We've endorsed some "socialist" view points for hundreds of years, why is healthcare so sacred for our society? Everyone is pretty much okay with people driving on the roads or freeways, or having a fire department, or god forbid providing education through high school for everyone.
The Rock
You think healthcare is expensive now? Just wait until the government runs it. And that's not even taking into account how much freedom you lose as an individual when you're beholden to bureaucrats for your well being. I'd rather die a free man than be their slave, and make no mistake about it, that's EXACTLY what you'll be.
My dad is a dentist and he quit accepting insurance, because they were too costly and difficult to work with and didn't pay enough for services. I think in the 90's he had 2 offices and 4 Dr's working full time with this approach as it was actually cheaper for patients to just pay him. This is sort of the "free market" that Rocky mentions above and I agree that in a perfect world this would be the best option. The problem is we don't live in a "free market" and haven't for decades. We are a civilized nation and do not deny care to people or "put them down" if they can't pay. We already pay for the care of those that can't pay by increased insurance premiums and hospital bills. If we could do that for a lower cost, I have no idea why this concept wouldn't have universal support independent of it being a socialist ideal.
Ever heard of Medicare/Medicaid?
Both programs are gov't managed and sponsored.
Neither program is self sustaining and both are going broke.
Obamacare, whether intentional or not, tried to make everyone equally miserable just like those that are on Medicaid today.
Medicaid is 100% Socialist Medicine. Medicare not so much since seniors do pay a premium, but I don't know all the details about that yet...I will soon be finding out though...getting old...at 65 I will be FORCED to go on Medicare.
I will still be able to buy additional medical insurance on the private market too...Just like ben h wants...and all that was already there without Obamacare...
Edited Note: Also, I keep hearing we pay more for medical care than anyone else in the world. Well, before Obamacare the only people covered by socialist medicine were those on Medicaid and Medicare and we were/are paying more than anyone else already...and yet these same people who make these claims say if we put everyone on these already proven bankrupt plans it will make costs go down...What?
We pay for 15,000 employees, many hospitals and smaller facilities and it costs about $5 billion a year.
"Every industrialized country in the world except the US has discovered that it's cheaper to have health care provided to their citizens at some level and those that want superior service can get private insurance to cover the extra expense."
So, I get to pay higher taxes PLUS a premium for the same level of care I currently get? In want ****ing universe does that make sense?
Never , ever , not once in my life have I seen better service from a govt. employee vs a private employee offering the same service. Never ever have I seen a govt program cheaper than a private program offering the same results.
MT, I did neglect to mention Medicaid or Medicare as public forms of insurance. Like you, I do not participate in either program and know next to nothing about them. I do know that on the aggregate, in the US we pay more than DOUBLE any other industrialized nation, which leads me to believe, generally speaking we could really improve on that number and our current system is probably the worst out there and it's far from a "free Market" despite our belief or dream that we're a free country.
Oh yeah? Let the government take over full control and you see how fast that very thing will start to happen. The other big problem with this is that based on how Obamacare was initiated, designed sold and implemented ....on darn near 100% LIES....their credibility rating is ZERO. I believe NOTHING they say about healthcare. The government people that control this are either incompetent, unqualified morons, or lying thieves. Either way, I want NOTHING to do with ANYTHING they want to do to manage or control healthcare. How do we know that THIS time they won't lie? We can't. And they WILL.
If you want to trust them go right ahead. Leave me out of it. I'll either take care of myself or die. But at least I'll die on MY terms and not theirs.
I have a New Zealand virtual friend who is still fighting his government medical services for a shoulder issue and it has been over seven years. Even with medical specialists advocating for him, he is still fighting the medical bureaucrats.
Anybody who thinks they can get as good or better services for half the money now while eliminating competition among insurances is likely on medical marijuana..... that's close to the same BS they sold us on Obamacare.
Obamacare is a prime example of letting the government get yet more involved. They will then TELL you what (crappy) coverage you will have and what you will pay for it. There will be no options, because such a system cannot survive with options. As mentioned above...... spreading the misery.... everything will suck..... but some are ok with it because it will suck equally for everyone.....
Next in trying to hold down costs (with there being no competition) they will mandate what they will pay for each procedure and will limit total payments. People in the medical field will be getting out of it in droves. Already a good many don't deal with Medicare or Medicaid because of such limits in the system. You think you see enough Indian and Pakistani doctors now? They will be the norm. Getting put off and run around through the system? SOP.
