(08-02-2019 09:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I guess if you get a woodie with the mention of a requirement of a national wealth tax -- this one is for you.

Graham, I would suggest you actually engage in some commentary as opposed to 'whack a mole' link combined with a dumb ass gif posting. You might be taken a tad more seriously.

Or take that style to the Spin Room elsewhere on this site. Oops, forgot, they actually kiboshed that there as well.....

(08-02-2019 10:11 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 09:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I guess if you get a woodie with the mention of a requirement of a national wealth tax -- this one is for you.

Graham, I would suggest you actually engage in some commentary as opposed to 'whack a mole' link combined with a dumb ass gif posting. You might be taken a tad more seriously.

Or take that style to the Spin Room elsewhere on this site. Oops, forgot, they actually kiboshed that there as well.....

Thanks Tanq! I'm still workshopping my brand, so this feedback is really helpful.

What kind of content do you think we need more of in this forum?

(08-02-2019 10:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Single-payer cuts costs for one reason. As a monopoly, THEY get to decide what health care you get, not you. If you're happy with letting someone else make your health care decisions, go for it. I'm not.

(08-02-2019 10:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 10:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Single-payer cuts costs for one reason. As a monopoly, THEY get to decide what health care you get, not you. If you're happy with letting someone else make your health care decisions, go for it. I'm not.

I am exceptionally dubious of the claim that government single payer would lower administrative burdens.

(08-02-2019 10:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 10:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Single-payer cuts costs for one reason. As a monopoly, THEY get to decide what health care you get, not you. If you're happy with letting someone else make your health care decisions, go for it. I'm not.

I am exceptionally dubious of the claim that government single payer would lower administrative burdens.

(08-02-2019 10:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 10:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 10:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Single-payer cuts costs for one reason. As a monopoly, THEY get to decide what health care you get, not you. If you're happy with letting someone else make your health care decisions, go for it. I'm not.

I am exceptionally dubious of the claim that government single payer would lower administrative burdens.

IF, (big if), costs are cut, they will be cut by reducing payments to doctors and hospitals, and delaying surgeries until they are an emergency.
No doctor wants to study 12 years to make less than a plumber.
Net net, less doctors, dumber doctors, poorer care.
Remember everybody, the opinions of the writer of this opinion piece are just the opinions of the writer.

(08-02-2019 10:34 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 10:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 10:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 10:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Single-payer cuts costs for one reason. As a monopoly, THEY get to decide what health care you get, not you. If you're happy with letting someone else make your health care decisions, go for it. I'm not.

I am exceptionally dubious of the claim that government single payer would lower administrative burdens.

IF, (big if), costs are cut, they will be cut by reducing payments to doctors and hospitals, and delaying surgeries until they are an emergency.
No doctor wants to study 12 years to make less than a plumber.
Net net, less doctors, dumber doctors, poorer care.
Remember everybody, the opinions of the writer of this opinion piece are just the opinions of the writer.

If you disagree with said writer, please provide an explanation of how it could work differently.

(08-02-2019 10:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Single-payer cuts costs for one reason. As a monopoly, THEY get to decide what health care you get, not you. If you're happy with letting someone else make your health care decisions, go for it. I'm not.

(08-02-2019 11:24 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 10:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Single-payer cuts costs for one reason. As a monopoly, THEY get to decide what health care you get, not you. If you're happy with letting someone else make your health care decisions, go for it. I'm not.

For many Americans, insurance companies are already doing this, right? If my doctor says I need a procedure and my insurance company decides not to cover it, my choices may be debt or death.

(08-02-2019 11:24 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 10:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Single-payer cuts costs for one reason. As a monopoly, THEY get to decide what health care you get, not you. If you're happy with letting someone else make your health care decisions, go for it. I'm not.

For many Americans, insurance companies are already doing this, right? If my doctor says I need a procedure and my insurance company decides not to cover it, my choices may be debt or death.

(08-02-2019 11:24 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 10:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Single-payer cuts costs for one reason. As a monopoly, THEY get to decide what health care you get, not you. If you're happy with letting someone else make your health care decisions, go for it. I'm not.

For many Americans, insurance companies are already doing this, right? If my doctor says I need a procedure and my insurance company decides not to cover it, my choices may be debt or death.

(08-02-2019 11:43 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 11:24 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 10:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Single-payer cuts costs for one reason. As a monopoly, THEY get to decide what health care you get, not you. If you're happy with letting someone else make your health care decisions, go for it. I'm not.

