why cant america get health care right??? seriously its not that difficult to provide all your people with healthcare.. other nations do it.
Other nations don't have the immigration problem we have. With that many people here illegally, getting paid illegally and avoiding taxes and many of them sending their money outside of the country to families, it becomes more difficult to provide care to everyone. How quickly would Trump, or anyone else, be called a racist if they required citizenship to get healthcare, that these other countries do you are talking about? I cant get coverage in Canada, but you know riots, literally riots and violence, would break out if we had a system that provided care to citizens and not illegals.
This is probably one of the worst arguments against a single payer system that I've seen. You know the only healthcare illegals receive is emergency room treatment. They don't get Medicais currently and no one is claiming racism for that.
You know for a fact if Trump were to announce today free healthcare for all citizens, many would protest it is racially motivated against illegal Hispanics. If you don't know that, you haven't been paying attention to the world. And how is the argument that covering people who don't pay into a system will bleed it a bad argument? That's like saying we should give social security benefits to everyone, even if they never paid into SS. That's not even the case and SS is still expected to collapse. If we give out more healthcare coverage than we take it in will collapse, unless we grossly overcharge those paying into it. ER visits are 100 times more expensive than a family practice doctor visit anyway, so I'm not sure where you are going with that argument if that's all they use.
I'm going with that argument because illegals don't get Medicaid, and there's no cry of racism, which makes your hypothesis false. We could have a single payer system for citizens and green card holders only. If a few people want to fuss about that requirement, who cares?
What about other rights, like education? Who cares about education too, I mean education is less important that health, so if some want to fuss that we no longer educate illegals, then who cares? I worked in a community in South-Central LA, and about 2/3 of the kids I worked with were either illegal, or had illegal parents. That city would burn, literally, if you announced that everyone was getting free healthcare except for them. it isn't just a "few people" that you can shrug your shoulders about and say "who cares."
Your whole stance is based on what you think might happen out of protest. I'm factoring in the current reality.
No, you missed my point then. My stance was a system cannot be supported when more people take from it than put in. Unless you want to grossly overcharge those who do pay in (assuming it would be for all). Protests and riots would be the impact of not including them, which I don't think many people would really consider, giving all the other rights they have. So your stance is healthcare for all, as long as you are here legally? And if not, then no soup for you?
There are more illegals getting free healthcare than people with insurance or paying in? Who knew.
That is not even close to what was said..... Let me break it down for you. Even from the smallest of estimates, illegals make up 5% of the country. So if healthcare was for all, when 100 people seek healthcare, only 95 of them are here legally, and thus paid into the system. 95 is a smaller number than 100.
That is using the smallest of estimates out there.
5% of the population isn't going to crash the system! illegal or otherwise. And, regardless, they don't all use the system at once. I go to the doctor twice a year on average. Once for an annual physical and usually once when I get something I can't kick. And I'm paying handsomely for a family plan and I'm ok with that. Kids? They cost a ton but you want them healthy, right?
why cant america get health care right??? seriously its not that difficult to provide all your people with healthcare.. other nations do it.
Other nations don't have the immigration problem we have. With that many people here illegally, getting paid illegally and avoiding taxes and many of them sending their money outside of the country to families, it becomes more difficult to provide care to everyone. How quickly would Trump, or anyone else, be called a racist if they required citizenship to get healthcare, that these other countries do you are talking about? I cant get coverage in Canada, but you know riots, literally riots and violence, would break out if we had a system that provided care to citizens and not illegals.
This is probably one of the worst arguments against a single payer system that I've seen. You know the only healthcare illegals receive is emergency room treatment. They don't get Medicais currently and no one is claiming racism for that.
You know for a fact if Trump were to announce today free healthcare for all citizens, many would protest it is racially motivated against illegal Hispanics. If you don't know that, you haven't been paying attention to the world. And how is the argument that covering people who don't pay into a system will bleed it a bad argument? That's like saying we should give social security benefits to everyone, even if they never paid into SS. That's not even the case and SS is still expected to collapse. If we give out more healthcare coverage than we take it in will collapse, unless we grossly overcharge those paying into it. ER visits are 100 times more expensive than a family practice doctor visit anyway, so I'm not sure where you are going with that argument if that's all they use.
I'm going with that argument because illegals don't get Medicaid, and there's no cry of racism, which makes your hypothesis false. We could have a single payer system for citizens and green card holders only. If a few people want to fuss about that requirement, who cares?