Medical research will grind to a halt. What new medical innovations have come from these "industrialized" countries with costs 50% less than what we pay? Where does the vast majority of medical innovation and technology come from now?
There ARE measures that can reduce costs. Competition across state lines. Tort reform on many kinds of medical malpractice suits. (meaning 15 tests taken where one is all that is needed but they have to CYA.) Making more things elective (can anyone explain why Viagra would be covered in a health plan? Much less a sex change?)
Lets get out of Obamacare, drop the completely unnecessary bureaucracy created (and funded) specifically for it..... identify TRUE measures that would reduce medical costs and try those first. I'd like to see what those in the hands on medical fields say would reduce costs and have the insurance industry, drug companies and the lawyers shut up and sit on the sidelines for a while.
Mike in CT's Link
Excerpt from a link (there are many that point out the same fallacy (thinking the US Healthcare system is as bad as some paint it to be) that anyone inclined for an accurate assessment can easily find.
"But like virtually every other study that trashes the U.S. healthcare system, Commonwealth's rankings rely on questionable assumptions, like giving weight to those systems that treat people equally rather than well. At the same time, Commonwealth ignores the problems that countries with socialized healthcare systems have actually treating people once they're sick."
As someone who's spent most of his adult life in the clinical, research and industry sides of the healthcare market frankly I'm amazed at how easily some of these claims are latched onto as gospel truths with a fervor that would rival the most devout evangelical......
Repeat after me; "there's no such thing as a free lunch."
If you want to live in a socialist sh*t hole then go to Europe and live in one, and take Bernie The Bolshevik with you. I do NOT, and will die on my feet trying to keep it that way.
And I really don't give a crap what you call me.
Christ sacrificed himself for all mankind, a brutal death on the cross. Show me a liberal that would do that.
The wealthy will get better care as they can afford to go outside the system.
Quality of medical practitioners will decline as financial incentatives as a government employee will mean importing doctors from third world countries.
Like Mike, I spent my career in the field of medical laboratory science and saw what happened as more and more government was inserted into hospital practices. Cuts have been made where the public was not aware that affected medical care.
A good example is that autopsies today are rarely done...eliminating not only teaching opportunities, but also understanding of disease process.
Bingo! What a country this will be when politicians get to determine who get's to live or die. And guess what........the people who are connected will live longer than the rest of us! And don't forget that when it's the government "providing" health care then they will also use it as a weapon to get us to vote the way they want and otherwise extort from us whatever they want. In short they will OWN us. And they will lie/deny ALL of this like they've already done with Obamacare from it's inception.
WHY would anyone with a functioning brain believe well established liars in the government??? They've yet to tell the truth about anything regarding Obamacare.
The only time they might be is if they want a silly license to practice medicine.
And since atheist threw it out there, Christ can give free healthcare in the form of healing because it's His ro give.
"Healthcare is not a human right. Nobody is obligated to splint a broken bone or perform an appendectomy."
I disagree, so did the founding Fathers of this country.
"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence. The phrase gives three examples of the "unalienable rights" which the Declaration says have been given to all human beings by their Creator, and which governments are created to protect."
Only a liberal could muster up the logic that on one hand healthcare wasn't a concern when the Constitution was written but the founders "intended" for the general welfare clause to cover it!
Right; they specifically referenced something that was not a concern-only if you have the functional IQ of a pretzel......
But based on everything else that's transpired with Obamacare and the like, why should I or anyone else believe a single thing that the people who support this communist bullshit say about it??? It's ALL been based on pure lies. Just like most of what you promote. Everything that came out of Obama's mouth on this was a lie. And you're lying now, because that's all you've got. When people know the truth about you communists then you're toast. Either that or you're a moron for believing the lies they tell you.
When contemplating the meaning of "general welfare" in the Constitution one would do well to consult the writings of one of the leading FF's, James Madison; an excerpt from his many musings on the subject alone shatters the myth of the liberal ilk: "With respect to the two words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
To the strict Constructionist (or Originalist if you prefer) the meaning could not be any plainer; what's antithetical is the liberal bastardization (attempted and thankfully not successful) of a marvelous framework into the mythical "living, breathing document", i.e. a document that can be changed by executive fiat at a whim or one to be skirted when the law proves an inconvenient obstacle to efforts to effect social engineering.
