A Sober Look At Single Payer Medical Care

Rightguide

Prof Triggernometry
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Posts
67,310
If the American VA single payer system isn't enough to thwart the appetite for government control of our health care system, take a look at the failing British system for a glimpse into the future of socialized medicine:



Some British Lessons on ‘Single Payer’ Health Care

Robert Moffit / November 27, 2019


Congressional sponsors of “Medicare for All” single-payer legislation—bills abolishing virtually all existing public and private health insurance—routinely promise that all Americans will get equal access to higher quality care and enjoy superior medical outcomes.

Performance, however, is the acid test of sound policy. While the U.S. “single payer” experience is limited to the Veterans Administration program, recently plagued by headline-grabbing care delays, working models of national health insurance can teach Americans sober lessons in government-controlled health care.

Look at the British crisis. Consider Britain’s National Health Service, established in 1948. In 2017, the British House of Lords issued a stunning report on the state of the NHS. It concluded, “Our NHS, our ‘national religion’, is in crisis and the adult social care system is on the brink of collapse. No one who listened to the evidence presented by a vast array of expert witnesses who appeared before us can be in any doubt about this.”

That evidence has been building for decades, and recent high-profile cases show that the British crisis is chronic. In the October 2019 issue of the Annals of Surgery, one can check out a comparative study of English and American in-hospital mortality between 2006 and 2012.

Oh and this:

"The clash of high patient demand for “free care” at the point of service with limited health care supply is manifest in the notorious British waiting lists. According to The Guardian, a prominent left-leaning British newspaper, last year a total of 4.3 million British citizens were awaiting hospitalization, the highest level in 10 years."

https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/11/27/some-british-lessons-on-single-payer-health-care/
 
My thing is this.

Why don't the blue states do it?? All that talk and not a single step of the walk to back it up. Not one.

NY and CA have NO excuses why they can't have a No ID needed free HC for anyone who shows up with their hands out HC system. They have no excuse to not show us all the wonderful utopia that is at hand with a 97.5% tax rate + annual wealth taxes on top of all the other taxes.

(D)'s want it? Show the rest of the states how it's done..... it's called leadership.
 
My thing is this.

Why don't the blue states do it?? All that talk and not a single step of the walk to back it up. Not one.

NY and CA have NO excuses why they can't have a No ID needed free HC for anyone who shows up with their hands out HC system. They have no excuse to not show us all the wonderful utopia that is at hand with a 97.5% tax rate + annual wealth taxes on top of all the other taxes.

(D)'s want it? Show the rest of the states how it's done..... it's called leadership.

I think California is in the process of trying as we speak.
 
Say what you will, countries that have National Health Care are almost always in the top 10 happiest countries to live. What' s wrong with having nationalised health care and top it off with insurance if necessary. I wish we had Nationalised dental care for mandatory dental procedures like cleaning, cavities etc..
 
Say what you will, countries that have National Health Care are almost always in the top 10 happiest countries to live. What' s wrong with having nationalised health care and top it off with insurance if necessary. I wish we had Nationalised dental care for mandatory dental procedures like cleaning, cavities etc..

It's fine for other countries. They don't have a founding principle of freedom of choice or a constitutional federalist structure like we do that limits the authority of the Federal government. As we can see from the facts in the article, it is an eminent failure. Here in the United States, a nation of 320 million people, it simply costs too much. Young people here are flirting with the idea of universal health care ala Sen, Warren, but that is because they don't realize it will more double their taxes and cripple the country.
 
It's fine for other countries. They don't have a founding principle of freedom of choice or a constitutional federalist structure like we do that limits the authority of the Federal government. As we can see from the facts in the article, it is an eminent failure. Here in the United States, a nation of 320 million people, it simply costs too much. Young people here are flirting with the idea of universal health care ala Sen, Warren, but that is because they don't realize it will more double their taxes and cripple the country.

France is one of the highest taxed countries in the world and their social safety net is impeccable. We pay high taxes but I like knowing that if a senior needs help because of a fall it's available, if a small child has a brain tumour I like knowing that the parents don't have to lose their home to pay for it, I like knowing that if someone is going deaf that implants are available for both ears not just one because an insurance company has decided you only need one ear to hear, two are a luxury.
I get it, tho. Your politics are very different than ours and taxes are a sore spot for you guys. See, I don't care if my taxes are high as long as i know my neighbour isn't suffering. But i grew up with that system. Change is hard and expensive to put into practice. People are afraid of change.
 
