- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: How much would single payer cost?
Posted on 9/22/17 at 11:40 am to bonhoeffer45
Posted on 9/22/17 at 11:40 am to bonhoeffer45
What do you want after single payer? Single provider?
Where does the lust to grow the federal government end?
I think it's helpful for your side to understand that part of the reason you are being resisted and often ridiculed is that there is no apparent end game for you.
When it "seems" that this is just another step toward dependence on mommy gov much of the nation says "whoa, I don't like this. When are they going to stop"?
Of course, the left can't honestly answer that question because there would be a massive backlash and resistance to their desires would be massive.
I don't think I'm alone in that way of thinking.
Call me paranoid if you want. I'd prefer you to think about why so many people are against what you are doing. It's not because we hate poor people at all. That's the most assinine jibberish BamaSJW can come up with.
Where does the lust to grow the federal government end?
I think it's helpful for your side to understand that part of the reason you are being resisted and often ridiculed is that there is no apparent end game for you.
When it "seems" that this is just another step toward dependence on mommy gov much of the nation says "whoa, I don't like this. When are they going to stop"?
Of course, the left can't honestly answer that question because there would be a massive backlash and resistance to their desires would be massive.
I don't think I'm alone in that way of thinking.
Call me paranoid if you want. I'd prefer you to think about why so many people are against what you are doing. It's not because we hate poor people at all. That's the most assinine jibberish BamaSJW can come up with.
1
Posted on 9/22/17 at 11:42 am to Eli Goldfinger
quote:
hard to monetize the loss of healthcare innovation and R&D. Other countries like to point out their socialized healthcare vs. the US's system, but they would prefer not to discuss how the US is clearly the world's leader in health innovation.
Bingo.
I’ve pointed this out in a few threads over the years, but the US system - directly and indirectly - is responsible for the vast majority of health care advances. IIRC the numbers are something in the neighborhood of 70% of all new surgical techniques, over 90% of all new drug formularies, two-thirds of all new life saving and life improving drugs, etc.
The rest of the world gets to ride our coattails. This gives us two options:
-either we (the US) continue to pay our higher cost thereby continuing to make advancements that improve all mankind and continue our (the US) enjoyed high quality of care, OR
-we stop our trailblazing only to “save” a few dollars, we (US) along with the entire world suffer from the lack of advancements, and finally we (US) have to become accustomed to a lower quality of care.
Personally? I’ll take option one and be happy. I don’t even care if the rest of the world even says “thank you.”
Posted on 9/22/17 at 11:43 am to Obtuse1
quote:
Like everything else the reality is few people actually think this through with an open mind, the majority of people simply tow the line for their "team".
Not really team based for me.
Answer this question honestly.
Does implementing single payer lead us closer to or further away from socialism?
That's my problem. There is no end to the lust of progressives. I'm not calling you one. I have no idea. You just may happen to agree with growing the government more and giving more control to the feds and that's the end for you after healthcare.
Posted on 9/22/17 at 11:43 am to TitleistProV1X
all the monies
Posted on 9/22/17 at 11:46 am to bonhoeffer45
quote:
Government administration itself is also unified and cut down. Instead of 4 or 5 administrative bureaucracies federally, you have just one. Instead of 50 state administrations, you just have one home base.
There is little chance of this shrinking government.
Those state admin folks would at least be in part hired by local federal Mommy Healthcare Offices in each state and most cities. There are IRS and social security offices almost everywhere. The same thing would happen for the new Mommy Healthcare Dept.
Posted on 9/22/17 at 11:48 am to Machine
I just get more skeptical when nobody that supports the plan can give any real tax estimate outside of saying it'll be a wash. That means nothing.
Posted on 9/22/17 at 11:53 am to roadGator
I think I just said to you that I don't actually support Sanders starter legislation.
I actually think such a drastic upending to 18% of the economy, with no cost controls, and requiring such a seismic shift in our system in short order, would be too chaotic to risk in its current iteration as I understand it. One thing I have seen almost universally in every industrialized country that I have looked at, that has transitioned to UHC(which is all of them), is for obvious reasons, you build on what is already there. Britain is the way it is because of WWII and the military controlling all hospitals for war purposes. Which made transitioning to their system make sense once the government and people decided UHC was a right they wanted to guarantee their citizenry.
As to your slippery slope fallacy. The end game, as I understand it from all Sanders supporters, is single-payer. Public administration, private delivery. That has been the end goal for decades for Sanders and his followers. There is no next in the movement.
Personally, my guess would be that in a environment where single payer gained enough traction, and actual working legislation that they knew would have to be governed from could pass, it would ultimately be detailed out to do things like allow private supplemental policies like most single payer countries allow.
I actually think such a drastic upending to 18% of the economy, with no cost controls, and requiring such a seismic shift in our system in short order, would be too chaotic to risk in its current iteration as I understand it. One thing I have seen almost universally in every industrialized country that I have looked at, that has transitioned to UHC(which is all of them), is for obvious reasons, you build on what is already there. Britain is the way it is because of WWII and the military controlling all hospitals for war purposes. Which made transitioning to their system make sense once the government and people decided UHC was a right they wanted to guarantee their citizenry.
As to your slippery slope fallacy. The end game, as I understand it from all Sanders supporters, is single-payer. Public administration, private delivery. That has been the end goal for decades for Sanders and his followers. There is no next in the movement.
Personally, my guess would be that in a environment where single payer gained enough traction, and actual working legislation that they knew would have to be governed from could pass, it would ultimately be detailed out to do things like allow private supplemental policies like most single payer countries allow.
Posted on 9/22/17 at 11:54 am to TitleistProV1X
The cassidy bill is up for a vote so fast cbo never finished.