Of course for those who do not believe in equality of opportunity but rather want equality of outcome this is a necessary evil if that goal is to be possible. The histrionic wailing when confronted with this harsh reality arises from a position bereft of facts and supported only by the crumbling sands of raw emotion-"it feels good".
The awakening of many to this obvious disconnect is and will continue to be why the left suffers loss after loss after loss. It is also the genesis of the internet trolls; those with heads empty of original thought, hearts empty of morality and doomed to an inevitable fade into oblivion.
The best part is we have front row seats......
Just like Hillary was going to be our next president!!! LMFAO
After 2018 elections democrats will be nothing but a fart in the wind!!
"Healthcare is a right recognized by a majority of Americans. Period."
And just because you say it doesn't make it true liar. PERIOD!
Look at all the problems the VA is having. Vets ignored or tied up in red tape dying for lack of care. There's your single payer model in America. Imagine how more exponentially and disasterously inept that will be for over 330 million souls. It's evil to wish that on folks.
Today is single-payer day. Bernie Sanders is introducing the Medicare for All Act of 2017, and this time he’s no lone socialist crying in the progressive wilderness. A total of 15 Democratic senators are backing his bill, including most of the top Democratic contenders for the presidency. As the Washington Post’s Aaron Blake observed yesterday, “The dam is breaking.” The New Republic, among others, is even arguing that single-payer is becoming the newest “litmus test” for the party’s presidential hopefuls, and given the speed with which the far Left transforms fringe ideas into moral mandates, I’m not surprised.
Sober-minded Democrats should be terrified. They just might be handing Trump two terms. There are three reasons why.
First, and most obviously, single-payer health care comes with an extraordinary tax bill. The very instant voters saw their take-home pay plunge — often by an amount that far exceeds their traditional employee contribution to their employer-provided insurance — they would realize that “free” health care isn’t free. For now, Sanders is concealing how he’ll pay for his bag of goodies, but any single-payer plan would be crushingly expensive. Here’s the Washington Post editorial board, on June 18 this year, describing the costs:
When Sen. Bernie Sanders (I.,Vt.) proposed a “Medicare for all” health plan in his presidential campaign, the nonpartisan Urban Institute figured that it would raise government spending by $32?trillion over 10 years, requiring a tax increase so huge that even the democratic socialist Mr. Sanders did not propose anything close to it.
Indeed, Sanders’s 2016 revenue plan was a staggering $18 trillion short and still imposed more than $14 trillion in new taxes. To put this in context, the current total national debt — accumulated over the previous two centuries of the nation’s existence — is $20 trillion. These numbers are almost too huge for the human mind to grasp, but the mind can certainly grasp a substantially smaller paycheck.
Defenders of single-payer, however, claim that their system will ultimately cost less — pointing to lower costs in other nations. The Washington Post responds:
The public piece of the American health-care system has not proven itself to be particularly cost-efficient. On a per capita basis, U.S. government health programs alone spend more than Canada, Australia, France, and Britain each do on their entire health systems. That means the U.S. government spends more per American to cover a slice of the population than other governments spend per citizen to cover all of theirs. Simply expanding Medicare to all would not automatically result in a radically more efficient health-care system. Something else would have to change.
American government health care is more expensive than European government health care for multiple reasons, but let’s start with this one: Americans don’t live the same lives as citizens in other countries. We’re the most obese major developed nation, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s 2017 “Obesity Update,” and our rates of drug use, smoking, and alcohol abuse also differ substantially. Different nations will have different outcomes, and the American experience suggests that government cost savings will be far more elusive than Sanders supporters hope.
Moreover, voters are “richer, whiter, and older” than nonvoters. In other words, they’re the people who are most likely to have stable health plans. Older voters are already on Medicare. Would they want to pay more taxes for no measurable increase in benefits? Employed voters tend to enjoy a menu of employer-provided health plans, and they often like the plans they have. With single-payer, the Democrats couldn’t even pretend that “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan.” By design, more than 100 million of those plans would disappear, to be replaced by one of the world’s most immense government bureaucracies.
But the reasons why the single-payer push helps Trump and the GOP go well beyond the health-care debate itself. This emerging litmus test is symptomatic of a larger problem: The Democratic party is increasingly the wholly owned subsidiary of the progressive base, and the progressive base has become too radical for widespread electoral success.
Bowbender's Link
Really? Find the clause where it says that.