In the UK you are NOT forced to use the NHS.

You can have comprehensive health insurance; you can have cheaper health insurance that will provide health care if there is a waiting list for NHS treatment; you can pay your own way.

What you can't avoid is paying taxes for the health service but if you need emergency care the NHS is quicker and more effective than almost any private provider.
 
Say what you will, countries that have National Health Care are almost always in the top 10 happiest countries to live.

According to people who value such things. And good for them!

They can have it.

What' s wrong with having nationalised health care and top it off with insurance if necessary.

It's authoritarian and un-American.

Change is hard and expensive to put into practice. People are afraid of change.

Not always and not always. Depends on who you are what kinda "change" you're looking at.

Because "change" and "progress" arent' always good.

I get it, tho. Your politics are very different than ours and taxes are a sore spot for you guys.

Our values are different and taxes for the sake of un-American values such as providing economic/social equity is a sore spot. Traditionally we view forcing individuals to pay for other peoples problems/issues/fuckups and bad life decisions as oppressive and tyrannical.

Just because I do the right thing and make 700,000 bucks a year does NOT entitle Mr. Minnimum wage, living above his means in California because he dropped out of HS's and owes child support on 5 kids, to some of my money to cover his STD medications. He needs to pay for his own fucking herpe meds....that shit just ain't my fucking problem and the federal government forcing me make it my problem is simply illiberal, tyrannical and un-American.

The vast majority are just fine paying taxes for things that fall under "M'arican" values. Especially if we were to get the lower 47% of earners in the country to start paying their fair share and give up 32% of their income too.

In the UK you are NOT forced to use the NHS.

But you are forced to pay for it.
 
Last edited:
France is one of the highest taxed countries in the world and their social safety net is impeccable. We pay high taxes but I like knowing that if a senior needs help because of a fall it's available, if a small child has a brain tumour I like knowing that the parents don't have to lose their home to pay for it, I like knowing that if someone is going deaf that implants are available for both ears not just one because an insurance company has decided you only need one ear to hear, two are a luxury.
I get it, tho. Your politics are very different than ours and taxes are a sore spot for you guys. See, I don't care if my taxes are high as long as i know my neighbour isn't suffering. But i grew up with that system. Change is hard and expensive to put into practice. People are afraid of change.

Your entire GDP is 1.6 trillion. Our GDP is about 19.3 trillion. The cost of Warren's plan here is 52 trillion. We're already looking at a 21 trillion national debt.
 
Your entire GDP is 1.6 trillion. Our GDP is about 19.3 trillion. The cost of Warren's plan here is 52 trillion. We're already looking at a 21 trillion national debt.

The financing of health care in the US, now and proposed, is seriously flawed and far more expensive than any country that has universal health care.

Why that is? Ask your politicians and their sponsors Big Pharma.
 
The people who are against UHC the most are those already receiving free healthcare. They dont care about other people or other children, they care about themselves.

I know 2 kids that were successfully treated for cancer and another that had a lung transplant and heart surgery, all paid for by taxpayers. I am more than happy to pay a little more so that others can have a fighting chance at life without losing everything they own trying to pay for it.
 
The financing of health care in the US, now and proposed, is seriously flawed and far more expensive than any country that has universal health care.

Why that is? Ask your politicians and their sponsors Big Pharma.

It's because we have more people to cover than other western Countries.
 
.



Not always and not always. Depends on who you are what kinda "change" you're looking at.

Because "change" and "progress" arent' always good for all people.


.

You mean like switching over to the metric system. Older than boomers can't handle change...oh, and a dollar coin:D
 
The financing of health care in the US, now and proposed, is seriously flawed and far more expensive than any country that has universal health care.

Why that is? Ask your politicians and their sponsors Big Pharma.

This is true.
And an Ibuprofen shouldn’t cost $30 a pill, during a hospital stay.
Big Pharma/Private Insurance/Mal Practice
 
Your entire GDP is 1.6 trillion. Our GDP is about 19.3 trillion. The cost of Warren's plan here is 52 trillion. We're already looking at a 21 trillion national debt.

