What's Wrong with Single Payer?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
If you are right, then why are so many insured people so unhealthy?
[/quote]
They are probably people with little to no personal resources. You usually have to have some resources (discipline, intelligence, well being) before you think about health, or like on this site, taking the body to the optimal level. These people with poor resources has a harder time educating themselves and getting a well paying job, and so they can’t afford insurance, or again, they don’t have the personal resources to make it a priority.

Some people are just plain unlucky.

Some people are leeches, of course (I hope noone here pirates their music, games or movies).

How is the pay at Walmart and such by the way? Here it is about $22 per hour when starting out in grocery stores.

You’re welcome BackinAction/Rock Lee.

I am not saying the Norwegian healthcare system is perfect.

[quote]espenl wrote:

They are probably people with little to no personal resources. You usually have to have some resources (discipline, intelligence, well being) before you think about health, or like on this site, taking the body to the optimal level. These people with poor resources has a harder time educating themselves and getting a well paying job, and so they can’t afford insurance, or again, they don’t have the personal resources to make it a priority.[/quote]

No, you didn’t answer the question. In America, most people are covered by inusrance and our care is very good, yet we are very unhealthy across the board (obesity, etc.). These are people with resources and health care access - so why are they so unhealthy?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]espenl wrote:

They are probably people with little to no personal resources. You usually have to have some resources (discipline, intelligence, well being) before you think about health, or like on this site, taking the body to the optimal level. These people with poor resources has a harder time educating themselves and getting a well paying job, and so they can’t afford insurance, or again, they don’t have the personal resources to make it a priority.[/quote]

No, you didn’t answer the question. In America, most people are covered by inusrance and our care is very good, yet we are very unhealthy across the board (obesity, etc.). These are people with resources and health care access - so why are they so unhealthy?[/quote]

Most are not covered by health care, America is the largest customer of health care and it is right around fifty percent of all health care dollars come from the federal Gov.

That is why the present program is non sustainable, costs going up 4 and 5 times faster than inflation

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Most are not covered by health care,
[/quote]

WHHhaaaaattt???.. How the hell did you come up with that?

Most Americans have insurance, something like 90%, about half that don’t are in a temporary state (job changes), Most of what is left have access to coverage and refuse it.

The actual number people that don’t have access is tiny.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Most are not covered by health care, America is the largest customer of health care and it is right around fifty percent of all health care dollars come from the federal Gov.[/quote]

Fifty-eight percent are covered by employer, professional, or union-sponsored plans. Thirty two percent are covered by governmental insurance programs.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Pitt is like a pinata. He just swings from the ceiling just waiting, I mean flat out offering, to have himself beaten with a stick. What a masochist.[/quote]

And he thinks that we should legalize drugs and have universal health care at the same time - what could go wrong?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
No, you didn’t answer the question. In America, most people are covered by inusrance and our care is very good, yet we are very unhealthy across the board (obesity, etc.). These are people with resources and health care access - so why are they so unhealthy?[/quote]

Sorry, I digressed. I guess they are unhealthy because they can, and they have their freedom to be it. Fast food is cheap, and tastes good, and everyone has the choice.

There is the sugar industry, tobacco industry, fast food industry etc, which main purpose is to sell product and make money. You already knew this.

  1. a single payer system would cut costs. We need only look at the fact that the United States and Sweden pay more per capita for healthcare than any other first world country. As it so happens, we both have the same defunct system which leaves our well-being subject to the whims of profit hungry organizations.

  2. Thunderbolt, I disagree with your assertion that a single payer system would result in an entitled class. Yes there are people who don’t pay income taxes, but who are those people. I can safely say that the vast majority of this group does not consist high income individuals who one could appropriately call entitled, rather it is predominantly made up of the unemployed, and people without any means. Tell me if I am misinterpretting your post, but it seems irrational to jump to the conclusion that a single payer program would result in entitlement.

[quote]espenl wrote:

Sorry, I digressed. I guess they are unhealthy because they can, and they have their freedom to be it. Fast food is cheap, and tastes good, and everyone has the choice.[/quote]

Right, they choose to be. So, single-payer insurance - which removes the one thing left to make people take personal responsibility for their health outside of personal/cultural reasons (personal financial costs as their health gets worse due to their choices) - would do nothing to correct this problem and arguably makes it worse: people no longer have to suffer the financial consequences of their poor choices, whether they choose to be healthy or not, they don’t pay any difference.

Irrelevant. I drive past a store offering each of these products on the way home from work and never buy a one of them.

Federal Employees Health Benefits Program
Indian Health Service
Medicaid
Medicare
Military Health System / TRICARE
State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
Veterans Health Administration

I do not know how state Ins figures into it either. Also the antiquated figure of 59% were not health care dollars they were claims of percentage of coverage.

I stand corrected, on percentage. Because I can not find what I am looking for ,But I did hear that figure some where
But the figures you quote were before the recession.
Some say 18 million people have lost there jobs, that does not count companies that have dropped there Ins. Because of the recession or the one that have dropped because of rate increase. So phuckin beat me :slight_smile:

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Health_insurance_in_the_United_States

Slap…

[quote]orion wrote:

In our system our government tells you what you pay and what you get and unless you have quite a bit of money, that is what you will get. That is a whole different ballgame.

[/quote]

I’m really curious about this. So you have a single-payer system, but private industry still exists? Or the rich leave the country?

If there’s just a private system that’s expensive, that doesn’t really seem any different that what we have in the US right now. Getting sick bankrupts people all the time.

I’m curious what you consider “quite a bit of money”, because with that, you can get good care anywhere. I wonder if the people in my country or your country, who don’t have “quite a bit of money”, get better care.

I think at some point practicality has to take precedent over ideology. If indeed single-payer (and go ahead and layer a private healthcare system for the ultra-wealthy on top) is shown to be the most cost effective way to deal with healthcare, getting, on average the best quality of healthcare, to the largest population, it seems all the free-marketeers should just hold their noses and deal with it.

I’ve gotten to the point where I think the only real effective solutions are either single-payer, or total deregulation + ban on insurance, so everyone MUST price-hunt and pay cash. That would really drive prices down, but would be an extremely messy transition. And I don’t hear anyone on the right even thinking about advocating that.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
…So phuckin beat me :slight_smile:

[/quote]

You can count on it. It’s like breathing - it’s easy.
[/quote]

I am waiting:)

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
…So phuckin beat me :slight_smile:

[/quote]

You can count on it. It’s like breathing - it’s easy.
[/quote]

I am waiting:)[/quote]

Did you not read the replies to your post?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Right, they choose to be. So, single-payer insurance - which removes the one thing left to make people take personal responsibility for their health outside of personal/cultural reasons (personal financial costs as their health gets worse due to their choices) - would do nothing to correct this problem and arguably makes it worse: people no longer have to suffer the financial consequences of their poor choices, whether they choose to be healthy or not, they don’t pay any difference.[/quote]

That is a consequence, yes. It seems a more popular choice than the health bill would be a kill off poor/unemployed bill. Until someone you know gets killed.

There will be leeches, sadly. There will also be a lot of people who gets deserved healthcare they would not otherwise get. No system is perfect.

[quote]Irrelevant. I drive past a store offering each of these products on the way home from work and never buy a one of them.
[/quote]
Yes you did, but if everyone were so “perfect”, those stores would be bancrupt, and the world would be a shiny place. They aren’t. It isn’t.