Time For Single Payer System

I'm all for a single payor system. I, and no other person, making me the single person in my case
will pay for my care, and you pay for yours. If a poor person needs help, that's what we give tax
deductions to churches and charities for. It is a great system, many poor use it, they have some of
the finest medical facilities in the world, so why not use that source instead of piling up more
money for the crooks in DC to steal. Oh, I bet I know. You have family ties to those crooks?

--
A famous person once said:

"I can't hear my damn monitor!"

Mic Chek 123

I think it is the fear of unintended consequences that cannot be undone that keeps most wary about
the socialist model of a one payer system.

A good example of what can go wrong would be the I.R.S., a bureau of the Treasury Dept. The income
tax was first rejected as unconstitutional by the S.C. An amendment was passed to allow the unequal
taxation and make it lawful. It was intended to soak the rich only. It was the epitome of class
warfare. Income only included passive income and not wages. Only the rich would pay. Well, take a
look at the monster we have now. Who could have predicted the unintended consequences? It would
never have passed the legislature in it's present form. Who really believes that what we have now is
what the authors of the income tax had in mind?

Liberalism is Communism one drink at a time. - P.J. O'Rourke

Quoted message said:

I've given up trying to argue with Republicans on the need of a national health insurance system
here, like they have in all the rest of all the advanced and civilized democracies of the world. I
swear, especially in these newsgroups, it seems obvious that Republicans just take an evil delight
in seeing their fellow human beings suffer. So screw the Repugs. I want to debate with people who
really do have compassion, not those who blatantly lie about having it.

Why we need a "single payer" system. Because Doctors waste most of their invaluable time, with one-
fourth of the cost of their medical care being wasted on complicated burueacracies, such as on
HMO's who micromanage their decisions, and on consulting formularies before they can prescribe
medicines, & on the filling out of hundreds of long, complicated and confusing insurance forms,
e.t.c. This is also referred to as "overhead" cost. What Doctors would rather do is spend their
time caring for sick people.

One fourth of the cost of our medical care could be shaved off if we had a "single payer" system.
That is, a single streamlined system, minus the bureacracy. The government run Medicare system
does this, and their overhead cost is only 2%.

There's no reason why we shouldn't have a "single payer" national health plan, like they have in
the rest of the non-Republican democratic and civilized world? Keep in mind that a national health
plan is not supposed to be a 1st class system that is superior to every thing else. It is for
those hapless souls who have no health insurance at all. And so it may not seem like much of a
service to the likes of fascists like Rush Limbaugh, and they will inevitably deride it ad
nauseum, but to the 40+ million Americans who have no health insurance at all, it is EVERYTHING to
them, and a definite life saver.

Abel Malcolm amnesty.orgamnesty.orgOpen ↗
_______

Time for single payer?

Ruth Rosen

Monday, December 29, 2003

San Francisco Chronicle

sfgate.com/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/12/29/EDGS53U1CM1.DTL

DON'T BE SURPRISED if health care turns out to be the sleeper issue in the 2004 presidential
campaign and if a majority of Americans eventually decide that a single-payer system is the most
cost-efficient way to provide health care for everyone.

Why? Because our health system -- a fragmented hodgepodge of private and public-health plans --
is broken.

HMOs -- which pay huge amounts for administrative and bureaucratic costs, advertising and
skyrocketing drug prices -- no longer can contain costs. They have also turned the health-care
system into a blizzard of paperwork.

Physicians who recently resisted a single-payer system have grown increasingly resentful of HMO
bureaucrats who micromanage their medical decisions. Inadequate reimbursements are driving some
out of business. They also dislike having to consult dozens of drug lists or formularies before
they can prescribe medicine for their patients. They'd rather spend time caring for sick people.

Businesses, which seek a level playing field, may also become supporters of a single-payer system.
Consider the inequities they face. General Motors, which has a huge group of retired workers, must
pay for their lifetime health costs. Newer companies, however, either don't offer health-care
benefits to workers or retired workers or don't yet have any retired workers to worry about.

Labor, too, is a natural constituency for a single-payer system. The three-monthlong grocery
workers' strike in Southern California against major supermarkets has highlighted the burden
businesses now bear for paying for their workers' health care. How can Safeway, which has paid
decent wages and benefits, compete with union-busting Wal-Mart, which pays subsistence wages and
offers health-care insurance at unaffordable premiums?

It can't. To avoid a race to the bottom, each employer should not have to pay for their
workers' health care. Instead, through an equitable tax, they should contribute to a single-
payer health system.

And don't forget the 40 million uninsured Americans. Soon after the Medicare bill passed, Senate
Majority leader Bill Frist announced that Republicans would next try to address the medical needs
of those who lack medical insurance. These are people whose votes could be captured by any
candidate who promises to reduce their anxieties about getting health care.

