Reid Says Obama Care Will Be Single Payer

[dirtfarmerz]

I have a difficult time with laying the problem at the feet of the insurance companies. The first problem here is the .gov acting completely outside of its constitutional authority. That in itself is unacceptable and should be stopped promptly. The second problem affecting health care in general for years is labeling it fraud if the provider provides us with the same service at the same price paying cash that it provides when being paid via medicare/medicaid or insurance. In both cases, there is a stated cash rate and a discount rate paid by the .gov or insurance. Charging us the same constitutes fraud so far as the .gov and insurance are concerned. Further, providing people with the means to pay for medical treatment of dubious necessity by creating circumstances in which they have nothing to lose by running to the doctor at the first sneeze drives up costs by artificially creating demand that would not exist if these people had to pay themselves. This happens with the introduction of most any 'free' service. In the end, the free market would be the best solution, but it has been evicted from the discussion since before my lifetime, so get ready for socialized medicine in which you won't be able to get treatment unless you are on the edge of death, and not then unless the death panel decides you are worthy to live, based on factors specifically not including the extent to which you have already paid for the service you are likely to be denied.

This government targeted Tea Party groups and Conservatives with multiple agencies. They will do the same with Obamacare. The single payer system was the goal all along. It's all about controlling the masses and punishing their enemies.

 

[IndyDave1776]

[/B]
This government targeted Tea Party groups and Conservatives with multiple agencies. They will do the same with Obamacare. The single payer system was the goal all along. It's all about controlling the masses and punishing their enemies.

Absolutely. Take this and the obvious goal of dismantling the republic in favor of a socialist totalitarian state and we have all of our answers albeit without a lot of detail.

 

[SSGSAD]

ask ANY vet how well their gov run health care is working out for em.

WHAT gov healthcare ?????? I was "promised" back in 1977, when I joined AD USMC, that if I did 20 years, I would have "free" healthcare, for the rest of my life ..... I go to the VA, and it costs me $59.00, I "lost" my health insurance, BECAUSE of "ocare" .....

 

[Sfrandolph]

Consider the number of people employed by all the insurance companies that provide health/dental insurance. With single payer all those people will be terminated and replaced with "government workers". Unemployment ranks will swell....again. Govt will swell.....again. And we all know how efficient and productive the govt is. Can't see any benefit at all for obamacare, single payer, Obama or anything supported by the govt.

 

[jwh20]

And that would be a bad thing because?

Because that "single payer" will be the US Government and the funding will come from the US taxpayer! As "evil" as you might think Humana, Anthem, WellPoint, and other insurance companies are, do you really believe that the government controlling the entire health-care industry is a GOOD THING?

 

[HenryWallace]

In my opinion, insurance is FEAR. Fear is pushed up by taking 'reality' and understanding that it's going to get ugly sometimes, giving that sometimes a HUGE price-tag, and then getting paid every month from EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE anyways.

I don't know much about the healthcare system, and I don't want to, but I do understand job security and fear deployment.... As well as .gov oversight meaning "We're the government, and we're here to help."

 

[Stschil]

And that would be a bad thing because?

Because no one wants increased income, property, and value added taxes.
I'm at a loss to find any country with a National Healthcare System that doesn't bleed the citizens dry via taxes while its leaders wallow in riches gained through the misappropriations of said outrageous taxation in addition to providing substandard care for those who aren't in positions of authority.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Indeed so. The only people who gain from a single-payer system are those who put absolutely nothing in by virtue of anything they receive being more than they would have had otherwise. All others lose.

And there will still be the element of "unfairness" that has spun this cause up to where we are now...and where we will be going. The rich, the politically connected, and probably those of certain politically correct groups will be provided access to the medical care they need/desire. The rest of us will be confined to the provisions afforded by the "plan".

 

[IndyDave1776]

And there will still be the element of "unfairness" that has spun this cause up to where we are now...and where we will be going. The rich, the politically connected, and probably those of certain politically correct groups will be provided access to the medical care they need/desire. The rest of us will be confined to the provisions afforded by the "plan".

Exactly, and taken in context with the leftist doctrine that the world population should be limited to ~500,000 people (leftists committed to maintaining that status quo of course) it leads me to the conclusion that there are multiple reasons even beyond basic control of the people behind this fiasco which probably works like a dream if you look at it through the right warped perspective.

 

[dirtfarmerz]

Consider the number of people employed by all the insurance companies that provide health/dental insurance. With single payer all those people will be terminated and replaced with "government workers". Unemployment ranks will swell....again. Govt will swell.....again. And we all know how efficient and productive the govt is. Can't see any benefit at all for obamacare, single payer, Obama or anything supported by the govt.

Exactly, and taken in context with the leftist doctrine that the world population should be limited to ~500,000 people (leftists committed to maintaining that status quo of course) it leads me to the conclusion that there are multiple reasons even beyond basic control of the people behind this fiasco which probably works like a dream if you look at it through the right warped perspective.