For many Americans, insurance companies are already doing this, right? If my doctor says I need a procedure and my insurance company decides not to cover it, my choices may be debt or death.

This is admittedly true. A few people are wealthy enough to afford expensive insurance on their own, or to cover the costs of procedures not covered. Most people who depend on their employer's coverage don't realistically have any more choice in their coverage than if the system was single-payer. For the millions of voters whose coverage is no better than Medicare, and who cannot afford to pay for a better plan on their own, what's the difference?

This is a problem that those opposed to single-payer prefer to evade, but if they don't address it, momentum for single-payer will continue to build.

(08-02-2019 12:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 11:43 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 11:24 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 10:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Single-payer cuts costs for one reason. As a monopoly, THEY get to decide what health care you get, not you. If you're happy with letting someone else make your health care decisions, go for it. I'm not.

For many Americans, insurance companies are already doing this, right? If my doctor says I need a procedure and my insurance company decides not to cover it, my choices may be debt or death.

This is admittedly true. A few people are wealthy enough to afford expensive insurance on their own, or to cover the costs of procedures not covered. Most people who depend on their employer's coverage don't realistically have any more choice in their coverage than if the system was single-payer. For the millions of voters whose coverage is no better than Medicare, and who cannot afford to pay for a better plan on their own, what's the difference?
This is a problem that those opposed to single-payer prefer to evade, but if they don't address it, momentum for single-payer will continue to build.

Bingo. One of the biggest issues the right has in this debate is that they haven't been able to provide a cogent alternative to the Dems on the national, or even state, level. They run on "socialized medicine bad" when that is a better alternative to a lot of the insurance options out there for a number of people.
It would be nice to be able to choose between political parties offering truly competing ideas of how to fix problems in healthcare coverage, as opposed to choosing between the Dems' plan and just a repeal of the plan with no sound replacement.

(08-02-2019 12:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 12:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 11:43 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 11:24 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 10:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Single-payer cuts costs for one reason. As a monopoly, THEY get to decide what health care you get, not you. If you're happy with letting someone else make your health care decisions, go for it. I'm not.

For many Americans, insurance companies are already doing this, right? If my doctor says I need a procedure and my insurance company decides not to cover it, my choices may be debt or death.

This is admittedly true. A few people are wealthy enough to afford expensive insurance on their own, or to cover the costs of procedures not covered. Most people who depend on their employer's coverage don't realistically have any more choice in their coverage than if the system was single-payer. For the millions of voters whose coverage is no better than Medicare, and who cannot afford to pay for a better plan on their own, what's the difference?
This is a problem that those opposed to single-payer prefer to evade, but if they don't address it, momentum for single-payer will continue to build.

Bingo. One of the biggest issues the right has in this debate is that they haven't been able to provide a cogent alternative to the Dems on the national, or even state, level. They run on "socialized medicine bad" when that is a better alternative to a lot of the insurance options out there for a number of people.
It would be nice to be able to choose between political parties offering truly competing ideas of how to fix problems in healthcare coverage, as opposed to choosing between the Dems' plan and just a repeal of the plan with no sound replacement.

That's why I've backed Bismarck, which is basically free market (or a lot more free than ours is now) universal health care. Government pays for a basic plan of your choosing (essentially something like single-payer or a bad HMO) either directly (France) or indirectly through a tax credit (Heritage). You are then free to supplement your coverage, and employers can offer upgrades as an employment incentive. Or you can purchase an alternative plan, using the government contribution (where the government pays directly) like a voucher. Alternatives can include high deductible plans coupled with health savings accounts, which is probably the most economically sensible approach.

Heritage proposed a Bismarck-type approach 25 years ago. I don't know why republicans didn't pass it when they controlled both houses. Bill Clinton would have signed it just so e could have his name on health care reform, and we would have avoided the whole Obamacare debacle.

(08-02-2019 01:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 12:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 12:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 11:43 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 11:24 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  For many Americans, insurance companies are already doing this, right? If my doctor says I need a procedure and my insurance company decides not to cover it, my choices may be debt or death.

This is admittedly true. A few people are wealthy enough to afford expensive insurance on their own, or to cover the costs of procedures not covered. Most people who depend on their employer's coverage don't realistically have any more choice in their coverage than if the system was single-payer. For the millions of voters whose coverage is no better than Medicare, and who cannot afford to pay for a better plan on their own, what's the difference?
This is a problem that those opposed to single-payer prefer to evade, but if they don't address it, momentum for single-payer will continue to build.