The wealthy, too, may come to view single payer as a better alternative. Why? Because one of the
best kept secrets in the United States, according to the American Hospital Association, is that 80
percent of our emergency rooms are overcrowded and the average wait is four hours. The poor, of
course, already know this. But when middle class and wealthy Americans with heart attacks or
serious injuries discover that they, too, may be diverted from one hospital to another, they may
reconsider the value of their "excellent" medical insurance.

The fact is, most hospitals operate with "a just-in-time inventory" that works just fine for an
average Tuesday evening in May. But on a Saturday night during the winter flu season, emergency
rooms are filled with children and elderly people with high temperatures, along with heart attack
victims and people bleeding from knife or gunshot wounds. (Don't even think about what might
happen after a bio-terrorist attack, a fire or an earthquake.) Triage nurses must decide who will
receive medical attention. When all the emergency rooms are filled to capacity, some patients lie
on gurneys in the hall, waiting for an intensive-care bed and monitor.

By contrast, a single-payer system would reduce the burden on emergency rooms by providing
everyone with primary care in physicians' offices and outpatient facilities.

A single-payer system would also cost less. The overhead for Medicare is only 2 percent; for
private insurance it is up to 25 percent.

Health care is a human right, not a privilege. If you don't believe this now, you might change
your mind if and when you find yourself in need of life- saving care in a hospital emergency room.

E-mail Ruth Rosen at [email hidden]

Yes, a vast majority of Americans support single-payer but Dennis "the unelectable" Kucinich is the
only Democrat running for President who has come out for it (except maybe Braun and Sharpton, but
they haven't made their positions clear). The media are happy to report the election as a "horse
race," so this isn't going to be mentioned, much less a major issue, since nobody's going to talk
about it. Face it, politics is controlled by big money and that means the insurance co.s and
pharmaceuticals are going to get their way at the expense of ordinary people. It's a bellwether for
democracy and the prognosis isn't good.

--Jeff

--
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness.

--That to secure these rights, Governments ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ are
instituted among Men, deriving their ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ just powers from the consent of
the governed,

--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the
People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such
principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect
their Safety and Happiness."

Mic Chek 123 said:

I'm all for a single payor system. I, and no other person, making me the single person in my case
will pay for my care, and you pay for yours. If a poor person needs help, that's what we give tax
deductions to churches and charities for. It is a great system, many poor use it, they have some of
the finest medical facilities in the world, so why not use that source instead of piling up more
money for the crooks in DC to steal.

Because a single payer system would cost a lot less than we pay now, and would deliver a lot more
medical care to boot.

We're burning up an incredible amount of wasted money with our inefficient system, plus tens of
millions live in fear that they might have to call an ambulance - and then file for bankruptcy.

If you ask Canadians how they like their system, and ask Americans the same thing - I bet the
Canadians would be incredibly more satisfied.

Isn't that pretty much proof that their system is better?

The ratings of medical consumers?

Oh, I bet I know. You

Quoted message said:

have family ties to those crooks?

Let me add one more thing. According to the article in my original post, "The overhead for
Medicare is only 2 percent; for private insurance it is up to 25 percent". What this means is that
a single payer, stream lined system would save up to 23% of the cost of medical care. When we talk
about the high cost of health care and the complicated paperwork and bureacracy involved, 23% is a
very big saving.

Abel Malcolm

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote: =A0=A0 I'm all for a single payor system. I, and no other
person, making me the single person in my case will pay for my care, and you pay for yours.

That's not what a "single payer" system is. In other words, what you are saying here is that you are
opposed to it. Yet you give no reason for opposing it, except for your cruelty. I thought I started
out this thread by disinviting Republicans and other [censored] from this serious discussion.

Quoted message said:

If a poor person needs help, that's what we give tax deductions to churches and charities for. It
is a great system, many poor use it, they have some of the finest medical facilities in the world,

You need to read up on a little history. Back in 1929, when the Republicans controlled all branches
of government, and after their policies had led to the Great Depression. We had a lot of poverty
back then, so Republican President Herbert Hoover said the same things you are saying now. Private
charities worked temporarily back then, but only after a lot of prodding and pleading, and then
interest was lost in these charities. So the history of private charities is that they do NOT work
on the long term.

Quoted message said:

so why not use that source instead of piling up more money for the crooks in DC to steal. Oh, I bet
I know. You have family ties to those crooks?

Ow, so you think that anyone who helps the sick get health care is a "crook". And then you accuse ME
of being related to these crooks. Well screw you! I thought I said I do not want any Republicans to
answer this thread.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]... Let
me add one more thing. According to the article in my original post, "The overhead for Medicare is
only 2 percent;

That's because the real costs of medicare and social security are buried in the overall Health and
Human Services budget. Look it up.