IndyDave76 beat me to it; The benefit is Obamacare "works like a dream" for the NWO and it will be a huge contributor towards tyranny. Just another step. Obamacare was not designed to help people live better, but to enslave and control. It will be one of their best tools. It was not a blunder on their part, it was good planning.

 

[5.56'aholic]

I think a lot of us are missing a serious flaw in comparing o-care to our friends to the north and our friends across the pond. Both Canada and GB are not totally a single payer system. In GB, you have the option to jump to the head of the line if you pay cash out of pocket. In Canada, if they do not want to wait, they simply come here and pay cash out of pocket as well. Hillary specifically stated early on that there would be no provision in o-care to allow cash payments as she claimed it would create inequality in the system (ironically, they get a waiver being part of the fed). What we really have, as stated in previous posts, is an entirely new bureacratic device designed solely for totalitarian control.

 

[3gunshooter]

I use to work for the worlds largest medical device maker. Laid off due to the taxes the company will have to pay. They are shipping production to China and India. Most everyone is going to be effected by it.

 

[Manatee]

Because that "single payer" will be the US Government and the funding will come from the US taxpayer! As "evil" as you might think Humana, Anthem, WellPoint, and other insurance companies are, do you really believe that the government controlling the entire health-care industry is a GOOD THING?

I don't have a good answer for this. If I did, I'd probably be anointed as a saint or some such.

But, here is what runs around in my mind: It's only been about 8 or 9 generations since Lewis & Clark made it to the coast of Oregon. We've had an industrial nation for about 5 generations, a modern society for about 4 generations and a digital society for about 1.

I really don't know what the future holds. The changes that we have had to deal with in the past are nothing like the challenges our kids and grandkids are going to have to deal with.

I don't trust government and I really really really don't trust large corporations accountable to very few people. I believe in the greater greed theory and the fact that there has never been a free market in the history of man.

So, I really don't know....is single payer a bad thing? Perhaps...but then I look at medicare as being pretty much universally loved by all recipients...rich and poor alike.

And I look at the money our government p*sses away on stupid wars in far off countries for purposes that haven't made sense since WWII.

I therefore don't have the answer...and I don't think some of the attitudes here really are answers either.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I don't have a good answer for this. If I did, I'd probably be anointed as a saint or some such.

It's really not that difficult.

But, here is what runs around in my mind: It's only been about 8 or 9 generations since Lewis & Clark made it to the coast of Oregon. We've had an industrial nation for about 5 generations, a modern society for about 4 generations and a digital society for about 1.

I really don't know what the future holds. The changes that we have had to deal with in the past are nothing like the challenges our kids and grandkids are going to have to deal with.

Specifics of the situation change but matters of principle do not change, which is what this is.

I don't trust government and I really really really don't trust large corporations accountable to very few people. I believe in the greater greed theory and the fact that there has never been a free market in the history of man.

There has always been the attempt to manipulate the market to the manipulator's advantage, but it has ranged from having this as a minor nuisance all the way up to government controls which create a market which is absolutely controlled, which, incidentally, has never worked. I think I prefer the nuisance to the unmitigated disaster.

So, I really don't know....is single payer a bad thing? Perhaps...but then I look at medicare as being pretty much universally loved by all recipients...rich and poor alike.

Again, the question is: Do you believe in forcing others to pay your bills? Unfortunately for those who cling to the 'I've been paying in all my life' argument, they were asleep at the switch while the money was squandered. I will grant them that this totally sucks, but then again, why should I have to pay for something I will not likely ever receive because those before me failed to do their due diligence?

And I look at the money our government p*sses away on stupid wars in far off countries for purposes that haven't made sense since WWII.

True, but that doesn't change the matter at hand one way or other. The fact of the matter is that government is in love with pissing away money with the only variable being upon what to squander it. Past malfeasance if anything stands as a solid indicator of malfeasance yet to come when the government is turned loose controlling our health and all the money funneled into it such that we will receive the efficiency of the Postal Service at Pentagon prices. I can hardly restrain my enthusiasm.

I therefore don't have the answer...and I don't think some of the attitudes here really are answers either.

I don't know about this. Getting the government out of this (and everything else not covered in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution) is a good start. Tort reform would go a long way. I don't believe in impunity, but then again, I don't believe the doctor f**king up granny's knee should be expected to make her extended family independently wealthy for three generations either. Maybe paying for the rework to make it right plus some when applicable would be a better arrangement. After that, make is such that (like the railroad regulations of ~120 years ago) health care providers have to go by published rates for the work they do ala carte such that I can pay the same the insurance company or the .gov pays. Also make it so that the doctor can help a poor person free/reduced without being charged for fraud after doing so (i.e., charging anyone else less than the medicare/insurance initial rates). In the end, market forces will work as they have not on account of it being illegal for the free market to work as such. It seems like a workable answer to me. Single payer sure the hell isn't.

.

 

[gstanley102]

Uh, see how that will work out for you 50 years from now. England has had a single payor system for 60 years and the attached is just a sample of their current state of care
1.
Patients facing eight-hour waits in ambulances outside A&E departments - Telegraph

2.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10184004/NHS-inquiry-Trust-by-trust-the-Keogh-Reports-findings.