Matt
With a counterpart in Canada he father was told to see a specialist since a test came back that he had cancer. They gave him an appointment eight months later. She decided to bring him the US and get him to a specialist who ran more detail tests and told him that he needed to be operated on immediately or he would be dead within a month. Two days later the operated on him and saved his life. If he waited in Canada he would be dead.
As many of you know my wife had polycystic kidney disease and I donated my kidney to her. She has to take anti-rejection medicine for the rest of her life.
While we were at the hospital I was talking to a woman on Medicaid about her kidney problems. She had he surgery two years ago and the transplant was successful but Medicaid was not going to pay for her anti-rejection medicine once two years were up. I did some research and if you are on Medicare or Medicaid the government will pay fully for your anti-rejection medicine for only two years ( now three years ). A generic prescription goes for about $150 a month back then but the insane part is that once they lose the kidney then the Government will pay the full cost of dialysis treatment which costs over $5,000 a month. That's how messed up the government is $5,000 vs $150
Canadian Doctor Tells Bernie Sanders About Year-Long Wait Times Canadians Experience
NTK: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) invited Canadian doctor Danielle Martin on “The Bernie Sanders Show” to discuss the benefits of a single-payer health care system. However, Dr. Martin told Sanders about how Canadians experience year-long wait times under their health care system.
“If I have a patient who’s got migraines and I need advice on how to manage it, they might wait several months to see a neurologist for a non-urgent problem,” Martin told Sanders.
Martin informed Sanders that patients who need a non-urgent surgery like a hip replacement or knee replacement would also have to wait several months.
Sanders followed up by asking Martin how long it would take for someone needing a non-urgent surgery to get that surgery.
“It depends on where you are in the country. Sometimes it’s a few months sometimes it’s a year,” Martin responded. “In some places, at sometimes it’s been even longer than that. That people wait for a hip or knee replacement.”
"...Welcome one of your newest fellow citizens. Let's say just for the sake of discussion that this is a hypothetical scenario:
46 year old woman. Gets pregnant. No father listed on birth certificate. Unemployed, gets no prenatal care, presents to hospital in labor, baby born slightly premature and very small size. Has Down syndrome. Has significant medical abnormalities. Will probably be hospitalized for weeks to months in intensive care. May need major surgery. Mother speaks not a word of English. Immigration status? Who knows, not allowed to ask. Mom on Medicaid. Baby on Medicaid.
Where is the responsibility of this woman who is old enough to know better? Where is the responsibility of the father who gets his pleasure with no skin in the game? Where is the responsibility of this mother's nation of origin who outsourced her dependency onto us? Where is the concern from our politicians for the taxpayers, the hardworking citizens of this country who are going to pay for this child's medical care for years to come? Where is a simple thank you America, for being kind hearted and generous. But no, the Dreamers have a dream. Screw the taxpayer and his/her dreams. Screw the future of the taxpayer's child and his/her dreams. This woman and her child are entitled to the sweat of your brow, comrade! ..."
Just last week, Bernie Sanders rolled out his Medicare for All bill. Sanders and the bill’s advocates railed against the current healthcare system as ineffectual, forgetting (or hoping the public has forgotten) that it’s the product of Democrat ideas and votes.
In Sanders’ fantasy world, single-payer system is the only cure for what ails the American healthcare system. Most of his Democratic Senate colleagues agree. They were wrong about Obamacare and what it would fix and they’re wrong single-payer.
The reality of single-payer’s implementation is incongruent with what it promises to deliver.
Look no further than Britain, who employs a single-payer system, to see what lies ahead if the U.S. chooses to wander down a similar path. There, rationed care is not fear mongering; it’s an unfortunate challenge for the system’s consumers.
Most recently, British government run hospitals have banned hip and knee surgery for smokers and the obese citing budget cuts.
Avik Roy writes at Forbes:
If you’ve been concerned about the fate of veterans’ health care in the U.S., look to its cousin across the pond. A subsidiary of the government-run British National Health Service has decided to bar obese patients and smokers from undgergoing hip and knee operations. “I think we are going to see more and more decisions like this,” said Chris Hopson, the head of NHS Providers told The Telegraph. “It’s the only way providers are going to be able to balance their books.”
The British NHS and the U.S. VA are cousins
The British National Health Service and the U.S. Veterans Health Administration are two of the last remaining socialized health care systems in the world. That is to say, both systems have not only single-payer, government-run health insurance—the government also owns the hospitals and employs the doctors.