Why lambast Republicans?

Why should the guy down the street get free health care for himself, his wife and six kids simply
because he hasn't provided for his own? Why should my taxes pay for it? I can't get the level of
health care he gets through the guvmint gimme programs.

I'm a Republican. I pay my way. Why should I pay for others?

Quoted message said:

I've given up trying to argue with Republicans on the need of a national health insurance system
here, like they have in all the rest of all the advanced and civilized democracies of the world. I
swear, especially in these newsgroups, it seems obvious that Republicans just take an evil delight
in seeing their fellow human beings suffer. So screw the Repugs. I want to debate with people who
really do have compassion, not those who blatantly lie about having it.

Bull, Republicans would rather see thier fellow human beings provide for themselves, period. That's
one hellava lot more compassionate than paying for others.

Quoted message said:

Health care is a human right, not a privilege. If you don't believe this now, you might change your
mind if and when you find yourself in need of life- saving care in a hospital emergency room.

It is not a human right. It is not a privilege. It's a responsibility to one's self and family.

Emergency health care is for whoever needs it. That's what taxes should provide. Not an emergency
room visit for a cold, a boil, constipation or other common ailments that should be handled by a
visit to the family doctor's office.

True compassion is a hand UP, not a hand out. A truly compassionate human would TEACH responsibility
for one's actions rather than foot the bill for the people who don't provide for themselves. Either
teach them how to fish and grow wheat or spend your life doing it for them. If you desire to be the
benefactor of all the people who knock on your door for a hand out, do it out of your own pockets,
not mine. I'd rather show them the way, walk shoulder to shoulder with them, not lead the way with
someone begging behind me.

Quoted message said:

I've given up trying to argue with Republicans on the need of a national health insurance system
here, like they have in all the rest of all the advanced and civilized democracies of the world. I
swear, especially in these newsgroups, it seems obvious that Republicans just take an evil delight
in seeing their fellow human beings suffer. So screw the Repugs. I want to debate with people who
really do have compassion, not those who blatantly lie about having it.

Why we need a "single payer" system. Because Doctors waste most of their invaluable time, with one-
fourth of the cost of their medical care being wasted on complicated burueacracies, such as on
HMO's who micromanage their decisions, and on consulting formularies before they can prescribe
medicines, & on the filling out of hundreds of long, complicated and confusing insurance forms,
e.t.c. This is also referred to as "overhead" cost. What Doctors would rather do is spend their
time caring for sick people.

One fourth of the cost of our medical care could be shaved off if we had a "single payer" system.
That is, a single streamlined system, minus the bureacracy. The government run Medicare system does
this, and their overhead cost is only 2%.

There's no reason why we shouldn't have a "single payer" national health plan, like they have in
the rest of the non-Republican democratic and civilized world? Keep in mind that a national health
plan is not supposed to be a 1st class system that is superior to every thing else. It is for those
hapless souls who have no health insurance at all. And so it may not seem like much of a service to
the likes of fascists like Rush Limbaugh, and they will inevitably deride it ad nauseum, but to the
40+ million Americans who have no health insurance at all, it is EVERYTHING to them, and a definite
life saver.

Abel Malcolm amnesty.orgamnesty.orgOpen ↗
_______

Time for single payer?

Ruth Rosen

Monday, December 29, 2003

San Francisco Chronicle

sfgate.com/article.cgi?file=3D/chronicle/archive/2003/12/29/EDGS53U1CM1.DT= L

DON'T BE SURPRISED if health care turns out to be the sleeper issue in the 2004 presidential
campaign and if a majority of Americans eventually decide that a single-payer system is the most
cost-efficient way to provide health care for everyone.

Why? Because our health system -- a fragmented hodgepodge of private and public-health plans --
is broken.

HMOs -- which pay huge amounts for administrative and bureaucratic costs, advertising and
skyrocketing drug prices -- no longer can contain costs. They have also turned the health-care
system into a blizzard of paperwork.

Physicians who recently resisted a single-payer system have grown increasingly resentful of HMO
bureaucrats who micromanage their medical decisions. Inadequate reimbursements are driving some out
of business. They also dislike having to consult dozens of drug lists or formularies before they
can prescribe medicine for their patients. They'd rather spend time caring for sick people.

Businesses, which seek a level playing field, may also become supporters of a single-payer system.
Consider the inequities they face. General Motors, which has a huge group of retired workers, must
pay for their lifetime health costs. Newer companies, however, either don't offer health-care
benefits to workers or retired workers or don't yet have any retired workers to worry about.

Labor, too, is a natural constituency for a single-payer system. The three-monthlong grocery
workers' strike in Southern California against major supermarkets has highlighted the burden
businesses now bear for paying for their workers' health care. How can Safeway, which has paid
decent wages and benefits, compete with union-busting Wal-Mart, which pays subsistence wages and
offers health-care insurance at unaffordable premiums?