What about other rights, like education? Who cares about education too, I mean education is less important that health, so if some want to fuss that we no longer educate illegals, then who cares? I worked in a community in South-Central LA, and about 2/3 of the kids I worked with were either illegal, or had illegal parents. That city would burn, literally, if you announced that everyone was getting free healthcare except for them. it isn't just a "few people" that you can shrug your shoulders about and say "who cares."
Your whole stance is based on what you think might happen out of protest. I'm factoring in the current reality.
No, you missed my point then. My stance was a system cannot be supported when more people take from it than put in. Unless you want to grossly overcharge those who do pay in (assuming it would be for all). Protests and riots would be the impact of not including them, which I don't think many people would really consider, giving all the other rights they have. So your stance is healthcare for all, as long as you are here legally? And if not, then no soup for you?
There are more illegals getting free healthcare than people with insurance or paying in? Who knew.
That is not even close to what was said..... Let me break it down for you. Even from the smallest of estimates, illegals make up 5% of the country. So if healthcare was for all, when 100 people seek healthcare, only 95 of them are here legally, and thus paid into the system. 95 is a smaller number than 100.
That is using the smallest of estimates out there.
You did say something about when more people take without paying in, in collapses. Or words to that effect. I can't find your quote now and when I had it, I couldn't quote and bold it. Aaarrrrrgggghhhhh.
why cant america get health care right??? seriously its not that difficult to provide all your people with healthcare.. other nations do it.
Other nations don't have the immigration problem we have. With that many people here illegally, getting paid illegally and avoiding taxes and many of them sending their money outside of the country to families, it becomes more difficult to provide care to everyone. How quickly would Trump, or anyone else, be called a racist if they required citizenship to get healthcare, that these other countries do you are talking about? I cant get coverage in Canada, but you know riots, literally riots and violence, would break out if we had a system that provided care to citizens and not illegals.
I can't get any healthcare without presenting my manitoba health card. you have to be a citizen, as far as I know, to get it. I don't know what they'd do if I was dying, but all I know is I have to present that card every single time. even when I'm checking in for an appointment with my GP.
Exactly. People would complain ever more about healthcare if we did it the way "other nations do it." That comparison doesn't work for us. We have by some estimates 10% or more of our nation here illegally that would expect to be covered, and anyone who tried to deny them coverage would be considered a racist.
well 30 claims we'd take care of someone even if they weren't a citizen.
Never had experience in Canada, but if that was the case, why do you have to show ID? Any other country would make you pay, my best judgment says they would too. But even if not, that does not happen there nearly as often as it happens here, so it really isn't a fair comparison.
Funnily enough, I just came in from a walk-in clinic. It was my first time there and I forgot my health card, so I was charged a refundable $50 consultation fee, to be refunded when I come back with my health card. This is the way I've seen things work at the first time you go to any practice here. In an emergency setting, typically they'll treat you immediately, then get your information so that if your Health Card isn't on you, you've got ample time to get your Health Card info to them prior to billing you.
It's very simple: present proof of citizenship or legal immigration status, receive access to health care. Nothing racist or malicious about it, and it works quite well here. There is no reason that whether you have ten or ten thousand undocumented immigrants, this system couldn't work in the States. In fact, it could act as a deterrent for people to immigrate with the proper procedures. Another thing - I see absolutely nothing wrong with telling illegal immigrants who expect coverage that they shouldn't expect any government services without immigrating properly.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
why cant america get health care right??? seriously its not that difficult to provide all your people with healthcare.. other nations do it.
Other nations don't have the immigration problem we have. With that many people here illegally, getting paid illegally and avoiding taxes and many of them sending their money outside of the country to families, it becomes more difficult to provide care to everyone. How quickly would Trump, or anyone else, be called a racist if they required citizenship to get healthcare, that these other countries do you are talking about? I cant get coverage in Canada, but you know riots, literally riots and violence, would break out if we had a system that provided care to citizens and not illegals.
I can't get any healthcare without presenting my manitoba health card. you have to be a citizen, as far as I know, to get it. I don't know what they'd do if I was dying, but all I know is I have to present that card every single time. even when I'm checking in for an appointment with my GP.
Exactly. People would complain ever more about healthcare if we did it the way "other nations do it." That comparison doesn't work for us. We have by some estimates 10% or more of our nation here illegally that would expect to be covered, and anyone who tried to deny them coverage would be considered a racist.
well 30 claims we'd take care of someone even if they weren't a citizen.
