Is single payer really that bad?

[juleswin]

I think there is plenty of evidence to indicate that getting the government out of funding it would increase the efficiency of it.

And I will agree with you on the efficiency in areas it decides to focus on, but would it decide the fund the rare genetic disease research that only afflict 1% of the population and makes no return on investment? or how about the disease can be cured with simple change of life style? and if the amount of resources that is now being invested into healthcare is reduced, will it take along with it the brain power that it has been attracting?

These are all important questions and I don't think we know the answers to them, the free market regard healthcare to be less valuable than government finds it and they may decided to instead funnel some of that money into recreational activity to the detriment of medical science. I would still want to see what happens and hope gov completely gets out of healthcare business.

 

[juleswin]

Isn't the definition of single-payer that it takes away the ability to choose freely to go outside it?

Not really, we have virtually single payer in primary education but you can still use your earning to attend private school. Single payer just ensures that everyone pays in to govt for healthcare and the govt pays out when treatment is needed.

 

[juleswin]

That's an argument against it, not for it.

Its an argument for medical guaranteed medical innovation. And like I said, its only one argument for that sort of system, its has way more arguments against than for it

 

[erowe1]

Its an argument for medical guaranteed medical innovation.

What is medical guaranteed medical innovation?

 

[emilynghiem]

Welcome to the forums.

I do not want you to be forced to use your hard earned tax money to pay for my medical care though. I'd rather let you have the option to use it for you and your loved ones. After that, you can give to charity.

Thanks A
what i want to know and can't get answers from pro ACA supporters:

1. Why is paying for insurance "the only option to pay for one's health care" or else pay an increasing tax to government?

Why isn't the freedom recognized to pay for charity hospitals and medical education
and other means of providing health care and other services as well?

if we reward people who organize campuses where people receive medical education and services directly,
and insurance remains an option but is not required if people can cover costs other ways,
why is that not an equal choice as it was before ACA

2. what if I want to use money and pay for historic preservation of irreplaceable churches that can't be paid for other ways,
and rely on charity to pay for my health care instead of buying insurance.

Why are you telling me what I can and cannot consider a priority, if I have other means of paying for my health care
without imposing on anyone else who doesn't want to help me voluntarily?

3. if you are okay imposing insurance mandates as required for all people,
are you okay with imposing "spiritual healing" to reduce costs of crime and disease
to help more people lower their costs, save their lives and health, and save resources for more people?

aer you okay mandating spiritual healing or do you only believe in insurance?

if you only believe in insurance being mandatory, and I do not and believe it should be kept voluntary, what gives you the right
to use federal govt to impose your beliefs on me as the "only way" to cover my health care costs?

why are you allowed to impose this system on the belief that mandatory insurance is the only way to make it work,
while my belief that insurance could be voluntary and the system can still be made to work without mandates.

why is your belief imposed by law under tax penalty
and I face fines if I exercise my free choice to believe in voluntary means of paying for health care?

how is this constitutional or equal protection of the laws for both our beliefs without discrimination?
when my belief in keeping things voluntary does NOT impose on or exclude you, because you can still buy insurance freely or under mandates among other believers who agree to use that system,
but your belief imposes on and excludes mine where I no longer have free choice of how to pay for health care?

 

[juleswin]

What is medical guaranteed medical innovation?

I meant to say a lot of funding for all sorts of medical research that inevitably leads to medical innovations. Btw, they do have medical innovation even in countries with single payer, it's just that we have more medical discoveries in the US.

 

[eduardo89]

What is medical guaranteed medical innovation?

I don't know, but the government should be spending money on it.

 

[emilynghiem]

Not really, we have virtually single payer in primary education but you can still use your earning to attend private school. Single payer just ensures that everyone pays in to govt for healthcare and the govt pays out when treatment is needed.

Why can't singlepayer systems be set up within each party, to avoid conflicting policies between prochoice and prolife for example?

What is stopping people from setting up their own exchanges as a corporation or company or system within party membership
so it does not impose on people of other views or beliefs? but all members participate voluntarily and fund it because they agree with the policies? why not?

 

[eduardo89]

What is stopping people from setting up their own ....

Government.

