Healthcare is not a right

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jito463

I never said it was JUST illegals, but they do play a considerable factor in the equation. Even you can't deny that.

Illegals are roughly only 11 million out of around 300 million.

That's not the only way. Finding ways to prevent abuse of the system will also help to keep costs down.

Define "abuse of the system", we might agree here.

Or, you know, only provide replacements/repairs when it's really needed, rather than allowing every tom, dick and harry in whenever they feel like it.

The point is, the way our system works would cause obvious failure in any other industry...and we wonder why it's failing. lol

You say you're for the expansion of Medicaid, but one of the biggest issues with government runs programs like Medicaid is the exorbitant cost of fraud. If the fraud could be weeded out (or at least minimized), it would go a long way towards making the programs actually maintainable.

Yes, I'm all for preventing fraud.

Of course, one of the main reasons there is so much fraud, is because of the overwhelming bureaucracy that allows the fraud to continue. No one is ever responsible for the fraud that occurs, so no one is ever fired, thus the fraud is allowed to persist. And when government is involved, bureaucracy is unavoidable.

I think there should be tougher laws against fraud.

Which is THE primary reason we should never want the government involved in our health care choices!

Because the private industry is so much better right?

Great cartoon.... LOL

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

Tommy Douglas was as much a "Reverend" as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. It wasn't the Gospel of Christ which he preached, but the social gospel most liberal "Reverends" preach. He was a hireling who preached his social gospel on the weekends to pay for college.

Douglas also based his thesis on eugenics. "Those deemed to be "subnormal," because of low intelligence, moral laxity, or venereal disease would be sent to state farms or camps; while those judged to be mentally defective or incurably diseased would be sterilized." (Tommy: the life and politics of Tommy Douglas)

I wonder, do all good Baptists believe in eugenics? I don't know any real Christians who believe in it. But the good ole Baptist "Reverend" Douglas did.

I heard a recording of Rev. Bean preaching from a couple generations ago. He actually called mixed babies "abominations" from the pulpit.

Many of our Founding Fathers were slave owners and just as racist as anyone else in that time.

The point is, no one is perfect. We're all men and women of our time, reflecting the values of our time.

Just think, our great grand children will look back on those who opposed universal healthcare insurance in our day the same way we look back at those who supported eugenics in theirs.

The fact is, history is on our side. One day we will have universal insurance.

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I heard a recording of Rev. Bean preaching from a couple generations ago. He actually called mixed babies "abominations" from the pulpit.

Many of our Founding Fathers were slave owners and just as racist as anyone else in that time.

The point is, no one is perfect. We're all men and women of our time, reflecting the values of our time.

Just think, our great grand children will look back on those who opposed universal healthcare insurance in our day the same way we look back at those who supported eugenics in theirs.

The fact is, history is on our side. One day we will have universal insurance.

A - So true, so enlightened. Those who oppose universal healthcare will be regarded just as those who opposed communism.
Poor unenlighted fools...
(Sorry my sarcasm kicked in).

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

A - So true, so enlightened. Those who oppose universal healthcare will be regarded just as those who opposed communism.
Poor unenlighted fools...
(Sorry my sarcasm kicked in).

Truth is truth. Universal health insurance is the only real solution.

[Aquila]

I found this interesting....

Trump’s close friend just told him to ditch Republicans and embrace universal healthcare
http://resistancereport.com/politics...al-healthcare/

Christopher Ruddy, the CEO of the right-leaning media company Newsmax, suggested the following:

1. Ditch the Freedom Caucus and the handful of Senate Republicans who want a complete repeal of Obamacare. They don’t agree with universal coverage and will never be placated.

2. Find a few parts of Ryan Care II that can win passage in the House and Senate with either GOP support or bipartisan support. Declare victory.

3. Rekindle the bipartisanship in Congress that Obama destroyed. Empanel a bipartisan committee to report back by year’s end with a feasible plan to fix Obamacare.

4. Reject the phony private health insurance market as the panacea. Look to an upgraded Medicaid system to become the country’s blanket insurer for the uninsured.

5. Tie Medicaid funding to states with the requirement each pass legislation to allow for a truly nationwide healthcare market.

