quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness
Australia and Canada. Socialised medicine.
Part of the problem here is that you lot conveniently forget about the collusion in the medical industry. The costs of every good and service are vastly inflated because medicine has no competition in this country. In Australia, the government doesn't fuck about and let the medical community profiteer at patient's expense. Medicine is an essential service, not a product whose need for profit is driven by boards and shareholders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Australia
Note, in particular, this little gem:
"In an international comparative study of the health care systems in six countries (Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States), found that "Australia ranks highest on healthy lives, scoring first or second on all of the indicators", although its overall ranking in the study was below the UK and Germany systems, tied with New Zealand's and above those of Canada and far above the U.S.
A global study of end of life care, conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit, part of the group which publishes The Economist magazine, published the compared end of life care, gave the highest ratings to Australia and the UK out of the 40 countries studied, the two country's systems receiving a rating of 7.9 out of 10 in an analysis of access to services, quality of care and public awareness."
So yes. It works and produces far better results than your overpriced, poorly performing disaster in the USA.

I didn't deleted anything you quoted that your reply had to do with....

1. It's cheaper in other countries. No one here is disputing that.
2. No one can show that a country that switched to socialized medicine had costs drop. The only thing anyone can show, is that costs rose slower. So, thinking that costs are going to drop if only the US would switch to a socialized plan, is unproven.
3. Continuing to point out (what the Left does; this comment is not directed specifically towards you) that the socialized systems pay, roughly, 50% of what the US pays (overall) is disingenuous, at best.
4. Where are the profits in the US health care system?
5. I hope you realize that my only real beef with single payer, is the lack of Constitutional Authority for the Federal Government to do it, and that I've already state many, many times, that I would support a Constitutional Amendment granting the authority to the Federal Government to provide a single payer health system for US citizens.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

...And they are all about INSURANCE companies that reap massive profits at the expense of US citizens.

"...does in fact have several 'single payer' govt. run 'health' insurance programs"
And again... insurance programs.
Nothing like any single-payer system operates.

As I've said before, the US (in general), inlcluding those dreaming up these grandiose schemes don't have a clue how single-payer systems work.
They can only think along insurance concepts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness
Australia and Canada. Socialised medicine.
Part of the problem here is that you lot conveniently forget about the collusion in the medical industry. The costs of every good and service are vastly inflated because medicine has no competition in this country. In Australia, the government doesn't fuck about and let the medical community profiteer at patient's expense. Medicine is an essential service, not a product whose need for profit is driven by boards and shareholders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Australia
Note, in particular, this little gem:
"In an international comparative study of the health care systems in six countries (Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States), found that "Australia ranks highest on healthy lives, scoring first or second on all of the indicators", although its overall ranking in the study was below the UK and Germany systems, tied with New Zealand's and above those of Canada and far above the U.S.
A global study of end of life care, conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit, part of the group which publishes The Economist magazine, published the compared end of life care, gave the highest ratings to Australia and the UK out of the 40 countries studied, the two country's systems receiving a rating of 7.9 out of 10 in an analysis of access to services, quality of care and public awareness."
So yes. It works and produces far better results than your overpriced, poorly performing disaster in the USA.

I didn't deleted anything you quoted that your reply had to do with....

1. It's cheaper in other countries. No one here is disputing that.
2. No one can show that a country that switched to socialized medicine had costs drop. The only thing anyone can show, is that costs rose slower. So, thinking that costs are going to drop if only the US would switch to a socialized plan, is unproven.
3. Continuing to point out (what the Left does; this comment is not directed specifically towards you) that the socialized systems pay, roughly, 50% of what the US pays (overall) is disingenuous, at best.
4. Where are the profits in the US health care system?
5. I hope you realize that my only real beef with single payer, is the lack of Constitutional Authority for the Federal Government to do it, and that I've already state many, many times, that I would support a Constitutional Amendment granting the authority to the Federal Government to provide a single payer health system for US citizens.

there is no lack of constitutional authority. congress can make needful laws, and we have the right to life, as well as liberty.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness
Australia and Canada. Socialised medicine.
Part of the problem here is that you lot conveniently forget about the collusion in the medical industry. The costs of every good and service are vastly inflated because medicine has no competition in this country. In Australia, the government doesn't fuck about and let the medical community profiteer at patient's expense. Medicine is an essential service, not a product whose need for profit is driven by boards and shareholders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Australia
Note, in particular, this little gem:
"In an international comparative study of the health care systems in six countries (Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States), found that "Australia ranks highest on healthy lives, scoring first or second on all of the indicators", although its overall ranking in the study was below the UK and Germany systems, tied with New Zealand's and above those of Canada and far above the U.S.
A global study of end of life care, conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit, part of the group which publishes The Economist magazine, published the compared end of life care, gave the highest ratings to Australia and the UK out of the 40 countries studied, the two country's systems receiving a rating of 7.9 out of 10 in an analysis of access to services, quality of care and public awareness."
So yes. It works and produces far better results than your overpriced, poorly performing disaster in the USA.

