Time For Single Payer System



Mic Chek 123 wrote:
> "Guy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>"Captain Compassion" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>><snippage>
>>
>>>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.
>
> So, let's shut them down and throw some 300,000 more people out of work?

At $667,000 each that's a very generous unemployment plan.

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

--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."
 
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:01:30 -0500, Jeffrey Turner
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Captain Compassion wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 06:42:10 -0800, George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:22:28 GMT, "Mic Chek 123" <[email protected]> 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. 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.
>
A doctor or consumer can always chose another HMO. It's more difficult to chose another government.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
"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 protected]
 
>[email protected] wrote: =A0=A0 I'm a Republican. I pay my way. Why should I pay for others?

Selfish.

>Bull, Republicans would rather see thier fellow human beings provide for themselves, period.

If that's true, then how do you explain the fact that the unemployment rate almost always goes up
whenever a Republican is in the White House?

>That's one hellava lot more compassionate than paying for others.

You miss the point. You've obviously never been poor, or if you have, you have forgotten where you
came from. The point is, and I've said this plenty of times before, a national health care plan is
not supposed to be a 1st rate system, it is supposed to be for those who are down and out, such as
the 40 million un-insured Americans, most of whom are victims of our own government's economic
mismanagement. For those who already do have health insurance, thru an employer, or if they are
rich enough to have their own, then good for them. Ideally, everyone would be employed with a good
enough job that provides its own health insurance. More people were insured when Clinton was
President, because more people were employed, and so therefore they acquired health insurance from
their employer.

Let me quote Ruth Rosen's quite prescient words, it's a very powerful statement if you think about
it, since, according to Doctors, most of us eventually end up dying in a hospital, and most of us
eventually end up dying a painful death.

"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."

Abel Malcolm http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=3D135-08122003&site=3Drss=
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

I bet your are one of these folks that will whine and ***** and harp for hours on how your civil
liberties are being violated by the Patriot Act. Well, how about my civil liberties? What makes you
think my civil rights should be violated just so you beggars can have a bit smoother sailing? How
come it is that people like you will demand the right to choose on only those things that you
choose? I choose to help people in need through my church and the charities I support and the
crooked government ain't one of them.
 
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 08:45:57 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:

>>[email protected] wrote: =A0=A0 I'm a Republican. I pay my way. Why should I pay for others?
>
>Selfish.
>
>>Bull, Republicans would rather see thier fellow human beings provide for themselves, period.
>
>If that's true, then how do you explain the fact that the unemployment rate almost always goes up
>whenever a Republican is in the White House?
>
>>That's one hellava lot more compassionate than paying for others.
>
>You miss the point. You've obviously never been poor, or if you have, you have forgotten where you
>came from. The point is, and I've said this plenty of times before, a national health care plan is
>not supposed to be a 1st rate system, it is supposed to be for those who are down and out, such as
>the 40 million un-insured Americans, most of whom are victims of our own government's economic
>mismanagement. For those who already do have health insurance, thru an employer, or if they are
>rich enough to have their own, then good for them. Ideally, everyone would be employed with a good
>enough job that provides its own health insurance. More people were insured when Clinton was
>President, because more people were employed, and so therefore they acquired health insurance from
>their employer.
>
>Let me quote Ruth Rosen's quite prescient words, it's a very powerful statement if you think about
>it, since, according to Doctors, most of us eventually end up dying in a hospital, and most of us
>eventually end up dying a painful death.
>
>"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 all becomes clear now. Your basic premise is faulty. Perhaps I can help. You,
[email protected], have the human right to maximize the quality of your life to the best of your
ability. However you have no right to ask me or others to help you do so.

Help me out here. Are you a beggar or a thief?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
"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 protected]
 
[email protected] wrote:

> 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.

Then I guess you don't consider Dean, Lieberman, Kerry and Gephardt as having "compassion"--since
NONE of them favors single-payer. (AFAIK the only two Dem candidates who favor single-payer are the
also-rans Carol Moseley Braun and Dennis Kucinich.)

All four of these leading Dem candidates has proposed ways to incrementally expand health-care
coverage in the U.S. But not single-payer.

Go argue it with them.

Because if none of them is going to advocate single-payer either, then while this might be an
intellectually interesting concept to discuss (along with a manned expedition to the planet Pluto),
for the 2004 campaign it's a non-starter.