It can't. To avoid a race to the bottom, each employer should not have to pay for their
workers' health care. Instead, through an equitable tax, they should contribute to a single-
payer health system.

And don't forget the 40 million uninsured Americans. Soon after the Medicare bill passed, Senate
Majority leader Bill Frist announced that Republicans would next try to address the medical needs
of those who lack medical insurance. These are people whose votes could be captured by any
candidate who promises to reduce their anxieties about getting health care.

The wealthy, too, may come to view single payer as a better alternative. Why? Because one of the
best kept secrets in the United States, according to the American Hospital Association, is that 80
percent of our emergency rooms are overcrowded and the average wait is four hours. The poor, of
course, already know this. But when middle class and wealthy Americans with heart attacks or
serious injuries discover that they, too, may be diverted from one hospital to another, they may
reconsider the value of their "excellent" medical insurance.

The fact is, most hospitals operate with "a just-in-time inventory" that works just fine for an
average Tuesday evening in May. But on a Saturday night during the winter flu season, emergency
rooms are filled with children and elderly people with high temperatures, along with heart attack
victims and people bleeding from knife or gunshot wounds. (Don't even think about what might happen
after a bio-terrorist attack, a fire or an earthquake.) Triage nurses must decide who will receive
medical attention. When all the emergency rooms are filled to capacity, some patients lie on
gurneys in the hall, waiting for an intensive-care bed and monitor.

By contrast, a single-payer system would reduce the burden on emergency rooms by providing everyone
with primary care in physicians' offices and outpatient facilities.

A single-payer system would also cost less. The overhead for Medicare is only 2 percent; for
private insurance it is up to 25 percent.

Health care is a human right, not a privilege. If you don't believe this now, you might change your
mind if and when you find yourself in need of life- saving care in a hospital emergency room.

You must convince me of three things.

I am self insured. You must convince me of three things.

1. My health costs, including payments to government health schemes, will be cheaper.

2. That health care offered to me and my family will be of the same quality that I can recieve now.

3. I will be able to chose which doctor treats me.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life. --Will Durant

"Madmen reason rightly from the wrong premisis" -- Locke

"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is
always evil." -- Ayn Rand

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate -- William of Occam

Joseph R. Darancette [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

I've given up trying to argue with Republicans on the need of a national health insurance system
here, like they have in all the rest of all the advanced and civilized democracies of the world. I
swear, especially in these newsgroups, it seems obvious that Republicans just take an evil delight
in seeing their fellow human beings suffer. So screw the Repugs. I want to debate with people who
really do have compassion, not those who blatantly lie about having it.

Why we need a "single payer" system. Because Doctors waste most of their invaluable time, with one-
fourth of the cost of their medical care being wasted on complicated burueacracies, such as on
HMO's who micromanage their decisions, and on consulting formularies before they can prescribe
medicines, & on the filling out of hundreds of long, complicated and confusing insurance forms,
e.t.c. This is also referred to as "overhead" cost. What Doctors would rather do is spend their
time caring for sick people.

One fourth of the cost of our medical care could be shaved off if we had a "single payer" system.
That is, a single streamlined system, minus the bureacracy. The government run Medicare system does
this, and their overhead cost is only 2%.

There's no reason why we shouldn't have a "single payer" national health plan, like they have in
the rest of the non-Republican democratic and civilized world? Keep in mind that a national health
plan is not supposed to be a 1st class system that is superior to every thing else. It is for those
hapless souls who have no health insurance at all. And so it may not seem like much of a service to
the likes of fascists like Rush Limbaugh, and they will inevitably deride it ad nauseum, but to the
40+ million Americans who have no health insurance at all, it is EVERYTHING to them, and a definite
life saver.

Abel Malcolm amnesty.orgamnesty.orgOpen ↗
_______

Time for single payer?

Ruth Rosen

Monday, December 29, 2003

San Francisco Chronicle

sfgate.com/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/12/29/EDGS53U1CM1.DTL

DON'T BE SURPRISED if health care turns out to be the sleeper issue in the 2004 presidential
campaign and if a majority of Americans eventually decide that a single-payer system is the most
cost-efficient way to provide health care for everyone.

Why? Because our health system -- a fragmented hodgepodge of private and public-health plans --
is broken.

HMOs -- which pay huge amounts for administrative and bureaucratic costs, advertising and
skyrocketing drug prices -- no longer can contain costs. They have also turned the health-care
system into a blizzard of paperwork.

Physicians who recently resisted a single-payer system have grown increasingly resentful of HMO
bureaucrats who micromanage their medical decisions. Inadequate reimbursements are driving some out
of business. They also dislike having to consult dozens of drug lists or formularies before they
can prescribe medicine for their patients. They'd rather spend time caring for sick people.