 

[erowe1]

I meant to say a lot of funding for all sorts of medical research that inevitably leads to medical innovations. Btw, they do have medical innovation even in countries with single payer, it's just that we have more medical discoveries in the US.

But then we're back to my comment that you replied to. What you said is an argument against government funding for medical research, not for it.

 

[juleswin]

But then we're back to my comment that you replied to. What you said is an argument against government funding for medical research, not for it.

Think of yourself as a young kid with a rare genetic debilitating disease. The cost to research your disease is so large than and the potential for making profit is so small that no research labs will pay attention to you except for govt run National Science foundation. Now do you think it benefits you if govt were taken out of the equation or left to give out funds to scientist who want to take up your cause?

In above case, govt was able to coerce society to fund a program which it may not have ordinarily be funded in a free market system and sometimes the discoveries made for the rare disease leads to the treatment of other common diseases. Ofc this is just the effect that is seen.

 

[juleswin]

Why can't singlepayer systems be set up within each party, to avoid conflicting policies between prochoice and prolife for example?

What is stopping people from setting up their own exchanges as a corporation or company or system within party membership
so it does not impose on people of other views or beliefs? but all members participate voluntarily and fund it because they agree with the policies? why not?

I am with you brother, lets allow different people decide for themselves what system they want to adopt. Personally, I prefer the individual and family run single payer system. No disagreement there.

+rep

 

[angelatc]

Why can't singlepayer systems be set up within each party, to avoid conflicting policies between prochoice and prolife for example?

What is stopping people from setting up their own exchanges as a corporation or company or system within party membership
so it does not impose on people of other views or beliefs? but all members participate voluntarily and fund it because they agree with the policies? why not?

Most of us here believe that voluntary systems are perfectly acceptable. But the people who believe in solution by government do not have any qualms about forcing other peope into a one-size-fits-all model.

You won't get logic from those people. They are not interested in winning philosophical debates - they're interested in getting control.

 

[oyarde]

No , I am not interested in single payer or obummercare.

 

[emilynghiem]

Isn't the definition of single-payer that it takes away the ability to choose freely to go outside it?

for example, if all Democrats and Greens want to set up singlepayer, they do so through their own party system.
so YES they can require that all members must go through this system and not outside.

they can agree to pay for whoever they want, at whatever level of coverage they agree is the standard.
and implement these same mandates for themselves they expected everyone else to follow.

 

[emilynghiem]

Most of us here believe that voluntary systems are perfectly acceptable. But the people who believe in solution by government do not have any qualms about forcing other peope into a one-size-fits-all model.

You won't get logic from those people. They are not interested in winning philosophical debates - they're interested in getting control.

Thanks Angelatc
so let's give them control. let's help them set up singlepayer through their own parties and show how to make this work by voluntary participation.

Paul Glover who teaches communities to set up and manage local currency for sustainable economic growth
also has materials on setting up health care cooperatives.

Jill Stein also ran on a platform with ideas for sustainable medicine and health care.
Both of these Green party leaders work by consensus building and educated choices so people make better decisions.

There are plenty of ways to make health care more affordable and accessible to more people
without going through private insurance mandates.

i brought up spiritual healing to reduce costs of disease and crime to save lives and resources to help more people more cost effectively.
medical research on spiritual healing could also resolve the issues with medical marijuana vs addiction,
since the same healing methods also cure people of addiction, and can cure cancer or other diseases naturally where pot would not be needed to placate symptoms.

i find the best way to empower people so they don't abuse politics to fight for control
is to teach Constitutional principles and conflict resolution.

when people know how much power we have, we would be too busy implementing
and funding our own programs, and not give our money to govt just to argue why it isn't going where we want

we'd invest in what we believe in, directly, and deduct those business expenses and donations from our taxes
and have more CONTROL locally anyway. people can organize this through their parties, so they don't feel threatened by opponents. why not?

 

[erowe1]

Thanks Angelatc
so let's give them control. let's help them set up singlepayer through their own parties and show how to make this work by voluntary participation.

What you're suggesting isn't legal (and is also the diametric opposite of anything Jill Stein supported).

As always, the government is the problem.

http://www.amazon.com/From-Mutual-Aid-Welfare-State/dp/0807848417/

The way to get from where we are to a place where you can pursue what you're advocating is through eliminating government involvement in healthcare.