-- Steven L.
 
[email protected] wrote:

> 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.

But today, lots of people ALREADY have private insurance from their employers. And some of those
programs are VERY generous:

- Dental insurance
- Eyewear coverage (glasses & contacts)
- Mental-health benefits (therapist, psychiatrist, hospital, etc.)
- and even a free membership in an exercise and fitness center

You can't provide all those benefits to everyone in the country without bankrupting the country.

Therefore, single-payer will NECESSARILY have to force people who already get such generous benefits
from their employer, to accept less.

And that's why it won't fly.

Because people who already have good health care coverage from their employers, aren't going to
support single-payer if it causes their health care coverage and benefits to get worse.

-- Steven L.
 
> 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.

Fine. Believe that if you will. Just know that the vast majority of Americans and citizens of the
world disagree with you. I assume you feel the same way about court-appointed lawyers, poor people
shouldn't have access to them either.

Just understand that despite what Rush tells you, you are HEAVILY in the minority on this one.

www.bushmustlose.com
 
"bushmustlose.com" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > 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.
>
> Fine. Believe that if you will. Just know that the vast majority of Americans and citizens of the
> world disagree with you. I assume you feel the same way about court-appointed lawyers, poor people
> shouldn't have access to them either.
>
> Just understand that despite what Rush tells you, you are HEAVILY in the minority on this one.

Rush don't tell me **** because I haven't listened to a radio in 20 years. But, if you think you
were born with all those guarantees, what are you *****in' about? All you need do is talk to your
service advisor, right?

--
A famous person once said:

"I can't hear my damn monitor!"

Mic Chek 123
 
Captain Compassion wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:01:30 -0500, Jeffrey Turner <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Captain Compassion wrote:
>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 06:42:10 -0800, George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:22:28 GMT, "Mic Chek 123" <[email protected]> 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. 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.
>
> A doctor or consumer can always chose another HMO. It's more difficult to chose another
> government.

One of the problems is that most doctors belong to too many HMOs already, and each HMO has its own
rules on what treatments and procedures are allowed - and each has its own paperwork. If they are
lucky, each patient may be able to choose another HMO or PPO at some time during the next twelve
months and then they may or may not get the doctor they really wanted. Single payer would mean less
paperwork, I thought that's something the right wing and the Libertarians wanted.

--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."
 
>>>>> Hank writes:

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

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

You already are, see below.

>> 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.

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

>> 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.

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

Hank> Emergency health care is for whoever needs it. That's what taxes should provide.

That is not how sick care for the uninsured is paid for.

It is paid by you and me, us folks that pay for our own insurance, and our own uninsured care.

It is padded onto our bills.


--
Andrew Hall (Now reading Usenet in talk.politics.misc...)
 
George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. wrote:

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

Not to those who ALREADY get generous health coverage from their employers: eyewear coverage,
dental coverage, mental health coverage, chiropractic coverage, membership in exercise & fitness
centers, etc.

Single-payer will never be able to provide such generous benefits to everyone in the country,
without bankrupting the country. Hence those who already have generous benefits from their
employer's plan are going to be forced to accept less. And that's why this idea is a political non-starter--
neither Dean or Kerry nor Lieberman nor Gephardt have endorsed it.

>
> We're burning up an incredible amount of wasted money with our inefficient system,

The advocates of single-payer do NOT claim that it can be paid for thru administrative
savings alone.

Rather, they have called for a whole slew of new taxes, including these two:

- Implement a modest payroll tax of 3.3% on all public and private employers, while eliminating
employer premiums for private health plans. ("All" means "all"--even some tiny dry-cleaning store
or convenience store.)

- Anyone who buys or sells a stock will pay a transaction tax equal to one quarter of one percent of
the purchase price. For example, a $100 stock purchase will be taxed a total of 50 cents.
["Anyone" means "anyone"--including folks who carry out transactions inside IRAs and
401(k) plans. That means the Government will have broken its promise to keep those tax-free. Also,
the proponents of single-payer either don't know or don't care that a mutual fund buys and
sells stocks and bonds from its portfolio all the time. If it has to pay taxes every time it
does that, it's going to be much harder to provide an adequate return to its shareholders.]

http://www.pnhp.org/nhibill/nhi_financing.html

-- Steven L.
 