Those articles don't begin to illustrate the health care issues most Englishmen face.
They always have to go through the cheapest possible treatment first.
Even when an out patient would fix a problem.
Waiting 6 months or more for an operation seems to be the norm.

Even worse most Englishmen when asked who pays for health care will tell you it's free and no one pays.

 

[gstanley102]

R

I don't have a good answer for this. If I did, I'd probably be anointed as a saint or some such.

But, here is what runs around in my mind: It's only been about 8 or 9 generations since Lewis & Clark made it to the coast of Oregon. We've had an industrial nation for about 5 generations, a modern society for about 4 generations and a digital society for about 1.

I really don't know what the future holds. The changes that we have had to deal with in the past are nothing like the challenges our kids and grandkids are going to have to deal with.

I don't trust government and I really really really don't trust large corporations accountable to very few people. I believe in the greater greed theory and the fact that there has never been a free market in the history of man.

So, I really don't know....is single payer a bad thing? Perhaps...but then I look at medicare as being pretty much universally loved by all recipients...rich and poor alike.

And I look at the money our government p*sses away on stupid wars in far off countries for purposes that haven't made sense since WWII.

I therefore don't have the answer...and I don't think some of the attitudes here really are answers either.

The goverment must stay out of administrating health care.
CAN YOU SAY RATIONING?

 

[Manatee]

IndyDave1776: I won't get into a point by point debate with you. Let's just say I'm a lot more cynical about what you consider founding principles and the actions subsequent.

 

[IndyDave1776]

IndyDave1776: I won't get into a point by point debate with you. Let's just say I'm a lot more cynical about what you consider founding principles and the actions subsequent.

I am not trying to argue that our founders were angelically pure beings lacking original sin and devoid of selfish motivations. They did, however, understand the concept of limited government which has been almost completely forgotten inside the Washington beltway.

Honestly, do you believe that liberty was as bad off circa 1785 as it is today? Same for limited government operating within the confines of the Constitution?

It may not have ever been perfect, but it was superior then to the extent that the United States of the present is almost unrecognizable in its principles compared with the United States in its early years.

 

[Lex Concord]

I don't trust government and I really really really don't trust large corporations accountable to very few people.

When a single payer system is enacted, it will be a bureaucracy accountable to no one.

Health insurance companies, while driven by profit, typically operate on about a 5% margin. Even in the less than free markets we have and have had, they have been and are accountable to the consumer, sometimes directly, and sometimes via the courts.

It will certainly be worse than what we have now.

I may have an attitude about it, but it is only because I realize (as does IndyDave1776) what an unmitigated disaster single payer will be. Basic economics (alleged animal spirits notwithstanding) and human history support that thesis.

The answer is simple. Make the markets more free, not less. Allow more competition, don't limit it.

 

[Twangbanger]

So, I really don't know....is single payer a bad thing? Perhaps...but then I look at medicare as being pretty much universally loved by all recipients...rich and poor alike.

Here is a common misconception on the part of single-payer advocates - the idea that Obamacare represents "Medicare for All."

The fact is, Obamacare REDUCES Medicare funding. The premise of Obamacare is that Medicare has been "too good of a deal" for everyone except the government, and that money needs to be pulled out of it, and re-allocated to the expansion of Medicaid (in other words, taking money out of the system serving people who "paid into it," and redistributing it to the system serving people who "didn't pay into it").

Whenever I hear someone extolling the benefits of Medicare, it's either someone with liberal tendencies, or a military vet who's happy with his VA care, or a combination of both. They are often of the opinion that those systems should be expanded to cover everyone in society; the idea that, if it works for some, it can work for all. What they fail to realize is, Medicare and VA are set up to benefit a few, at the cost of many. That type of system can indeed work well, numerically-speaking. What it doesn't account for, is what happens when you force EVERYONE into it, and you no longer have a happy few being supported by the resources of many. You no longer have Cadillac care for Vets and old people, who are mostly happy...you will have Kia care for everyone, and nobody happy, except the non-productive riders who benefit from the Medicare expansion.

It's an intellectually-lazy mistake, to believe the satisfaction level of a small number of people being supported by many, can be "scaled-up" to a system that covers everyone. Once everyone is forced in, regardless of their productivity level in contributing to the economy, you now have a rationed system that can come nowhere near making anyone as happy as the small number of people receiving Medicare and VA used to be (when those systems were still fully-funded, that is, which will not be the case under Obamacare).

But still you'll see it: people saying, "What could be wrong with Obamacare, it's just Medicare for everyone, right? And everybody's happy with Medicare." They don't see the fundamental shift in proportions that's occurring here. I see it as being akin to saying, "Unemployment insurance works well, the people who are on it are happy with it...so let's just put everybody on unemployment, and nobody will have to worry about a job." It makes about as much sense, and would result in probably about the same overall satisfaction level.

It's one thing to be one old guy who's happy with your "free VA care"...it's quite another to force an entire economy, and everyone in it, into the same system. The numbers don't work the same. If you cannot see that, you're simply beyond logic.