Never had experience in Canada, but if that was the case, why do you have to show ID? Any other country would make you pay, my best judgment says they would too. But even if not, that does not happen there nearly as often as it happens here, so it really isn't a fair comparison.
Funnily enough, I just came in from a walk-in clinic. It was my first time there and I forgot my health card, so I was charged a refundable $50 consultation fee, to be refunded when I come back with my health card. This is the way I've seen things work at the first time you go to any practice here. In an emergency setting, typically they'll treat you immediately, then get your information so that if your Health Card isn't on you, you've got ample time to get your Health Card info to them prior to billing you.
It's very simple: present proof of citizenship or legal immigration status, receive access to health care. Nothing racist or malicious about it, and it works quite well here. There is no reason that whether you have ten or ten thousand undocumented immigrants, this system couldn't work in the States. In fact, it could act as a deterrent for people to immigrate with the proper procedures. Another thing - I see absolutely nothing wrong with telling illegal immigrants who expect coverage that they shouldn't expect any government services without immigrating properly.
agreed completely.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
I guess our difference of opinion roots in what the expectations would be. I for one believe if illegals were to be excluded from the healthcare system too many would be upset. They are given a free education, and by law provided with 2 hot meals a day at school. I find it hard to believe that with universal healthcare, a family would travel here illegally to get the free education and meals, and be completely okay not receiving healthcare too. I've first hand seen protests and school walk-outs, and marches down the middle of freeways over much less. I just don't believe with the opposition to things like Kate's law and with sanctuary cities that the people will be satisfied to exclude them. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just see it differently.
And the 5% figure I quoted was a nationwide estimate and is the smallest estimates, could be even higher, and in places like Southern California and LA it definitely is. So maybe the hospitals in middle America will be okay, but those with a high population of illegal immigrants will suffer because they will serve a higher than average population of illegals, and thus have less paying into the system in their area Unless it is funded federally instead of locally, and the nation absorbs it evenly then maybe it could survive.
And, lets just assume 5% figure is accurate, the impact would be much greater than just 5%. I've seen estimates that legal children of illegals is as much as double (and don't ask for a link. Seriously, what's with everyone asking for links on everything? Just google it yourself, how do you think I would find a link to give you anyway?). And that matters because even if a minor is legal, the parents supporting him is not who would otherwise be contributing into the system. So even if illegals make up 5% of the country, 10-15% of the healthcare consumers would be benefiting from a system they are not putting into.
Now that is not the only problem of course. But adding that 10-15% on top of fraud and corruption that exists everywhere and just the lazy Americans who take advantage of the system too it would become very difficult and costly to support.
This conversation is illuminating. A lot of Americans really don't understand how single payer works, therefore they fear it and think there is no way it could work in their country. And that makes it all more understandable to me.
Good on my Canadian compatriots for their educational attempts. We are truly lucky to have had bold leadership in the past to have implemented single payer, warts and all.
I guess our difference of opinion roots in what the expectations would be. I for one believe if illegals were to be excluded from the healthcare system too many would be upset. They are given a free education, and by law provided with 2 hot meals a day at school. I find it hard to believe that with universal healthcare, a family would travel here illegally to get the free education and meals, and be completely okay not receiving healthcare too. I've first hand seen protests and school walk-outs, and marches down the middle of freeways over much less. I just don't believe with the opposition to things like Kate's law and with sanctuary cities that the people will be satisfied to exclude them. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just see it differently.
And the 5% figure I quoted was a nationwide estimate and is the smallest estimates, could be even higher, and in places like Southern California and LA it definitely is. So maybe the hospitals in middle America will be okay, but those with a high population of illegal immigrants will suffer because they will serve a higher than average population of illegals, and thus have less paying into the system in their area Unless it is funded federally instead of locally, and the nation absorbs it evenly then maybe it could survive.
And, lets just assume 5% figure is accurate, the impact would be much greater than just 5%. I've seen estimates that legal children of illegals is as much as double (and don't ask for a link. Seriously, what's with everyone asking for links on everything? Just google it yourself, how do you think I would find a link to give you anyway?). And that matters because even if a minor is legal, the parents supporting him is not who would otherwise be contributing into the system. So even if illegals make up 5% of the country, 10-15% of the healthcare consumers would be benefiting from a system they are not putting into.