Steven Litvintchouk wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>
> But today, lots of people ALREADY have private insurance from their employers. And some of those
> programs are VERY generous:
>
> - Dental insurance
> - Eyewear coverage (glasses & contacts)
> - Mental-health benefits (therapist, psychiatrist, hospital, etc.)
> - and even a free membership in an exercise and fitness center
>
> You can't provide all those benefits to everyone in the country without bankrupting the country.
>
> Therefore, single-payer will NECESSARILY have to force people who already get such generous
> benefits from their employer, to accept less.
>
> And that's why it won't fly.
>
> Because people who already have good health care coverage from their employers, aren't going to
> support single-payer if it causes their health care coverage and benefits to get worse.

Maybe we can make a deal with those fifty employees.

--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."
 
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:56:40 GMT, "Mic Chek 123"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
><[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> >[email protected] wrote: Well, you beggars can't be choosey.
>>
>> But YOU elitist fascists CAN be choosey. Think about it. Why should our Congressmen have a
>> government run health care plan, which is incidentally the best in the world, while at the same
>> time these very Congressmen vote against letting the rest of us have any kind of health care plan
>> at all?
>>
>> Hypocracy, thy name is Republican.
>>
>> >If you need a government handout to keep you afloat, maybe Canada should be your destination.
>>
>> And let the fascists take over this great country? No way! Because some of us would rather stay
>> here and make it a better country, that's why. Some of us would rather stay and fight, because we
>> REALLY do love our country, unlike those who think they do.
>>
>> No. We will not run to Canada, or anywhere else, no matter how much the fascist monsters destroy
>> our country. We will stay right here and fight these Devils to the bitter end.
>>
>> Because some of us really do love America, and our fellow American citizens. And we don't go
>> around pretending that we are patriotic just so that we can screw our fellow citizens with that
>> false agenda and a phony flag. That's why.
>>
>> You can call it a "government handout" if you want. But what do you call it when the rich and the
>> powerful are given a "government handout"? Such as our Congressmen, and other government workers,
>> who enjoy the best health care system in the world. Do you call THAT a "government handout"?
>>
>> This is what is so evil about the fascist mindset, they think that God is on their side, and then
>> they completely overlook an obvious evil, they consider it a perfectly normal thing for our money
>> to go to subsidize those who are already rich and powerful, but then they will raise and stink
>> and a holler that will reach all the way up to the earth's stratosphere if any money at all goes
>> to help the poor and the powerless.
>>
>> Abel Malcolm
>>
>
>So, stay here and be miserable then. But you ain't gonna' change nothin'.

Liberals just LOVE being miserable. They're always in misery. They're the most angry, miserable,
frustrated people. Ever wonder why liberal talk shows don't succeed? It's always doom-n-gloom, blame-
America, liberal-inspired guilt trips. But their guilt trips arent working so well anymore. That's
what is pissing them off more. Liberal-inspired guilt-trips where the US is to blame for everything
is dead. Bush 2004!

JD

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has
worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and
his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda
members..." ---- Hillary Clinton, Oct 10, 2002

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants
announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is pe-
rmitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too
late."
- President George W. Bush
January 28, 2003
(Another liberal lie exposed.)

"Members and front organizations must continually embarrass, discredit and degrade our critics. When
obstructionists become too irritating, label them as fascist, or Nazi or anti-Semitic .... The
association will, after enough repetition, become "fact" in the public mind." --Communist Party,
Moscow Central Committee 1943

"This time, I think the Americans are serious. Bush is not Clinton. I think this is the end."

- Uday Hussein
 
[email protected] (Captain Compassion) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 08:45:57 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>
> >"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 all becomes clear now. Your basic premise is faulty. Perhaps I can help. You,
> [email protected], have the human right to maximize the quality of your life to the best of
> your ability. However you have no right to ask me or others to help you do so.
>
> Help me out here. Are you a beggar or a thief?

It would seem that every society that wishes to function as a society is faced with a fundamental
question -- which functions are of such utter importance that they should be addressed on a
national level?