6. Get Democrats to agree to modest tort reform to help lower medical costs.

7. While bolstering Medicare and improving Medicaid, get Republicans and Democrats to back the long-term fix of health savings accounts. This allows individuals to fund their own healthcare and even profit from it.

[Aquila]

For those who seriously want to know the facts and details regarding a National Single Payer Health Insurance system, here's a link that might help:

Single-Payer FAQ
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-faq

The above link will address the following questions:

•What is single payer?
•Is national health insurance ‘socialized medicine’?
•Won't single payer bankrupt the U.S.?
•What about the proposal to lower the eligibility age for Medicare to 55?
•Won’t this result in rationing like in Canada?
•Who will run the health care system?
•What about medical research?
•Won’t this just be another bureaucracy?
•How will we keep costs down if everyone has access to comprehensive health care?
•Will bundled payments and "paying for value" in health care reduce costs?
•How will we keep doctors from doing too many procedures?
•What will happen to physician incomes?
•Under single payer, won't physician incomes go down?
•How will we keep drug prices under control?
•Why shouldn’t we let people buy better health care if they can afford it?
•What will be covered?
•What about alternative care, will it be covered?
•Can a business keep private insurance if they choose?
•What will happen to all of the people who work for insurance companies?
•How will we contain costs with the population aging?
•What about ERISA? Doesn’t it stand in the way of states implementing universal health care plans?
•How will the Health Planning Board operate?
•Since we could finance a fairly good system, like the Norwegian, Danish or Swedish system, with the public money we are already spending (60% of health costs), why do we need to raise the additional 40% (from employers and individuals)?
•How much of the health care dollar is publicly financed?
•Why not MSAs/HSAs?
•Why not use tax subsidies to help the uninsured buy health insurance?
•What is PNHP’s response to libertarian proposals for health savings accounts and deregulated insurance plans?
•Won’t competition be impeded by a universal health care system?
•Why not make people who are higher risk pay higher premiums?
•Won’t this raise my taxes?
•Isn’t a payroll tax unfair to small businesses?
•Walter Reed Army Medical Center has been in the news lately for poor care and treatment of returning soldiers from Iraq. Won’t national health insurance have similar problems?
•What about incremental reform of the health system?
•What happens to investor-owned hospitals under national health insurance (NHI)?
•What proportion of health spending is for undocumented immigrants?
•The insurance industry says that PNHP’s figures on administrative costs are outdated. Is this true?
•How much could the states save on administrative waste by adopting a statewide single-payer program?
•What will happen to malpractice costs under national health insurance?
•Should PNHP support a public Medicare-like option in a market of private plans?
•Would a “public plan option” at least be a step in the right direction?
•Universal healthcare is okay for a small country or organization like Switzerland, Canada, or the Veterans Administration, but it wouldn’t work when scaled up to meet the needs of a large country like the US.
•Responses to recent attacks on single payer health reform: Ideology Masquerading as Scholarship
•When Canada adopted single payer, did she allow labor unions to opt-out and “keep what they have.”
•What does PNHP have to say about the primary care workforce shortage?
•What is a Voucher Plan? What’s Wrong With It?
•What about the claim (in videos circulating on the internet) that a patient in Canada would have died of a brain tumor if he hadn’t come to the U.S. for an MRI?
•How much do private insurance companies spend on overhead and profit?
•Doesn't the threat of filibuster prevent fundamental reform?
•Will the Obama health plan cover all young adults?
•The number of uninsured Americans now exceeds 50.7 million people according to the Census Bureau. Won't the Obama health plan cover them?
•What about report cards on physicians? Won't they reduce costs and improve quality?
•Why are health care costs rising and how can single payer "bend the cost curve"?
•What is PNHP view of ACO's?
•What is PNHP's perspective on the Medicare crisis?
•What is driving an epidemic of adverse reactions to medications in the U.S.? What impact could a single payer system have on this epidemic?
•What about pushing to make health care a "human right"? Is that a good strategy?
•US infant mortality is not high compared to other countries. It just appears that way because of the way we classify life births
•Can the ACA exchanges serve as a stepping stone to single-payer reform?
•Why is important to prohibit hospitals and health systems from retaining an operating surplus?