Businesses, which seek a level playing field, may also become supporters of a single-payer system.
Consider the inequities they face. General Motors, which has a huge group of retired workers, must
pay for their lifetime health costs. Newer companies, however, either don't offer health-care
benefits to workers or retired workers or don't yet have any retired workers to worry about.

Labor, too, is a natural constituency for a single-payer system. The three-monthlong grocery
workers' strike in Southern California against major supermarkets has highlighted the burden
businesses now bear for paying for their workers' health care. How can Safeway, which has paid
decent wages and benefits, compete with union-busting Wal-Mart, which pays subsistence wages and
offers health-care insurance at unaffordable premiums?

It can't. To avoid a race to the bottom, each employer should not have to pay for their
workers' health care. Instead, through an equitable tax, they should contribute to a single-
payer health system.

And don't forget the 40 million uninsured Americans. Soon after the Medicare bill passed, Senate
Majority leader Bill Frist announced that Republicans would next try to address the medical needs
of those who lack medical insurance. These are people whose votes could be captured by any
candidate who promises to reduce their anxieties about getting health care.

The wealthy, too, may come to view single payer as a better alternative. Why? Because one of the
best kept secrets in the United States, according to the American Hospital Association, is that 80
percent of our emergency rooms are overcrowded and the average wait is four hours. The poor, of
course, already know this. But when middle class and wealthy Americans with heart attacks or
serious injuries discover that they, too, may be diverted from one hospital to another, they may
reconsider the value of their "excellent" medical insurance.

The fact is, most hospitals operate with "a just-in-time inventory" that works just fine for an
average Tuesday evening in May. But on a Saturday night during the winter flu season, emergency
rooms are filled with children and elderly people with high temperatures, along with heart attack
victims and people bleeding from knife or gunshot wounds. (Don't even think about what might happen
after a bio-terrorist attack, a fire or an earthquake.) Triage nurses must decide who will receive
medical attention. When all the emergency rooms are filled to capacity, some patients lie on
gurneys in the hall, waiting for an intensive-care bed and monitor.

By contrast, a single-payer system would reduce the burden on emergency rooms by providing everyone
with primary care in physicians' offices and outpatient facilities.

A single-payer system would also cost less. The overhead for Medicare is only 2 percent; for
private insurance it is up to 25 percent.

Health care is a human right, not a privilege. If you don't believe this now, you might change your
mind if and when you find yourself in need of life- saving care in a hospital emergency room.

E-mail Ruth Rosen at [email hidden]

What you national health care, socialized health care, single payer health care ad hominem people
are begging for is something to be quite wary of. You don't believe that, I am certain, the private
sector is no match for the government. Without exageration, American medical advances have saved
millions of lives. 45 out of the last 60 years have had Americans winning the Nobel prize in
medicine (1943-2002). From the developement of the first MRI, CAT scanner, polio and a laundry list
of other vaccines, cancer treatment, discovery of DNA, antibiotics, rise in life expectancy, first
succesful kidney transplant, first artificial heart and the list goes on and on. What you, the
socialized and watered down variety, will bring to the table will be our resignation to medical,
surgical and technological dominance that we have held throughout the 20th century. Kiss it goodbye.
How much do you think that will cost us all?

Playing the heart strings wont accomplish anything nor is it even suggesting a problem exists that
warrants such an exit strategy. Blaming republicans solely for any health system woes isn't going to
accomplish anything, period. All it demonstrates is your lack of knowledge as it pertains to our
health and economic systems and how they surpass any other. When you have to weight material want
versus immaterial need you usually end up with the 'its our right to health insurance'. Which is
another fancy way of saying I want something for free that is driven by some strangers innitiative,
dedication and work not naturally found in nature. Nothing is free and government intervention means
the inability to rightly chose for oneself as the processes that be expand beyond our control.

If you want to talk about problems with health care, start with illiegal immigrants that cost the US
taxpayers millions every year that end up in our ER's. Start with state legislation that governs
insurance policy locally. Talk about health benefit tax exemptions for the employee rather than the
employer. Consider a market for competitive and more numerous health care insurance companies that
have models in other areas working as I type. Believing that a government can cure 40 million health
care woes in one fail safe method is what you should be rethinking, not which party is solely to
blame. Simply, allow our system to function as it was intended to over 200 years ago.

townhall.comts20031113.shtmlOpen ↗

heartland.orgArticle.cfmOpen ↗

heartland.orgArticle.cfmOpen ↗

heartland.orgArticle.cfmOpen ↗

techcentralstation.com101703C.htmlOpen ↗

techcentralstation.com101503D.htmlOpen ↗

fee.orgvnews.phpOpen ↗

heritage.orged101403c.cfmOpen ↗

When it is forced, it is, essentially, a tax

Quoted message said:

Let me add one more thing. According to the article in my original post, "The overhead for
Medicare is only 2 percent; for private insurance it is up to 25 percent". What this means is that
a single payer, stream lined system would save up to 23% of the cost of medical care. When we talk
about the high cost of health care and the complicated paperwork and bureacracy involved, 23% is a
very big saving.