Defense of course -- you rarely hear anyone seriously debate whether or not we all should contribute
part of our productivity to try to make sure that we don't have to worry 24/7 about Russian,
Chinese, North Korean, or Martian troops for that matter landing on our dinner table.

We don't even seem to mind having nationalized control of the monetary system. Do you honestly think
that if totally free market forces were at work that anyone would both with minting PENNIES? Do you
think that currency would exist at all. Nope ... if free market forces were completely in play you'd
have to have good enough credit at least for a debit card if you wanted to be in the economy at all.

We don't seem to mind having a nationalized ROADS system -- do you have a RIGHT to I-75? If the free
market were completely in play in that market you'd have to pay tolls right up to your driveway.

Actually we do have a nationalized health care SYSTEM ... of sorts ... if you are sick enough and
you can find your way to an emergency room you will get treated.

However you will also get treated to a bill with six figures on it.

Fortunately we have a bandaid solution for that one too as you can then walk into federal court and
discharge your hospital bill.

I was watching I think it was Dateline the other night and I was furious beyond description by
someone pointing out another gaping "hole" in our system. It was a story about a young lady who was
hit by a drunk driver. Actually as far as drunk driving accidents goes she was actually quite lucky,
but did suffer extensive damage to her face.

The only insurance coverage she had was a $25,000 lifetime limit student policy. I think she got
something like $25,000 more from a victims of violent crime fund. But her medical bills came to
over $125,000.

She seemed to be the type who was too proud to go Chapter 7, but, let's face it, through no fault of
our her own and because, apparently, you and I can't bear the thought of having to wait to see a
doctor for a couple of days over a hangnail, this intelligent, articulate, promising young woman's
financial life is utterly destroyed.

I'm telling you ... yes ... it's pretty cool that I can usually get in to see my doc or my doc's LPN
on 24 hours notice when I have a stomach bug, but I'd trade it in a second for being able to go to
sleep at night knowing that if I ever do get seriously sick I'm not going to have to suffer the
double indignity of financial ruin.

And if you think private insurance is going to be there much longer, each and every one of you is on
crack. Many of the better doctors in the area are no longer doing business with one of the larger
insurance carriers here because their reimbursement rates are so low. In fact, a HUGE hospital chain
here (which includes the university hospital with the Level 1 trauma center) looks like they are
going to tell this large insurance company what to go do with themselves.

Oh ... and there was a great story in the New York Times a few weeks ago about I think it was a
hospital in Yonkers who was putting arrest warrants out on people who didn't show up to court when
they sued them for medical bills they probably couldn't pay.

Just think about this people ...

Each and every one of you who has not called your Senators and Representatives and DEMANDED a
National Health Plan ... one day ... it could be you ... you could be on your deathbed with
tubes running out the wahzoo and the Sheriff could come to haul you off to jail because you
can't pay the bill.

Can you live with yourself knowing that you support a society that is capable of such cruelty? Are
you SURE this could never happen to you?

Ax
 
"Steven Litvintchouk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. wrote:
>
> > Because a single payer system would cost a lot less than we pay now, and would deliver a lot
> > more medical care to boot.
>
> Not to those who ALREADY get generous health coverage from their employers: eyewear coverage,
> dental coverage, mental health coverage, chiropractic coverage, membership in exercise & fitness
> centers, etc.
>
> Single-payer will never be able to provide such generous benefits to everyone in the country,
> without bankrupting the country. Hence those who already have generous benefits from their
> employer's plan are going to be forced to accept less. And that's why this idea is a political non-starter--
> neither Dean or Kerry nor Lieberman nor Gephardt have endorsed it.
>
>
> >
> > We're burning up an incredible amount of wasted money with our inefficient system,
>
> The advocates of single-payer do NOT claim that it can be paid for thru administrative
> savings alone.
>
> Rather, they have called for a whole slew of new taxes, including these
two:
>
> - Implement a modest payroll tax of 3.3% on all public and private employers, while eliminating
> employer premiums for private health plans. ("All" means "all"--even some tiny dry-cleaning
> store or convenience store.)
>
> - Anyone who buys or sells a stock will pay a transaction tax equal to one quarter of one percent
> of the purchase price. For example, a $100 stock purchase will be taxed a total of 50 cents.
> ["Anyone" means "anyone"--including folks who carry out transactions inside IRAs and
> 401(k) plans. That means the Government will have broken its promise to keep those tax-free. Also,
> the proponents of single-payer either don't know or don't care that a mutual fund buys and
> sells stocks and bonds from its portfolio all the time. If it has to pay taxes every time
> it does that, it's going to be much harder to provide an adequate return to its
> shareholders.]
>
> http://www.pnhp.org/nhibill/nhi_financing.html
>
>
>
> -- Steven L.
>

These people don't care because they don't pay any taxes. Hell, if any of them even work, chances
are, they work for some government bureaucracy.