[Aquila]

This article isn't too bad. I thought it made some excellent points:

Why Republicans should support universal health care
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2017/march/...al-health-care

Why Republicans should support universal health care


By Roger LaBonte, M.D.
The Tennessean, March 3, 2017

President Donald Trump has indicated he wants to repeal and replace Obamacare.

His recent statements before the election seem to indicate his desire for a market-based solution. Several recent articles and editorials have demonstrated how dysfunctional our health care system is, principally by its reliance on the insurance-industrial complex.

Every attempt to correct and improve the system by legislation has given the health-insurance industry new incentives and ways to game the system for its own profit motive. Obamacare has turned out to be no different.

The rate increases in Tennessee of 44 percent to 62 percent, approved last year, and similar increases in other states have shifted more and more cost to employers who are mandated to provide coverage and in turn must pass this on to their employees. Employers should be in rebellion at their increasing cost of providing health care for employees as is currently mandated.

I do not understand why many businesses continue to support our current system. In fact, the only businesses that gain anything by this system of employer-provided health care are the insurance companies themselves, which continue to show huge profits while sucking profits from others.

Many of the newly under-insured will be surprised by what they do not have when they try to access health care. The insurance executives who say they cannot weather the losses incurred by their participation in the health-care marketplaces are still raking in profits for their executives. Shareholders are basically just confirming their unwillingness to include those in most need of health insurance in their risk pools.

Some enlightened businessmen have come to that conclusion, including Richard Master, CEO of MCS Industries, Inc., who has supported single-payer national health insurance.

Many years ago, as a successful businessman, Trump had expressed the opinion that the best business solution to our dysfunctional health care system would be a national health care system with universal coverage for everyone, paid through taxes. I agree with his assessment at that time and hope that he will go back to considering this solution.

Imagine what that would do for the Republican Party’s popularity given that greater than 75 percent of our citizens want universal coverage. Under such an egalitarian and utilitarian system taxes would certainly go up for individuals and businesses, but the amount saved by not having to pay health insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, co-insurance and other hidden fees would more than compensate businesses and individuals for the increase in taxes.

With Republicans now in control of all branches of government, let’s hope they can achieve universal healthcare for everyone while lowering the cost to everyone. Much of the rest of the world has shown us that universal health care is achievable at reasonable costs. More importantly we cannot identify as a caring nation until we properly care for the least among us.

Roger S. LaBonte, M.D. is president of the West Tennessee Chapter of Physicians for a National Health Program.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I heard a recording of Rev. Bean preaching from a couple generations ago. He actually called mixed babies "abominations" from the pulpit.

Many of our Founding Fathers were slave owners and just as racist as anyone else in that time.

The point is, no one is perfect. We're all men and women of our time, reflecting the values of our time.

Just think, our great grand children will look back on those who opposed universal healthcare insurance in our day the same way we look back at those who supported eugenics in theirs.

The fact is, history is on our side. One day we will have universal insurance.

Excuse me. I'm not calling for people to be put in camps or sterilized or exterminated. Don't lump people who oppose universal healthcare in with those who support eugenics. Not the same. At all.

[Aquila]

Another interesting article:

Three Reasons Why Conservatives Should Support Single Payer
https://www.healthjusticect.org/thre...-single-payer/

Posted on April 7, 2015 by Ashley Fox


With the most recent challenge to the Affordable Care Act still pending in the Supreme Court and election season hovering on the horizon, the time is ripe to examine possible opportunities for deepening health reform.

The conservative alternative health reform plan proposed by Paul Ryan is a plan to “voucherize” Medicare- in other words, to provide older adults with a credit that can be used towards the purchase of private health insurance. This would effectively decimate Medicare as we know it.

Meanwhile, the preferred policy option for many liberals is to dramatically expand Medicare to a much wider segment of the population than only those 65+ through the adoption of a “single-payer” option, or Medicare for All.

While the partisan division on this issue could not be more stark, below I outline three reasons why conservatives should actually be single-payer’s biggest fan.