Abel Malcolm

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote:    I'm all for a single payor system. I, and no other
person, making me the single person in my case will pay for my care, and you pay for yours.

That's not what a "single payer" system is. In other words, what you are saying here is that you
are opposed to it. Yet you give no reason for opposing it, except for your cruelty. I thought I
started out this thread by disinviting Republicans and other [censored] from this serious discussion.

Quoted message said:

If a poor person needs help, that's what we give tax deductions to churches and charities for. It
is a great system, many poor use it, they have some of the finest medical facilities in the world,

You need to read up on a little history. Back in 1929, when the Republicans controlled all branches
of government, and after their policies had led to the Great Depression. We had a lot of poverty
back then, so Republican President Herbert Hoover said the same things you are saying now. Private
charities worked temporarily back then, but only after a lot of prodding and pleading, and then
interest was lost in these charities. So the history of private charities is that they do NOT work
on the long term.

Quoted message said:

so why not use that source instead of piling up more money for the crooks in DC to steal. Oh, I
bet I know. You have family ties to those crooks?

Ow, so you think that anyone who helps the sick get health care is a "crook". And then you accuse
ME of being related to these crooks. Well screw you! I thought I said I do not want any Republicans
to answer this thread.

Liberalism is Communism one drink at a time. - P.J. O'Rourke

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 07:43:57 -0600, The Frog. <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I think it is the fear of unintended consequences that cannot be undone that keeps most wary about
the socialist model of a one payer system.

A single payer system is not the same as socialized medicine.

You just have a single insurance company paying the bills. To private parties.

Quoted message said:

A good example of what can go wrong would be the I.R.S., a bureau of the Treasury Dept.

Which collects tax for less than one percent of its receipts. What is the overhead of our medical
system? Maybe fifteen times as high?

The income tax was first rejected as

Quoted message said:

unconstitutional by the S.C. An amendment was passed to allow the unequal taxation and make
it lawful.

You are actually confused. The issue was whether a tax on the income of corporations was
unconstitutional. Tax on wage income, for instance, was always permissible, and did not need an
amendment to allow it. But we had a rule against "direct" taxes, meaning property taxes. A tax on
corporate dividends, if high enough, would be equivalent to a tax on the property of the
corporation, and might be in reality a "direct" tax. Direct taxes had to be arranged certain ways
per the constitution.

But tax on income from our labor? Never prohibited at all.

Quoted message said:

It was intended to soak the rich only. It was the epitome of class warfare. Income only included
passive income and not wages. Only the rich would pay. Well, take a look at the monster we have
now. Who could have predicted the unintended consequences?

You mean the fabulously grander lifestyles we now have?

America the most powerful nation in the world?

Good point, few could have predicted that.

It would never have passed the

Quoted message said:

legislature in it's present form. Who really believes that what we have now is what the authors of
the income tax had in mind?

Might not be. Lucky for us we had legislators with the wisdom to understand the tremendous benefits
a larger govt could bring us.

Compare life now with then. Higher taxes - have made us healthy and wealthy.

But our current system clearly sucks for huge numbers of us.

The single payer system elsewhere works better - more care, less cost.

It's worth a shot. Our current system is bankrupting us, and it leaves tens of millions fearing that
they will have to go broke if they get sick.

Quoted message said:

Liberalism is Communism one drink at a time. - P.J. O'Rourke

"Captain Compassion" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

<snippage>

Quoted message said:

You must convince me of three things.

I am self insured. You must convince me of three things.

1. My health costs, including payments to government health schemes, will be cheaper.

According to an article this year in the New England Journal of Medicine, Americans collectively pay
$200 billion *more* in administrative costs each year compared to Canadians because of the extra
paper shuffling due to the myriad complex rules due to the multiple insurers, both private and
government. This $200 billion contributes NOTHING to health care, but makes lots of insurance and
HMO executives very, very wealthy.

Think of what could be done with $200 billion per year:

a) reduce your costs as well as your employer's costs

and/or

b) provide broader coverage, including the 40 million persons not presently covered

and/or

c) finance the invasion of one or two more countries 🙂

Here's a link to the article abstract:

content.nejm.org768Open ↗

Quoted message said:

2. That health care offered to me and my family will be of the same quality that I can
recieve now.

Under single payer, only the insurance is supplied by the government. The health care continues to
be delivered by private health care providers.