--
A famous person once said:

"I can't hear my damn monitor!"

Mic Chek 123
 
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:12:41 GMT, "Mic Chek 123"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:22:28 GMT, "Mic Chek 123" <[email protected]> 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. 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?
>
>
>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?

Canadians pay for their medical care. They simply have to pay about a third less than we do. And get
about thirty percent more doctors visits than we do.

And are far happier with their health care system than we are.

Please tell us why you want us to pay more, for less, in a system proven to be inferior by ratings
of its consumers.

I miss your logic.

.
 
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:43:24 GMT, [email protected] (Captain
Compassion) wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 06:42:10 -0800, George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:22:28 GMT, "Mic Chek 123" <[email protected]> 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. 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.

I am not proposing that the government provide health care. Only that it - or something else - be
the single payer. To get rid of all those armies of needless workers - the marketers, the
advertisers, the accoutants, all that.

You have confused socialized medicine with the single payer system.

In a single payer system private parties provide health care, but are paid by just one source.

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.
>

To get more care, for all, at far less cost.

In a system proven by conusmer ratings to be superior.

Why exactly do you want a system which costs more, does less, and which consumers have many more
complaints about?

Are you a masochist or what?

>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>"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 protected]
 
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:29:07 GMT, "Mic Chek 123"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>Let's take whatever it is that you do for a living. You do work for a living don't you?

I own my own business.

>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?

Why talk around the issue? We have a system with a single payer, and it works. It demonstrably costs
a lot less than our own system. You can not deny that. It delivers thirty percent more visits to the
doctor per person than our system does. You can not deny that. Its consumers are far happier with
their system than our consumers are happy with our system I think. You could deny that with data
which contradicts my memory on that point.

So instead of making up dumb irrelevant hypotheticals, why don't you just look at the real
world instead?

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.

The friggin system costs us a fortune, far more than it costs those in other systems. Why exactly
should we pay so much more?

When we get less, and get something which, relatively speaking, as measured by actual consumers,
doesn't work very well?

You have a nice ideology. It has only one problem. It leads you to support a system demonstrably
inferior to others.

When ideology and reality collide, I prefer to go with reality.

You are free to continue wandering around lost in the forest of your closed mind.

When you
>provide the medical community, or any other industry, with a guarantee of payment for their
>services, they will only bleed the system.

Look - when you talk about the real world you should stick to real facts.

When you have a prediction from your ideology you should just say - my theory predicts X.

Your theory predicts X. X happens not to happen.

I suggest you try theory B.

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.

You have confused socialized medicine with a single payer system.

I am glad to make comparisons among the real-world alternatives.

Take Canada for instance. They pay about a third less than we do for medical care, get thirty
percent more visits to the doctor, have coverage for all, and report that such a system works great,
on the whole.

Compared to our expensive system, with care limited to only some of us, which consumers here fail to
indicate works as well.

>
>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.

So your answer is that we may have an inferior system, but it's our system so we should just plod
along with it.

That's pretty lame.

How many tons of pressure does it take to keep that tightly closed mind of yours locked shut?

Just curious.
 
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:50:05 GMT, [email protected] (Captain
Compassion) wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 06:49:57 -0800, George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 07:43:57 -0600, The Frog. <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>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 ********. If the sole source of income to doctors and hospitals is the government then the
>hospitals and doctors are creatures of the government.

The government prints our money.

Does that make you a creature of the government?

Socialism occurs when the state owns the means of production.

If a doctor in Canada breaks his xray machine, who has to pay to get another one - the doctor or the
government?

So who owns the means of production?

There is a difference between that system and others where the govt would pay to buy the
new machine.

I think you should understand that the two are not the same.

As far as I can tell, Canadians like their system better than Brits like theirs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back