Now that is not the only problem of course. But adding that 10-15% on top of fraud and corruption that exists everywhere and just the lazy Americans who take advantage of the system too it would become very difficult and costly to support.
It helps the dialog if you're able to back your claims with links to reputable sources. You're spouting off about the crisis of illegals and their impact on the healthcare industry and using it as a reason why we can't have universal healthcare in the US or why because of THEM, we can't emulate other countries and their models, or a variation thereof. Facts are important in a debate with far reaching policy implications. Your angst would be better directed at employers who hire them, thus removing a large percentage that come here to work. But we don't do that because they're integral to our economy. And not just for fruits and vegetables.
I also hate to break it to you, but "we're" paying for them right now. Again, THEY won't crash the system.
I guess our difference of opinion roots in what the expectations would be. I for one believe if illegals were to be excluded from the healthcare system too many would be upset. They are given a free education, and by law provided with 2 hot meals a day at school. I find it hard to believe that with universal healthcare, a family would travel here illegally to get the free education and meals, and be completely okay not receiving healthcare too. I've first hand seen protests and school walk-outs, and marches down the middle of freeways over much less. I just don't believe with the opposition to things like Kate's law and with sanctuary cities that the people will be satisfied to exclude them. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just see it differently.
And the 5% figure I quoted was a nationwide estimate and is the smallest estimates, could be even higher, and in places like Southern California and LA it definitely is. So maybe the hospitals in middle America will be okay, but those with a high population of illegal immigrants will suffer because they will serve a higher than average population of illegals, and thus have less paying into the system in their area Unless it is funded federally instead of locally, and the nation absorbs it evenly then maybe it could survive.
And, lets just assume 5% figure is accurate, the impact would be much greater than just 5%. I've seen estimates that legal children of illegals is as much as double (and don't ask for a link. Seriously, what's with everyone asking for links on everything? Just google it yourself, how do you think I would find a link to give you anyway?). And that matters because even if a minor is legal, the parents supporting him is not who would otherwise be contributing into the system. So even if illegals make up 5% of the country, 10-15% of the healthcare consumers would be benefiting from a system they are not putting into.
Now that is not the only problem of course. But adding that 10-15% on top of fraud and corruption that exists everywhere and just the lazy Americans who take advantage of the system too it would become very difficult and costly to support.
Nearly every estimate on the number of illegals is around 12 million, which would be less than your 5%. You really are going with the notion of telling someone they can't have what they already don't have would be upsetting to them.
I guess our difference of opinion roots in what the expectations would be. I for one believe if illegals were to be excluded from the healthcare system too many would be upset. They are given a free education, and by law provided with 2 hot meals a day at school. I find it hard to believe that with universal healthcare, a family would travel here illegally to get the free education and meals, and be completely okay not receiving healthcare too. I've first hand seen protests and school walk-outs, and marches down the middle of freeways over much less. I just don't believe with the opposition to things like Kate's law and with sanctuary cities that the people will be satisfied to exclude them. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just see it differently.
And the 5% figure I quoted was a nationwide estimate and is the smallest estimates, could be even higher, and in places like Southern California and LA it definitely is. So maybe the hospitals in middle America will be okay, but those with a high population of illegal immigrants will suffer because they will serve a higher than average population of illegals, and thus have less paying into the system in their area Unless it is funded federally instead of locally, and the nation absorbs it evenly then maybe it could survive.
And, lets just assume 5% figure is accurate, the impact would be much greater than just 5%. I've seen estimates that legal children of illegals is as much as double (and don't ask for a link. Seriously, what's with everyone asking for links on everything? Just google it yourself, how do you think I would find a link to give you anyway?). And that matters because even if a minor is legal, the parents supporting him is not who would otherwise be contributing into the system. So even if illegals make up 5% of the country, 10-15% of the healthcare consumers would be benefiting from a system they are not putting into.
Now that is not the only problem of course. But adding that 10-15% on top of fraud and corruption that exists everywhere and just the lazy Americans who take advantage of the system too it would become very difficult and costly to support.
It helps the dialog if you're able to back your claims with links to reputable sources. You're spouting off about the crisis of illegals and their impact on the healthcare industry and using it as a reason why we can't have universal healthcare in the US or why because of THEM, we can't emulate other countries and their models, or a variation thereof. Facts are important in a debate with far reaching policy implications. Your angst would be better directed at employers who hire them, thus removing a large percentage that come here to work. But we don't do that because they're integral to our economy. And not just for fruits and vegetables.
