal health savings accounts with Medicare covering costs above a certain threshold of the patient's income.
Logged
mieastwick
Rookie
**
Posts: 214


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: April 06, 2017, 05:13:29 PM »

Neither are steps in the right direction. The U.S. government already spends one of the highest per capita figures on healthcare in the world. There is no point in going even higher. Ted Cruz's and Rand Paul's ideas are definitely steps in the right direction in fixing the monstrosity that is American healthcare, as they reduce government mandates and spending and make those using healthcare more responsible for paying for it. Isn't this obvious?

mises.org/blog/bernie-sanders-says-we-should-be-spending-less-health-care
Logged
Cory
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,709


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 06, 2017, 05:54:06 PM »

Neither are steps in the right direction. The U.S. government already spends one of the highest per capita figures on healthcare in the world. There is no point in going even higher. Ted Cruz's and Rand Paul's ideas are definitely steps in the right direction in fixing the monstrosity that is American healthcare, as they reduce government mandates and spending and make those using healthcare more responsible for paying for it. Isn't this obvious?

Yeah, that's just it. Single-payer would save money.
Logged
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,217
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: April 06, 2017, 06:15:23 PM »

Neither are steps in the right direction. The U.S. government already spends one of the highest per capita figures on healthcare in the world. There is no point in going even higher. Ted Cruz's and Rand Paul's ideas are definitely steps in the right direction in fixing the monstrosity that is American healthcare, as they reduce government mandates and spending and make those using healthcare more responsible for paying for it. Isn't this obvious?

Yeah, that's just it. Single-payer would save money.

Single-payer could save money, but it would have to be run really well. It's not like it's an automatic money-saver, and I have little faith in most state governments to actually do it right.
Logged
RI
realisticidealist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,713


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: April 06, 2017, 06:16:33 PM »

Neither are steps in the right direction. The U.S. government already spends one of the highest per capita figures on healthcare in the world. There is no point in going even higher. Ted Cruz's and Rand Paul's ideas are definitely steps in the right direction in fixing the monstrosity that is American healthcare, as they reduce government mandates and spending and make those using healthcare more responsible for paying for it. Isn't this obvious?

Yeah, that's just it. Single-payer would save money.

Most of the evidence I've seen suggests single-payer when actually enacted helps reduce cost expansion but doesn't do much to lower the baseline cost.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: April 06, 2017, 06:46:48 PM »

Neither are steps in the right direction. The U.S. government already spends one of the highest per capita figures on healthcare in the world. There is no point in going even higher. Ted Cruz's and Rand Paul's ideas are definitely steps in the right direction in fixing the monstrosity that is American healthcare, as they reduce government mandates and spending and make those using healthcare more responsible for paying for it. Isn't this obvious?

Yeah, that's just it. Single-payer would save money.

Most of the evidence I've seen suggests single-payer when actually enacted helps reduce cost expansion but doesn't do much to lower the baseline cost.

Yep:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-04-30/single-payer-would-make-health-care-worse
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: April 06, 2017, 07:23:33 PM »

Neither are steps in the right direction. The U.S. government already spends one of the highest per capita figures on healthcare in the world. There is no point in going even higher. Ted Cruz's and Rand Paul's ideas are definitely steps in the right direction in fixing the monstrosity that is American healthcare, as they reduce government mandates and spending and make those using healthcare more responsible for paying for it. Isn't this obvious?

Yeah, that's just it. Single-payer would save money.

Most of the evidence I've seen suggests single-payer when actually enacted helps reduce cost expansion but doesn't do much to lower the baseline cost.

Yep:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-04-30/single-payer-would-make-health-care-worse


Our spending used to be more in line with other countries, and I don't see why we can't get ours closer to theirs. It's even worse when you consider that we have a younger population than most of the other countries in this chart.

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 #10 on: April 06, 2017, 07:42:41 PM »

Single payer.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,348


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: April 06, 2017, 07:43:47 PM »

Obamacare easily
Logged
Chief Justice Keef
etr906
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,100
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: April 06, 2017, 07:50:25 PM »

Private single payer in which each state contracts with a high quality health insurer of its choice to cover all citizens at low premium, low cost-sharing policies that emphasize preventive services, exercise, no smoking, healthy diets, etc. The federal government would help fund, giving extra grants to poorer states. All hospitals would be mandatorily non-profit.

This is so overtly complex when you could just guarantee healthcare for everybody and you'd actually save money.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: April 06, 2017, 09:48:40 PM »

Neither are steps in the right direction. The U.S. government already spends one of the highest per capita figures on healthcare in the world. There is no point in going even higher. Ted Cruz's and Rand Paul's ideas are definitely steps in the right direction in fixing the monstrosity that is American healthcare, as they reduce government mandates and spending and make those using healthcare more responsible for paying for it. Isn't this obvious?

Yeah, that's just it. Single-payer would save money.

Most of the evidence I've seen suggests single-payer when actually enacted helps reduce cost expansion but doesn't do much to lower the baseline cost.

Yep:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-04-30/single-payer-would-make-health-care-worse


Our spending used to be more in line with other countries, and I don't see why we can't get ours closer to theirs.