No, I get it. Just like there are what 80+ million people in the UK. We have a small population. Part of the problem in the UK is the social care networks for maintaining seniors in an aging society and meeting the increased health needs of those seniors. The pendulum will swing the other way, it always does. There have always been fluctuations in population that' s why you need to build up your coffers to cover the lean times. We had an excess of monies in our gov't pension plan. Got a change of gov't that spent that coin and now there is a lack of funding, once again, due to an aging society. Having excess funds just makes good fiscal sense.
Also health care, education, the arts are the first on the chopping block when gov'ts want to "balance" the books.
 
No, it isn't. Look at comparable costs per head. It should be cheaper for a larger population.

Not when the government is handling it. Not when they decide prices and allocation of resources that dry up supply and the incentive to produce that supply at a profit, leading to higher prices for what remains.
 
Not when the government is handling it. Not when they decide prices and allocation of resources that dry up supply and the incentive to produce that supply at a profit, leading to higher prices for what remains.

The most efficient health care provider system in the US is medicare, you dumb fuck.
 
The financing of health care in the US, now and proposed, is seriously flawed and far more expensive than any country that has universal health care.

Why that is? Ask your politicians and their sponsors Big Pharma.

Sounds like a perfect reason to keep them out of it....notice the more the government gets involved the further the prices of everything skyrocket??

Without the government robbing people, big pharma is going to have to come up off some pricing.

Same with all the other medical industry sectors.

It's because we have more people to cover than other western Countries.

No, it's not. The per-capita costs prove that it's not.

I pay a radiologist cash money for an MRI??? 700 bucks.

Guess what gubbmint insurance bills it for? 12,000!!!!

That has NOTHING to do with the fact we have 300 million people in the country.

It's because gubbmint is playing fuck fuck games in the billing/insurance/HC industry as a whole.....they hold everyone hostage under penalty of law to pay 500 bucks for each table of Advil or whatever stupid price gouge they can manage.

Meanwhile you can go to a drug store and you can get a 1500 pill jar of the exact same shit for 24.99.
 
Sounds like a perfect reason to keep them out of it....notice the more the government gets involved the further the prices of everything skyrocket??

Without the government robbing people, big pharma is going to have to come up off some pricing.

Same with all the other medical industry sectors.




...

That is the US government, its politicians and their sponsors. Other countries do not have the same stupidly high costs for healthcare whether government or insurance company run. You Americans are being ripped off now and all the proposed solutions are to rip you off even more.

PS. My cost for 16 tablets of Ibroprophen, aspirin or paracetemol? Usually less than 50 pence or a half dollar US.
 
Last edited:
That is the US government

Yes, it is.

You Americans are being ripped off now and all the proposed solutions are to rip you off even more.

And who is enabling that rip off?? What entity is responsible for getting all that money and guaranteeing prices for the big companies/lobbies?? The US Government.

The 500 dollar a piece aspirin is exactly like the 200 dollar hammers for the army and the 150,000 dollar lesbian dance theory degrees from state schools...those things only cost that much because the government pays that for it or "grantees" it.

Take the jackass government guarantees/pricing away?? NOBODY is going to spend that kind of money on that dumb shit, they don't have it, and suddenly without government robbing everyone all these companies are going to have to compete if they want to stay alive. The bullshit corruption prices will have to come down to sane levels if those companies want to stay in bidnizz.

The only solutions that are suggesting we get ripped off even more are the people who want to give the authority ripping us off (the US government) MORE authority to FURTHER rip us off. The soviet HC system fan club on the left.
 
Last edited:
...

The 500 dollar a piece aspirin is exactly like the 200 dollar hammers for the army and the 150,000 dollar lesbian dance theory degrees from state schools...those things only cost that much because the government pays that for it or "grantees" it.

Take the jackass government guarantees/pricing away?? NOBODY is going to spend that kind of money on that dumb shit, they don't have it, and suddenly without government robbing everyone all these companies are going to have to compete if they want to stay alive. The bullshit corruption prices will have to come down to sane levels if those companies want to stay in bidnizz.

The only solutions that are suggesting we get ripped off even more are the people who want to give the authority ripping us off (the US government) MORE authority to FURTHER rip us off. The soviet HC system fan club on the left.

One of the problems over assessing whether a country is spending enough money on NATO is that in America everything costs far more than it should. Other countries often get more bang for their buck than from the US armaments industry.
 
Back
Top