I also hate to break it to you, but "we're" paying for them right now. Again, THEY won't crash the system.
I know we are paying for them right now, which is one of several reasons why healthcare is a mess and unaffordable, and why medical bills are the #1 cause of bankruptcy.
I'm not angry with illegals. I've lost my point somewhere, but it was healthcare is unaffordable and broken now. Universal "free" care for all is not going to change that. Looks like we disagree on what would be accepted coverage, and I have no way to prove or support my claim that illegals would be included. I just don't see how we would give a free education and 2 meals to an illegal child, but turn him away at the doctor. If I'm wrong then what, we just don't give them care? If we do, who forks the bill, hospitals like they do now? The government (then it would be literally for all)? If I've over-estimated that 5% then that is a small impact in many places. But in areas with a high population of illegals, what do those hospitals do when a much larger percentage of their clients are illegals and don't pay? Sure, that's what happens now, but that's why inner city hospitals are the worst, but you can drive 10 miles to UCLA and find people traveling all over the country to receive treatment there. And an inner city hospital a few miles away in the poor neighborhood has one of the highest fatalities in the state so it has earned a nickname of "Killer King" hospital since they cant afford modern equipment, too over-crowded, and only the near med-school dropouts take the job offers there.
A single payer healthcare system in the US could work, but we will never have it unless it is government controlled. If 2 pairs of insurance companies try to merge now, and then the 2 eventually try to merger into one monopoly.... isn't that almost the same thing. But the US government is wasteful and some employees incompetent. Example: The IRS is a fucking joke. We have billions of dollars of tax fraud every year. They can't even reimburse tax refunds correctly. And you trust our government to run healthcare correctly... when people's lives are at stake. Umm, hell NO!!
A single payer healthcare system in the US could work, but we will never have it unless it is government controlled. If 2 pairs of insurance companies try to merge now, and then the 2 eventually try to merger into one monopoly.... isn't that almost the same thing. But the US government is wasteful and some employees incompetent. Example: The IRS is a fucking joke. We have billions of dollars of tax fraud every year. They can't even reimburse tax refunds correctly. And you trust our government to run healthcare correctly... when people's lives are at stake. Umm, hell NO!!
Do you trust the government with the large portion of your taxes that go to the Defense Dept? Whose job it is to keep every American life safe. Seems more important than healthcare.
A single payer healthcare system in the US could work, but we will never have it unless it is government controlled. If 2 pairs of insurance companies try to merge now, and then the 2 eventually try to merger into one monopoly.... isn't that almost the same thing. But the US government is wasteful and some employees incompetent. Example: The IRS is a fucking joke. We have billions of dollars of tax fraud every year. They can't even reimburse tax refunds correctly. And you trust our government to run healthcare correctly... when people's lives are at stake. Umm, hell NO!!
Do you trust the government with the large portion of your taxes that go to the Defense Dept? Whose job it is to keep every American life safe. Seems more important than healthcare.
No I don't. Too much is wasted. Look at the problems with the VA. Some government officials are not held accountable for incompetency. Drain the swamp would be great... but replacing the alligators with snakes isn't the way to go.
A single payer healthcare system in the US could work, but we will never have it unless it is government controlled. If 2 pairs of insurance companies try to merge now, and then the 2 eventually try to merger into one monopoly.... isn't that almost the same thing. But the US government is wasteful and some employees incompetent. Example: The IRS is a fucking joke. We have billions of dollars of tax fraud every year. They can't even reimburse tax refunds correctly. And you trust our government to run healthcare correctly... when people's lives are at stake. Umm, hell NO!!
Your argument suggests that all the other countries with a single-payer system have somehow mastered to concept of a top notch efficient government. The template is out there for the US to embrace common sense and pick and choose a system that has already been tested out.
A single payer healthcare system in the US could work, but we will never have it unless it is government controlled. If 2 pairs of insurance companies try to merge now, and then the 2 eventually try to merger into one monopoly.... isn't that almost the same thing. But the US government is wasteful and some employees incompetent. Example: The IRS is a fucking joke. We have billions of dollars of tax fraud every year. They can't even reimburse tax refunds correctly. And you trust our government to run healthcare correctly... when people's lives are at stake. Umm, hell NO!!
Your argument suggests that all the other countries with a single-payer system have somehow mastered to concept of a top notch efficient government. The template is out there for the US to embrace common sense and pick and choose a system that has already been tested out.