1.Single-payer would dramatically reduce health care expenditures by increasing the efficiency of the system and eliminating waste. Although conservatives purport to be against government waste and in favor of “efficient” markets, our current private insurance system is the most inefficient in the world. That the US spends triple the amount on health care as other countries is a , but what is less well understood is the fact that the overwhelming majority (if not all) of this excess cost can be attributed to waste within the system. It is estimated that over 20% of the cost of the health system goes towards “administrative costs”- basically to pay for all of the redundant claims processors across multiple insurers who determine what is reimbursable and for how much. Doctors and their staffs also lose precious time and resources chasing down insurers to determine what benefits are covered. But the higher administrative burden is only part of the high cost equation. The decentralized system of claims processing also means that the prices providers charge varies widely with the potential for providers to overcharge insurers and since patients do not face the full cost of care, they have little incentive to discourage unnecessary or expensive procedures. By contrast, single-payer systems like Medicare have a single reimbursement rate for specific services and one centralized claims processing body- the government. This is in fact how single-payer gets its name- having just one payer rather than multiple payers saves precious time and resources and allows for more oversight of the system. Don’t believe me? Well the proof is in the pudding- rates of cost-inflation in Medicare have been growing much more slowly than cost inflation for private insurance. The stark reality is that more centralized control begets more efficiency, not less.

2.Single-payer preserves private physician practice. A common myth about single-payer systems is that providers under such a system are necessarily public sector employees. While this is true of providers that are part of the British National Health Service in the UK (and the Veteran’s Administration system in the US), this is not the case in systems like Canada where providers operate in the private sector. Although most of their payments come from the government, they are not government employees. They are no more government employees than teachers at private schools that receive vouchers from the government, a system supported by most conservatives.

3.Single-payer systems ensure that everyone pays their fair share and eliminates so-called “free-riders.” A major preoccupation amongst conservatives has been the “free-rider” problem that individuals without health insurance benefit from the system without paying in. A major defect in private insurance insurance markets is that without government intervention, healthy people have little incentive to purchase insurance. Private insurance plans require enough healthy people to enroll to offset the cost of the unhealthy people who are more likely to sign up because they know they will use health services more. This is why the idea of the individual mandate was originally advocated by the conservative think-tank the Heritage Foundation. Prior to the introduction of the individual mandate, healthy individuals who chose not to purchase insurance coverage could get away without coverage by seeking care at the emergency room. Requiring everyone to “prepay” for health insurance coverage ensures that the “healthy invincibles” do not transfer costs onto paying customers.

From a pragmatic standpoint, it would behoove conservatives to reframe their policy stance when it comes to single-payer since Medicare is extremely popular, especially among older adults, a critical vote bank for either party. Even if conservatives are still not convinced by the merits of single-payer alone, instrumentally, it would be in the interest of conservative politicians to tread lightly in writing off single-payer entirely. If Paul Ryan’s plan were to succeed, health care for older adults would rapidly revert to a system in which access to health care is purely based on ability to pay; for a more thorough treatment of why, see this article in The Nation.

Even as I write this, I know that it is but a pipe dream to believe that conservative politicians will suddenly rally behind single-payer, but given the general level of confusion about the public roots of Medicare as exemplified by such Tea Party slogans as “Keep your Government Hands off of my Medicare,” perhaps there is hope among the conservative public.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

Excuse me. I'm not calling for people to be put in camps or sterilized or exterminated. Don't lump people who oppose universal healthcare in with those who support eugenics. Not the same. At all.

With the market based health insurance system the primary responsibility of providing health insurance is placed on employers (an unfair and unjust burden on the small business market). Every year an estimated 45,000 Americans were dying from treatable conditions because they lacked the insurance to cover procedures, treatments, and/or medications. In other words, they died because they were not wealthy enough to purchase insurance on their own, or their employer wasn't wealthy enough to employ them full time and grant them benefits. It's Social Darwinist economics and medicine at it's most ugly.

At the end of the day, you can live... only if you have the cash.

That's rationing healthcare based on ability to pay. And after ten years, the approach has cost the lives of 450,000 sick Americans who happened to simply be unable to afford those things that could have saved their lives.