Quoted message said:

3. I will be able to chose which doctor treats me.

No reason why this cannot be part of a single payer system. It's certainly the case in Canada.
Contrast that with many HMOs here in the US.

Quoted message said:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life. --Will Durant

"Madmen reason rightly from the wrong premisis" -- Locke

"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is
always evil." -- Ayn Rand

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate -- William of Occam

Joseph R. Darancette [email hidden]

"George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mic Chek 123 said:

I'm all for a single payor system. I, and no other person, making me the single person in my case
will pay for my care, and you pay for yours. If

a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

poor person needs help, that's what we give tax deductions to churches

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

charities for. It is a great system, many poor use it, they have some of

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

finest medical facilities in the world, so why not use that source

instead

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of piling up more money for the crooks in DC to steal.

Because a single payer system would cost a lot less than we pay now, and would deliver a lot more
medical care to boot.

We're burning up an incredible amount of wasted money with our inefficient system, plus tens of
millions live in fear that they might have to call an ambulance - and then file for bankruptcy.

If you ask Canadians how they like their system, and ask Americans the same thing - I bet the
Canadians would be incredibly more satisfied.

Isn't that pretty much proof that their system is better?

Well, you beggars can't be choosey. If you need a government handout to keep you afloat, maybe
Canada should be your destination. So, if it is all that great, why do you stay here and suffer this
injustice? I know, you need single payor transportation, right?

--
A famous person once said:

"I can't hear my damn monitor!"

Mic Chek 123

The Frog. said:

When it is forced, it is, essentially, a tax

A tax! Oh no! That's as bad as a terrerrist. Help!

--Jeff

--
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness.

--That to secure these rights, Governments ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ are
instituted among Men, deriving their ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ just powers from the consent of
the governed,

--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the
People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such
principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect
their Safety and Happiness."

"George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr." <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Let's take whatever it is that you do for a living. You do work for a living don't you?

Let us assume that a bunch of us think you are charging too much for your product and we think you
are making too much money. How long would you be willing to provide your labor at prices me and some
of my friends set for you? Let the friggin' system work as it was originally meant to work. Those
that can pay, do. Those that can't, seek help from the charity of their choice or join a church that
provides healthcare for its members. When you provide the medical community, or any other industry,
with a guarantee of payment for their services, they will only bleed the system. But, on the other
hand, if they have to compete for viable, fee paying customers, it gets a little more realistic. We
were not born with the guarantee of a new car every year, a new house when we want it and good
healthcare whenever we want it. If that's what you want, many countries have it. I would suggest you
check out Cuba, North Korea, China, Lybia and many others. I'll just bet you would think you died
and went to heaven.

This is a country of "Can Do" people. That's who claimed it, that's who built it and that's who
should run it. If you can't hack it, hump it outta here.

--
A famous person once said:

"I can't hear my damn monitor!"

Mic Chek 123

George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. said:

Mic Chek 123 said:

I'm all for a single payor system. I, and no other person, making me the single person in my case
will pay for my care, and you pay for yours. If a poor person needs help, that's what we give tax
deductions to churches and charities for. It is a great system, many poor use it, they have some
of the finest medical facilities in the world, so why not use that source instead of piling up
more money for the crooks in DC to steal.

Because a single payer system would cost a lot less than we pay now, and would deliver a lot more
medical care to boot.

We're burning up an incredible amount of wasted money with our inefficient system, plus tens of
millions live in fear that they might have to call an ambulance - and then file for bankruptcy.

If you ask Canadians how they like their system, and ask Americans the same thing - I bet the
Canadians would be incredibly more satisfied.

Isn't that pretty much proof that their system is better?

The ratings of medical consumers?

If this is such a good idea why doesn't the government offer a health care plan in competition with
the private plans. The government can use VA hospitals or build their own. Hire their own doctors.
If the service is cheaper and better then the people will flock to it. Why force doctors, hospitals
and a population who really doesn't want it into state servitude.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life. --Will Durant

"Madmen reason rightly from the wrong premisis" -- Locke

"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is
always evil." -- Ayn Rand

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate -- William of Occam

Joseph R. Darancette [email hidden]

George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. said:

The Frog. said:

I think it is the fear of unintended consequences that cannot be undone that keeps most wary about
the socialist model of a one payer system.

A single payer system is not the same as socialized medicine.

You just have a single insurance company paying the bills. To private parties.

That's [censored]. If the sole source of income to doctors and hospitals is the government then the
hospitals and doctors are creatures of the government.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A good example of what can go wrong would be the I.R.S., a bureau of the Treasury Dept.

Which collects tax for less than one percent of its receipts. What is the overhead of our medical
system? Maybe fifteen times as high?