You're dreaming now... common sense?? That's funny right there. Wish we had common sense government. Get rid of Democratic and Republican parties and we may have it...
This conversation is illuminating. A lot of Americans really don't understand how single payer works, therefore they fear it and think there is no way it could work in their country. And that makes it all more understandable to me.
Good on my Canadian compatriots for their educational attempts. We are truly lucky to have had bold leadership in the past to have implemented single payer, warts and all.
Yup, I will admit that I was against single payer for most of my life because of things I'd heard and read about other systems, and because it just wasn't the way things were done here. But I've come around. Private insurance companies have completely destroyed the cost structure, patients aren't treated as consumers, and with businesses paying the premiums you had many people excluded from being able to get coverage, and even if you had coverage you were yet another step removed from being a consumer since in many cases your employer is paying your premium. If we (both private citizens and employers) paid what we're currently paying to insurance companies into a single payer system I'm reasonably certain we'd have a better, more patient focused system than we have now, with better access, less out of pocket (since we've already paid), and no more stories of people having to chose between getting healthcare or eating/paying rent/going bankrupt due to heath issues. I'm done knocking single payer until we get a chance to try it. If it fails us the way private insurance has, then I'll certainly fight against it, but until then I'm not convinced that anything we do would be much worse than what we have now which is unaffordable insurance premiums, outrageous deductibles, constant co-pays, low coverage limits and way too many policy exclusions.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
This conversation is illuminating. A lot of Americans really don't understand how single payer works, therefore they fear it and think there is no way it could work in their country. And that makes it all more understandable to me.
Good on my Canadian compatriots for their educational attempts. We are truly lucky to have had bold leadership in the past to have implemented single payer, warts and all.
Yup, I will admit that I was against single payer for most of my life because of things I'd heard and read about other systems, and because it just wasn't the way things were done here. But I've come around. Private insurance companies have completely destroyed the cost structure, patients aren't treated as consumers, and with businesses paying the premiums you had many people excluded from being able to get coverage, and even if you had coverage you were yet another step removed from being a consumer since in many cases your employer is paying your premium. If we (both private citizens and employers) paid what we're currently paying to insurance companies into a single payer system I'm reasonably certain we'd have a better, more patient focused system than we have now, with better access, less out of pocket (since we've already paid), and no more stories of people having to chose between getting healthcare or eating/paying rent/going bankrupt due to heath issues. I'm done knocking single payer until we get a chance to try it. If it fails us the way private insurance has, then I'll certainly fight against it, but until then I'm not convinced that anything we do would be much worse than what we have now which is unaffordable insurance premiums, outrageous deductibles, constant co-pays, low coverage limits and way too many policy exclusions.
Exactly.
The "free market system" was supposed to make healthcare more efficient due to competition, or so they said. But we all see how that went. It's a mess from top to bottom. Not that there aren't pockets of excellent care, because there are, but the huge diversion of resources into profit instead of patient care completely cancels that out.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
This conversation is illuminating. A lot of Americans really don't understand how single payer works, therefore they fear it and think there is no way it could work in their country. And that makes it all more understandable to me.
Good on my Canadian compatriots for their educational attempts. We are truly lucky to have had bold leadership in the past to have implemented single payer, warts and all.
Yup, I will admit that I was against single payer for most of my life because of things I'd heard and read about other systems, and because it just wasn't the way things were done here. But I've come around. Private insurance companies have completely destroyed the cost structure, patients aren't treated as consumers, and with businesses paying the premiums you had many people excluded from being able to get coverage, and even if you had coverage you were yet another step removed from being a consumer since in many cases your employer is paying your premium. If we (both private citizens and employers) paid what we're currently paying to insurance companies into a single payer system I'm reasonably certain we'd have a better, more patient focused system than we have now, with better access, less out of pocket (since we've already paid), and no more stories of people having to chose between getting healthcare or eating/paying rent/going bankrupt due to heath issues. I'm done knocking single payer until we get a chance to try it. If it fails us the way private insurance has, then I'll certainly fight against it, but until then I'm not convinced that anything we do would be much worse than what we have now which is unaffordable insurance premiums, outrageous deductibles, constant co-pays, low coverage limits and way too many policy exclusions.
Exactly.