Bingo. One of the biggest issues the right has in this debate is that they haven't been able to provide a cogent alternative to the Dems on the national, or even state, level. They run on "socialized medicine bad" when that is a better alternative to a lot of the insurance options out there for a number of people.
It would be nice to be able to choose between political parties offering truly competing ideas of how to fix problems in healthcare coverage, as opposed to choosing between the Dems' plan and just a repeal of the plan with no sound replacement.

That's why I've backed Bismarck, which is basically free market (or a lot more free than ours is now) universal health care. Government pays for a basic plan of your choosing (essentially something like single-payer or a bad HMO) either directly (France) or indirectly through a tax credit (Heritage). You are then free to supplement your coverage, and employers can offer upgrades as an employment incentive. Or you can purchase an alternative plan, using the government contribution (where the government pays directly) like a voucher. Alternatives can include high deductible plans coupled with health savings accounts, which is probably the most economically sensible approach.
Heritage proposed a Bismarck-type approach 25 years ago. I don't know why republicans didn't pass it when they controlled both houses. Bill Clinton would have signed it just so e could have his name on health care reform, and we would have avoided the whole Obamacare debacle.

What's the mechanism that keeps the supplemental private options? I'd imagine in a single payer program you would have the same options available if companies wanted to offer those options.

(08-02-2019 01:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 01:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 12:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 12:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 11:43 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  This is admittedly true. A few people are wealthy enough to afford expensive insurance on their own, or to cover the costs of procedures not covered. Most people who depend on their employer's coverage don't realistically have any more choice in their coverage than if the system was single-payer. For the millions of voters whose coverage is no better than Medicare, and who cannot afford to pay for a better plan on their own, what's the difference?
This is a problem that those opposed to single-payer prefer to evade, but if they don't address it, momentum for single-payer will continue to build.

Bingo. One of the biggest issues the right has in this debate is that they haven't been able to provide a cogent alternative to the Dems on the national, or even state, level. They run on "socialized medicine bad" when that is a better alternative to a lot of the insurance options out there for a number of people.
It would be nice to be able to choose between political parties offering truly competing ideas of how to fix problems in healthcare coverage, as opposed to choosing between the Dems' plan and just a repeal of the plan with no sound replacement.

That's why I've backed Bismarck, which is basically free market (or a lot more free than ours is now) universal health care. Government pays for a basic plan of your choosing (essentially something like single-payer or a bad HMO) either directly (France) or indirectly through a tax credit (Heritage). You are then free to supplement your coverage, and employers can offer upgrades as an employment incentive. Or you can purchase an alternative plan, using the government contribution (where the government pays directly) like a voucher. Alternatives can include high deductible plans coupled with health savings accounts, which is probably the most economically sensible approach.
Heritage proposed a Bismarck-type approach 25 years ago. I don't know why republicans didn't pass it when they controlled both houses. Bill Clinton would have signed it just so e could have his name on health care reform, and we would have avoided the whole Obamacare debacle.

What's the mechanism that keeps the supplemental private options? I'd imagine in a single payer program you would have the same options available if companies wanted to offer those options.

The mechanism that keeps the supplemental private options is demand in the marketplace.

No, you would not have the same options available in single-payer because you don't have companies to offer them. Single-payer means one payer. That's why it's called single-payer.

(08-02-2019 12:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 11:43 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 11:24 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 10:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Single-payer cuts costs for one reason. As a monopoly, THEY get to decide what health care you get, not you. If you're happy with letting someone else make your health care decisions, go for it. I'm not.

For many Americans, insurance companies are already doing this, right? If my doctor says I need a procedure and my insurance company decides not to cover it, my choices may be debt or death.

This is admittedly true. A few people are wealthy enough to afford expensive insurance on their own, or to cover the costs of procedures not covered. Most people who depend on their employer's coverage don't realistically have any more choice in their coverage than if the system was single-payer. For the millions of voters whose coverage is no better than Medicare, and who cannot afford to pay for a better plan on their own, what's the difference?

This is a problem that those opposed to single-payer prefer to evade, but if they don't address it, momentum for single-payer will continue to build.

Bingo. One of the biggest issues the right has in this debate is that they haven't been able to provide a cogent alternative to the Dems on the national, or even state, level. They run on "socialized medicine bad" when that is a better alternative to a lot of the insurance options out there for a number of people.

It would be nice to be able to choose between political parties offering truly competing ideas of how to fix problems in healthcare coverage, as opposed to choosing between the Dems' plan and just a repeal of the plan with no sound replacement.