That's discussed in the link above.  First, at least a little of the high health care spending is baked into the infrastructure.  E.g., we can't un-build all our hospitals and build them over again so that they can accommodate more people per room.  And second, the high spending has constituencies who are not going to quietly accept taking pay cuts:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

So I'm not so sure how reducing costs to be in line with other Western democracies is politically realistic.  If we implement single payer, I am not counting on health spending suddenly falling in line with those other countries.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: April 06, 2017, 09:50:20 PM »

Neither are steps in the right direction. The U.S. government already spends one of the highest per capita figures on healthcare in the world. There is no point in going even higher. Ted Cruz's and Rand Paul's ideas are definitely steps in the right direction in fixing the monstrosity that is American healthcare, as they reduce government mandates and spending and make those using healthcare more responsible for paying for it. Isn't this obvious?

Yeah, that's just it. Single-payer would save money.

Most of the evidence I've seen suggests single-payer when actually enacted helps reduce cost expansion but doesn't do much to lower the baseline cost.

Yep:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-04-30/single-payer-would-make-health-care-worse


Our spending used to be more in line with other countries, and I don't see why we can't get ours closer to theirs.

That's discussed in the link above.  First, at least a little of the high health care spending is baked into the infrastructure.  E.g., we can't un-build all our hospitals and build them over again so that they can accommodate more people per room.  And second, the high spending has constituencies who are not going to quietly accept taking pay cuts:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

So I'm not so sure how reducing costs to be in line with other Western democracies is politically realistic.  If we implement single payer, I am not counting on health spending suddenly falling in line with those other countries.


Obviously we're not going to get near the middle of the pack, but maybe just a little more than Switzerland might be possible.
Logged
TDAS04
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,464
Bhutan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: April 06, 2017, 09:53:48 PM »

Single-payer would be better than what we currently have.
Logged
Goldwater
Republitarian
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,054
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: April 07, 2017, 10:56:10 AM »

Single-Payer, obviously.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,999
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: April 07, 2017, 10:58:00 AM »

Obviously, I'd strongly prefer Obamacare, but the whole point of Obamacare was to get us on a track toward single payer.
Logged
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,217
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: April 07, 2017, 12:24:32 PM »

Private single payer in which each state contracts with a high quality health insurer of its choice to cover all citizens at low premium, low cost-sharing policies that emphasize preventive services, exercise, no smoking, healthy diets, etc. The federal government would help fund, giving extra grants to poorer states. All hospitals would be mandatorily non-profit.

This is so overtly complex when you could just guarantee healthcare for everybody and you'd actually save money.

I don't trust most states in the USA to set up a system that provides adequate, sufficient, comprehensive coverage, and I doubt many of them would be competent enough to save money in the attempt.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,960
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: April 07, 2017, 12:52:41 PM »

Logged
Shadows
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,956
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: April 07, 2017, 10:22:15 PM »

Single Payer saves just by eliminating the private profits, massive administrative costs (what are the admin overheads for ACA vs Medicare?) & ofcourse by creating economies of scale which is going to sharply bring down costs.

Many 100's of Billions of $ will just be said by eliminating overheads & profits & that is not even debatable, so all this states can't do this & that & there will no benefits is flat out ignorant.
Logged
Deblano
EdgarAllenYOLO
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,680
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: April 07, 2017, 10:54:02 PM »

A better question is Obamacare with a public opition vs single payer
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 #22 on: April 07, 2017, 11:05:35 PM »

I've noticed, among rank and file Republicans at least, a slight opening for single-payer. People who chanted "no to socialism" eight years ago suddenly are intrigued by the idea. I know one Trump voter who frequently praises Hugo Chavez for nationalizing the oil and selling it ten cents a dollar.

Of course I don't want nationalized oil and I don't want single payer if a millionaire can't get the same right to healthcare as a pauper, but if you can make single-payer purely about healthcare and not about wealth redistribution than in a few decades it should have broad bipartisan support. We're on our way!
Logged
Shadows
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,956
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: April 08, 2017, 12:51:45 AM »

I've noticed, among rank and file Republicans at least, a slight opening for single-payer. People who chanted "no to socialism" eight years ago suddenly are intrigued by the idea. I know one Trump voter who frequently praises Hugo Chavez for nationalizing the oil and selling it ten cents a dollar.

Of course I don't want nationalized oil and I don't want single payer if a millionaire can't get the same right to healthcare as a pauper, but if you can make single-payer purely about healthcare and not about wealth redistribution than in a few decades it should have broad bipartisan support. We're on our way!

The ACA is not working & isn't a long term solution, the costs will further escalate with monopolies in many states. I saw your earlier post about Single Payer too. There are a couple of problems with your revenue generation mechanism - Indirect taxes would go too high on everything & in general that would disincentivize sales/purchases which is why I prefer tax on profit. Secondly it is going disproportionately (as % of income) hurt low income people who are already struggling & this will be unpopular. It is also difficult to justify say a national 20% odd Sales Tax for healthcare etc.

Among the other options you have - Part funding through federal income tax increases & payroll tax increases (Bernie proposal). Now federal income taxes on very wealthy have to go up because other-wise payroll tax increases are way too high - Bernie had like 6%+ for payroll, you can't go with an increase of payroll taxes by 15-20% etc.

If you combine all ideas for revenue generation the solution is -> A combination of Sales Tax of 5-6%, Federal Income tax increases on 250K+, Payroll tax increases 4-5% etc. But anyways I think any such arrangement will derive scorn from both the left & the right & you try to appease the right & 0 people voted for the ACA anyways so I don't see this as a winning strategy. I don't see any solution to placate all sides, but it will be much less costlier than the ACA !
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« 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 0.064 seconds with 14 queries.