The "free market system" was supposed to make healthcare more efficient due to competition, or so they said. But we all see how that went. It's a mess from top to bottom. Not that there aren't pockets of excellent care, because there are, but the huge diversion of resources into profit instead of patient care completely cancels that out.
It isn't a true free market when you are forced into it, and forced to buy things you don't want or need. These regulations have made it easier for the insurance to price gouge the consumer with horrible coverage.
This conversation is illuminating. A lot of Americans really don't understand how single payer works, therefore they fear it and think there is no way it could work in their country. And that makes it all more understandable to me.
Good on my Canadian compatriots for their educational attempts. We are truly lucky to have had bold leadership in the past to have implemented single payer, warts and all.
Yup, I will admit that I was against single payer for most of my life because of things I'd heard and read about other systems, and because it just wasn't the way things were done here. But I've come around. Private insurance companies have completely destroyed the cost structure, patients aren't treated as consumers, and with businesses paying the premiums you had many people excluded from being able to get coverage, and even if you had coverage you were yet another step removed from being a consumer since in many cases your employer is paying your premium. If we (both private citizens and employers) paid what we're currently paying to insurance companies into a single payer system I'm reasonably certain we'd have a better, more patient focused system than we have now, with better access, less out of pocket (since we've already paid), and no more stories of people having to chose between getting healthcare or eating/paying rent/going bankrupt due to heath issues. I'm done knocking single payer until we get a chance to try it. If it fails us the way private insurance has, then I'll certainly fight against it, but until then I'm not convinced that anything we do would be much worse than what we have now which is unaffordable insurance premiums, outrageous deductibles, constant co-pays, low coverage limits and way too many policy exclusions.
Exactly.
The "free market system" was supposed to make healthcare more efficient due to competition, or so they said. But we all see how that went. It's a mess from top to bottom. Not that there aren't pockets of excellent care, because there are, but the huge diversion of resources into profit instead of patient care completely cancels that out.
It isn't a true free market when you are forced into it, and forced to buy things you don't want or need. These regulations have made it easier for the insurance to price gouge the consumer with horrible coverage.
Health Care does not succumb to the normal rules of the free market. People will spend their entire life savings just to know they are going to live one more day. Think about what that does to the even most basic supply/demand model.
"Speaking to reporters on Gershon’s front yard, Nicoletti reiterated that despite reaching the long sought-after goal of 50 billion, the company was still as committed as ever to fucking more and more people over.
“We’re not going to stop fucking people over any time soon,” said Nicoletti, adding that he hoped to get to 75 billion by the holidays, which he described as truly the most fun and fulfilling time to fuck somebody over. “It just goes back to the promise we make to every one of our customers: You turn to Cigna for protection in times of ill health, and we’ll be there to totally fuck you over.”"
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
8 years to prepare and the GOP still has NO IDEA how to go about their Holy Grail mission of "repeal and replace"
Sad.
How is that any different than saying they had 8 years to figure out a version of Obamacare that didn't need to get replaced? Sad.
It's very different. Democrats weren't tripping over their own dicks to obstreperously oppose it without a clue of what to put in it's place. They were satisfied with it, and why would they give credence to the lunacy of right-wing nutjobs who think objective facts are fake news?
8 years to prepare and the GOP still has NO IDEA how to go about their Holy Grail mission of "repeal and replace"
Sad.
How is that any different than saying they had 8 years to figure out a version of Obamacare that didn't need to get replaced? Sad.
It's very different. Democrats weren't tripping over their own dicks to obstreperously oppose it without a clue of what to put in it's place. They were satisfied with it, and why would they give credence to the lunacy of right-wing nutjobs who think objective facts are fake news?
Here is my argument to your statement of them having 8 years to find a replacement. One, they did not have 8 years. Obamacare was not rolled out until a few years into his term, you cant replace/improve on something that doesn't exist. It also took another couple years to see that it is a failure. So realistically they had 3-4 years to think of a replacement. Sure, maybe still enough time to get started, but not the 8 that you were claiming. Obama Admin had over 8 years to come up with something that works. He ran his first campaign on having Obamacare, surely he had some ideas then, and was starting working with people on planning it before he was making it his campaign promise. So, what they couldn't do in 10 years, you're faulting the GOP for not doing a better job in 3?