When government has that dominant of a role, it has no choice but to prioritize how to spend the money. In May, NHS England disclosed that its health care providers—hospitals, clinics, doctors and the like—had spent £2.45 billion ($3.26 billion) more than they had been allocated.
In North Yorkshire, England, hospital leaders have decided to cut back by denying hip and knee surgeries to smokers who refuse to quit, and those with Body Mass Indices above 30. (If you’re 5’10”, a BMI of 30 is 209 pounds; if you’re 5’5”, it’s 180 pounds.)
“Major surgery poses much higher risks for severely overweight patients who smoke,” said an NHS England spokesman. “So local [providers] are entirely right to ensure these patients first get support to lose weight and try and stop smoking before their hip or knee operation.” The change “saves the NHS and taxpayers millions of pounds.”
No amount of blaming the wealthy or Republicans will alter the math — socialized medicine is simply not sustainable. Roy continues:
Left-wing advocates of the NHS-VA approach argue that rationing isn’t a big deal because in a free-market health care system, health care is “rationed” based on an individual’s ability to pay for it. But that’s balderdash.
In the rest of the economy, when a product or service is too expensive, businesses have the incentive to figure out how to deliver it less expensively. Think how much high-definition TVs cost when they first came out—tens of thousands of dollars—compared to today, when Amazon sells dozens of models for under $100. That economic incentive—to deliver better services with higher quality and lower costs—only exists in the private sector.
The more we can put patients back in control of their own health care dollars, the better. Let’s start with the VA.
If what I pay in increased taxes, if we did create a single payer option, is still less than (probably like less than 1/2) what I'm paying now for "capitalistic" insurance, I'm all for single payer, pride be damned. I saw one post where a person had to wait 6 weeks to get his wisdom teeth out and thought this was pretty funny considering everyone knows to pull them when you're about 18-20, so if he waits till his 40's when it becomes a problem it's the "system's" fault. Or a knee replacement that's been bothering you for 10 years and you need to wait 9 months for a replacement.
I have yet to see a single argument of why we should pay more than double the next highest price and typically more like 3-4x the industrialized nations cost for health care and not really have a measurable metric to support this increased cost, other than faster service.
Likewise, the comments regarding knee replacement and why would someone wait; for starters, even with the improvements in joint replacement surgery (most notably materials and techniques) they still have a finite lifespan and provided the joint isn't severely arthritic the best course is to delay as to minimize the number of procedures required.
I've yet to see you make an argument in this arena that wasn't either rooted in ignorance or built upon comparative metrics that have more preconceived biases built into them then the average liberal argument.
Frankly, if this is the best you've got to offer stay away longer.......or at least until you make at least a halfhearted effort at becoming better informed.
Likewise with Knees, I know mine are going down hill and at some point will either need work or replacement, probably within the next 15 years, so I think planning for that shouldn't be that difficult. If I did need a replacement quicker there's always the private market.
Going out on a limb, I'm guessing you are in the medical field in some way or another and favor higher medical costs. I'm not in the medical field and I just want lower costs and don't really have an ax to grind who comes up with the idea. Don't get me wrong, we probably have the best care in the world, but at double the cost is it really twice as great? I think we're getting diminishing returns making a "perfect" system to cover outliers and everyone else is paying for it.
Thanks for the welcome back.
You're half right; I've spent most of my adult life in the healthcare field (clinical, research and industry sides) but I don't favor higher medical costs at all. I've got more than I care for in the way of first-hand knowledge of what higher costs do to the quality of care hospitals provide.
Too much of the time people with little or no clinical backgrounds are making decisions in US hospitals based solely on cost and the greatest task I have the past few years (and this accelerated significantly under the PPACA) is to teach the concept of cost avoidance; spend some today but save BIG tomorrow. One example is a hospital that is making a $205,000 investment they didn't think they could afford; that mindset changed when they saw indisputable evidence of over $3M in cost avoidance (savings) per year each year the equipment will be in use.
The above illustration is a free market providing a solution that yields better quality of care-the government didn't have a damn thing to do with it either.
Opinion or fact? I've read both sides and lean towards James Madison's view, who was in Jefferson's cabinet, that it fell within the executives branches power to negotiate treaties. Always thought Madison had a handle on the Constitution, given the fact he's considered the "Father" of the constitution.
