(08-02-2019 02:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 01:53 PM)tanqtonic 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.

One has to provide a 'cogent alternative' to "everything for everyone for free"? Seriously?
Given that, then the damn opposition hasnt provided a 'cogent alternative' to the concept of Santa Claus, either.
This is reminiscent of the bratty 4 year old yelling 'gimme' and 'mine', and there is a requirement for a 'cogent alternative' for that "grab everything on the table" mentality either.
The pushback is that the proponents of the "everything for everyone for free" option simply seem to share the same mindset of that bratty 4 year old relative to the the utter fing disregard of the obligations that that behavior requires in actual implementation.
Politically it is a beautiful solution: demand free **** for all time, then use the evil millionaires, billionaires, and corporations as the obligation sink. One gets a veritable daily double of free **** for all and a promotion of identity politics that the progressive cause views as their sustenance.

Single payer is a plan that can be implemented - you may disagree with it, or what its outcomes and effects would be - but it is possible, rather easy to explain, and funding it can be accomplished by raising taxes. So it isn't "everything for everyone for free," even if you want to call it that. And because it is a real, possible solution, then it becomes a better alternative to "let's kick what we've got and not provide an alternative."

No, it can’t be implemented now. It really can’t. You’d have docs leaving the system en masse. You’d have hospitals closing down en masse. Why? Because the economics would no longer work. One thing that has been proposed on the Gulf Coast is converting old offshore oil platforms beyond the three-mile limit into international waters hospitals. Another idea I’ve seen floated (literally) is hospital ships that would perform treatment in international waters. I suppose there would be a new health care center spring up on the Caymans, as they are quite adept at creating profitable niches to fill in the holes in American systems.

Think about it this way. You’ve got some 30 year old with $300,000 of med school debt and you’re going to pay him/her a salary of $65,000? How’s that going to work? What do you expect him/her to do?