The income tax was first rejected as

Quoted message said:

unconstitutional by the S.C. An amendment was passed to allow the unequal taxation and make
it lawful.

You are actually confused. The issue was whether a tax on the income of corporations was
unconstitutional. Tax on wage income, for instance, was always permissible, and did not need an
amendment to allow it. But we had a rule against "direct" taxes, meaning property taxes. A tax on
corporate dividends, if high enough, would be equivalent to a tax on the property of the
corporation, and might be in reality a "direct" tax. Direct taxes had to be arranged certain ways
per the constitution.

But tax on income from our labor? Never prohibited at all.

Quoted message said:

It was intended to soak the rich only. It was the epitome of class warfare. Income only included
passive income and not wages. Only the rich would pay. Well, take a look at the monster we have
now. Who could have predicted the unintended consequences?

You mean the fabulously grander lifestyles we now have?

America the most powerful nation in the world?

Good point, few could have predicted that.

It would never have passed the

Quoted message said:

legislature in it's present form. Who really believes that what we have now is what the authors of
the income tax had in mind?

Might not be. Lucky for us we had legislators with the wisdom to understand the tremendous benefits
a larger govt could bring us.

Compare life now with then. Higher taxes - have made us healthy and wealthy.

But our current system clearly sucks for huge numbers of us.

The single payer system elsewhere works better - more care, less cost.

It's worth a shot. Our current system is bankrupting us, and it leaves tens of millions fearing
that they will have to go broke if they get sick.

Quoted message said:

Liberalism is Communism one drink at a time. - P.J. O'Rourke

----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life. --Will Durant

"Madmen reason rightly from the wrong premisis" -- Locke

"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is
always evil." -- Ayn Rand

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate -- William of Occam

Joseph R. Darancette [email hidden]

"Guy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Captain Compassion" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

<snippage>

Quoted message said:

You must convince me of three things.

I am self insured. You must convince me of three things.

1. My health costs, including payments to government health schemes, will be cheaper.

According to an article this year in the New England Journal of Medicine, Americans collectively
pay $200 billion *more* in administrative costs

each

Quoted message said:

year compared to Canadians because of the extra paper shuffling due to the myriad complex rules
due to the multiple insurers, both private and government. This $200 billion contributes NOTHING
to health care, but

makes

Quoted message said:

lots of insurance and HMO executives very, very wealthy.

So, let's shut them down and throw some 300,000 more people out of work?

Quoted message said:

Think of what could be done with $200 billion per year:

a) reduce your costs as well as your employer's costs

and/or

b) provide broader coverage, including the 40 million persons not

presently

Quoted message said:

covered

and/or

c) finance the invasion of one or two more countries 🙂

Here's a link to the article abstract:

content.nejm.org768Open ↗

Quoted message said:

2. That health care offered to me and my family will be of the same quality that I can recieve
now.

Under single payer, only the insurance is supplied by the government. The health care continues to
be delivered by private health care providers.

Quoted message said:

3. I will be able to chose which doctor treats me.

No reason why this cannot be part of a single payer system. It's certainly the case in Canada.
Contrast that with many HMOs here in the US.

Quoted message said:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life. --Will Durant

"Madmen reason rightly from the wrong premisis" -- Locke

"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is
always evil." -- Ayn Rand

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate -- William of Occam

Joseph R. Darancette [email hidden]

Captain Compassion said:

George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. said:

Mic Chek 123 said:

I'm all for a single payor system. I, and no other person, making me the single person in my case
will pay for my care, and you pay for yours. If a poor person needs help, that's what we give tax
deductions to churches and charities for. It is a great system, many poor use it, they have some
of the finest medical facilities in the world, so why not use that source instead of piling up
more money for the crooks in DC to steal.

Because a single payer system would cost a lot less than we pay now, and would deliver a lot more
medical care to boot.

We're burning up an incredible amount of wasted money with our inefficient system, plus tens of
millions live in fear that they might have to call an ambulance - and then file for bankruptcy.

If you ask Canadians how they like their system, and ask Americans the same thing - I bet the
Canadians would be incredibly more satisfied.

Isn't that pretty much proof that their system is better?

The ratings of medical consumers?

If this is such a good idea why doesn't the government offer a health care plan in competition
with the private plans. The government can use VA hospitals or build their own. Hire their own
doctors. If the service is cheaper and better then the people will flock to it. Why force doctors,
hospitals and a population who really doesn't want it into state servitude.

When they're perfectly happy in HMO servitude! Your idea doesn't leverage the much lower overhead
costs involved in single payer.

--Jeff

--
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness.

--That to secure these rights, Governments ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ are
instituted among Men, deriving their ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ just powers from the consent of
the governed,

--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the
People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such
principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect
their Safety and Happiness."