Comments
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
It's very simple: present proof of citizenship or legal immigration status, receive access to health care. Nothing racist or malicious about it, and it works quite well here. There is no reason that whether you have ten or ten thousand undocumented immigrants, this system couldn't work in the States. In fact, it could act as a deterrent for people to immigrate with the proper procedures. Another thing - I see absolutely nothing wrong with telling illegal immigrants who expect coverage that they shouldn't expect any government services without immigrating properly.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
-EV 8/14/93
http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/17-fascinating-statistics-on-the-current-state-of-us-healthcare-spending-finances.html
Sorry, my bad. I misread that stat, hence deleted.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I for one believe if illegals were to be excluded from the healthcare system too many would be upset.
They are given a free education, and by law provided with 2 hot meals a day at school. I find it hard to believe that with universal healthcare, a family would travel here illegally to get the free education and meals, and be completely okay not receiving healthcare too. I've first hand seen protests and school walk-outs, and marches down the middle of freeways over much less. I just don't believe with the opposition to things like Kate's law and with sanctuary cities that the people will be satisfied to exclude them. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just see it differently.
And the 5% figure I quoted was a nationwide estimate and is the smallest estimates, could be even higher, and in places like Southern California and LA it definitely is. So maybe the hospitals in middle America will be okay, but those with a high population of illegal immigrants will suffer because they will serve a higher than average population of illegals, and thus have less paying into the system in their area Unless it is funded federally instead of locally, and the nation absorbs it evenly then maybe it could survive.
And, lets just assume 5% figure is accurate, the impact would be much greater than just 5%. I've seen estimates that legal children of illegals is as much as double (and don't ask for a link. Seriously, what's with everyone asking for links on everything? Just google it yourself, how do you think I would find a link to give you anyway?). And that matters because even if a minor is legal, the parents supporting him is not who would otherwise be contributing into the system. So even if illegals make up 5% of the country, 10-15% of the healthcare consumers would be benefiting from a system they are not putting into.
Now that is not the only problem of course. But adding that 10-15% on top of fraud and corruption that exists everywhere and just the lazy Americans who take advantage of the system too it would become very difficult and costly to support.
Good on my Canadian compatriots for their educational attempts. We are truly lucky to have had bold leadership in the past to have implemented single payer, warts and all.
I also hate to break it to you, but "we're" paying for them right now. Again, THEY won't crash the system.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I'm not angry with illegals. I've lost my point somewhere, but it was healthcare is unaffordable and broken now. Universal "free" care for all is not going to change that.
Looks like we disagree on what would be accepted coverage, and I have no way to prove or support my claim that illegals would be included. I just don't see how we would give a free education and 2 meals to an illegal child, but turn him away at the doctor. If I'm wrong then what, we just don't give them care? If we do, who forks the bill, hospitals like they do now? The government (then it would be literally for all)?
If I've over-estimated that 5% then that is a small impact in many places. But in areas with a high population of illegals, what do those hospitals do when a much larger percentage of their clients are illegals and don't pay? Sure, that's what happens now, but that's why inner city hospitals are the worst, but you can drive 10 miles to UCLA and find people traveling all over the country to receive treatment there. And an inner city hospital a few miles away in the poor neighborhood has one of the highest fatalities in the state so it has earned a nickname of "Killer King" hospital since they cant afford modern equipment, too over-crowded, and only the near med-school dropouts take the job offers there.
The "free market system" was supposed to make healthcare more efficient due to competition, or so they said. But we all see how that went. It's a mess from top to bottom. Not that there aren't pockets of excellent care, because there are, but the huge diversion of resources into profit instead of patient care completely cancels that out.
These regulations have made it easier for the insurance to price gouge the consumer with horrible coverage.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
“We’re not going to stop fucking people over any time soon,” said Nicoletti, adding that he hoped to get to 75 billion by the holidays, which he described as truly the most fun and fulfilling time to fuck somebody over. “It just goes back to the promise we make to every one of our customers: You turn to Cigna for protection in times of ill health, and we’ll be there to totally fuck you over.”"
Sad.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
One, they did not have 8 years. Obamacare was not rolled out until a few years into his term, you cant replace/improve on something that doesn't exist. It also took another couple years to see that it is a failure. So realistically they had 3-4 years to think of a replacement. Sure, maybe still enough time to get started, but not the 8 that you were claiming.
Obama Admin had over 8 years to come up with something that works. He ran his first campaign on having Obamacare, surely he had some ideas then, and was starting working with people on planning it before he was making it his campaign promise. So, what they couldn't do in 10 years, you're faulting the GOP for not doing a better job in 3?