They have to finish before oct 1 or they need 60 votes.
They have to finish before oct 1 or they need 60 votes.
Posted on 9/22/17 at 11:54 am to TitleistProV1X
It would cost a lot more than just money.
Posted on 9/22/17 at 11:55 am to bonhoeffer45
quote:
There is no next in the movement.
Well, there is never not a next in the progressive ideology.
Sanders is a socialist. Of course, his followers will have a next. You of all people should know this as a moderate.
Posted on 9/22/17 at 12:00 pm to roadGator
quote:
Those state admin folks would at least be in part hired by local federal Mommy Healthcare Offices in each state and most cities. There are IRS and social security offices almost everywhere. The same thing would happen for the new Mommy Healthcare Dept.
What single payer does is eliminate redundancies and slim down the administrative process at large. Drastically reduce the enormously complex medical billing, reimbursement, negotiation, coding, collections and dispute infrastructure. Instead of hundreds of medical coding languages and negotiated contracts, you have far fewer, as low as one. Of course the home base that would emerge, likely expanding from Medicare, would itself grow.
Would it be larger then the total combined administrative staff compared to what exists now? Hard to think so. And by looking at other single payer countries, the answer is a resounding no.
We currently have the most inefficient and expensive healthcare administration infastrucure in the world. And it's not really even close.
Posted on 9/22/17 at 12:08 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:
We currently have the most inefficient and expensive healthcare administration infrastructure in the world.
So instead of fixing the above we just turn to mommy government and grow her to a new unprecedented level of size and control?
No thanks.
quote:
As to your slippery slope fallacy.
The usual dismissive claim.
This post was edited on 9/22/17 at 12:10 pm
Posted on 9/22/17 at 12:12 pm to roadGator
quote:
Well, there is never not a next in the progressive ideology.
Sanders is a socialist. Of course, his followers will have a next. You of all people should know this as a moderate.
Sanders is a self identified Social Democrat. I see it often but there is a reflexive tendency for people that just conflate communist, socialist, democratic socialist, and social democrat to lump them into an internal pejorative and conclude the distinctions don't exist.
Sanders idealizes European states, looking at his ideals, it would seem his end goal is not the USSR, but a US country that provides a greater functioning and more robust safety net. The anchoring point is this single payer ideal.
Posted on 9/22/17 at 12:14 pm to bonhoeffer45
You really want me to believe that it stops with single payer.
It was going to stop with Confederate statues once upon a time.
I'm not sorry that I just don't believe them or you if you are part of them.
It was going to stop with Confederate statues once upon a time.
I'm not sorry that I just don't believe them or you if you are part of them.
quote:
Social democracy originated as a political ideology that advocated an evolutionary and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism using established political processes
This post was edited on 9/22/17 at 12:16 pm
Posted on 9/22/17 at 12:19 pm to roadGator
quote:
You really want me to believe that it stops with single payer.
It was going to stop with Confederate statues once upon a time.
I'm not sorry that I just don't believe them or you if you are part of them.
You can live in this fantasy world if you want, but Sanders, for all his faults and his refusal to grasp pragmatism, isn't scared to speak his mind and lay out his ideals.
There has never been a full scale movement to emulate Britain's system, or to use healthcare as a gateway to some other takeover. Single payer debates go back well past Sanders. Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson. The end goal is UHC, not communism, you are getting your Cold War mindset too mixed in with normal domestic US policy debates that have a hundred year history.
Posted on 9/22/17 at 12:27 pm to bonhoeffer45
Bernie will die. The next socialist will be closer to a Stalinist.
They don't call it progressivism for nothing. If you stop moving toward the goal someone will take the ball for you.
You know this.
You can continue to mock and ridicule this as fantasy and slippery slope non-sense if you want. That's not going to help you sway people.
I'm telling you why you are facing resistance. Telling the opposition that they are just dumb isn't going to work. Actually, it will do more harm for your cause than good.
I'm starting to believe you don't really care though.
They don't call it progressivism for nothing. If you stop moving toward the goal someone will take the ball for you.
You know this.
You can continue to mock and ridicule this as fantasy and slippery slope non-sense if you want. That's not going to help you sway people.
I'm telling you why you are facing resistance. Telling the opposition that they are just dumb isn't going to work. Actually, it will do more harm for your cause than good.
I'm starting to believe you don't really care though.
This post was edited on 9/22/17 at 12:32 pm
Posted on 9/22/17 at 12:45 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
How else would you compare a known sicker and older population to one that is younger and healthier, without it being a skewed comparison?
You do this every time you compare the us to other single-payer nations. Posted on 9/22/17 at 12:50 pm to roadGator
quote:I seem to remember BamaSJW saying she would work for free if we enacted single payer.
CelticProg also appears to think that the new version of whatever socialist medicine they come up with won't have to be "profitable".
Posted on 9/22/17 at 12:54 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:
Under a unified system, that is drastically cut down.
A large portion of the current admin costs is for collecting from MEDI. That isn't going away. IT's only going to get bigger. The admins we've surveyed have more trouble getting payments and supply documentation to MEDI than private carriers. So... you aren't going to save admin costs unless the government starts relaxing reimbursement criteria... think that'll happen? I don't.Posted on 9/22/17 at 12:56 pm to Centinel
quote:Remember when FedGov couldn't even launch a website for Obamacare for ~12million users? I 'member that. I'm sure it will be much better when they try to scale it up to 350 million usrs.
They'd expand in size and scope to "support" the gigantic new "FedGovHealth" bureaucracy
It'll be different next time™ We just need to give them more money and power to get it right.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News