I didn't deleted anything you quoted that your reply had to do with....

1. It's cheaper in other countries. No one here is disputing that.
2. No one can show that a country that switched to socialized medicine had costs drop. The only thing anyone can show, is that costs rose slower. So, thinking that costs are going to drop if only the US would switch to a socialized plan, is unproven.
3. Continuing to point out (what the Left does; this comment is not directed specifically towards you) that the socialized systems pay, roughly, 50% of what the US pays (overall) is disingenuous, at best.
4. Where are the profits in the US health care system?
5. I hope you realize that my only real beef with single payer, is the lack of Constitutional Authority for the Federal Government to do it, and that I've already state many, many times, that I would support a Constitutional Amendment granting the authority to the Federal Government to provide a single payer health system for US citizens.

there is no lack of constitutional authority. congress can make needful laws, and we have the right to life, as well as liberty.

See post 164...there exists and has existed for many years, single payer, govt. run, insurance corps., programs or 'system' by whatever terms one chooses to use.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Ron's got it. Play with Ron.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri


He's on hide.

What an interesting way to say you haven't got the intelligence to discuss an issue.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
I have tried to explain it to you many times Desi.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
1. It's cheaper in other countries. No one here is disputing that.

But you are constantly disputing where those cost savings come from.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
2. No one can show that a country that switched to socialized medicine had costs drop. The only thing anyone can show, is that costs rose slower. So, thinking that costs are going to drop if only the US would switch to a socialized plan, is unproven.

UK 1948 - The government unleased the NHS system.
Medical costs plummeted and everyone was covered no matter who you were.
No more profiteering by private doctors that only the rich could afford.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
3. Continuing to point out (what the Left does; this comment is not directed specifically towards you) that the socialized systems pay, roughly, 50% of what the US pays (overall) is disingenuous, at best.

My best guess is that it's considerably LESS than 50% of what a typical US citizen would pay.
There are many examples of where a socialised healthcare system caps costs that the US rip-off people.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
4. Where are the profits in the US health care system?

With the insurance companies.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
5. I hope you realize that my only real beef with single payer, is the lack of Constitutional Authority for the Federal Government to do it, and that I've already state many, many times, that I would support a Constitutional Amendment granting the authority to the Federal Government to provide a single payer health system for US citizens.

Why would they need authority to do it Desi??
Just introduce it and for those that quailfy or pay into it - let them receive the benefits of the system.
People will soon realise just how much better it is than insurance-based systems.

quote:

As for the californian system... sounds to me like a parallel insurance-based system; it has all the hallmarks of one.
In single-payer systems, you don't "claim" anything and it doesn't exclude people from using other systems if they so choose.

quote:

This bill would prohibit health care service plans and health insurers from offering health benefits or covering any service for which coverage is offered to individuals under the program, except as provided.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
Single-payer systems aren't "insurance".
You have to get the notion of 'insurance' and the concepts behind it out of your thoughts.

That's just semantics, which is why you put quotes around insurance.
Taxes for single payer = premiums for insurance
Government pays = insurance pays
It's true that single payer systems cover more and with less of an out-of-pocket cost, but that doesn't really make it not, essentially, the same as insurance in the US.
Sidenote: What is the employer NI rate? What is the employee NI rate?

Not semantics Desi.
Taxes for single-payer have nothing to do with insurance.
No insurance company is involved with single-payer systems.
Nobody makes a profit like insurance-based systems do.
Single-payer doesn't have investors or shareholders as part of it.
The government pay the costs of treatment, not an insurance company.
I'll repeat what I said -
You have to get the notion of 'insurance' and the concepts behind it out of your thoughts.
No, it's not 'insurance' under another name either; it's a completely different type of animal.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43
The elephantS in the room, that have dropped out of the national discussion (Thanks to the insurance industry, liability lawyers, and for-profit hospitals), is the MASSIVE cost of the uninsured using emergency rooms as their personal care providers, where the hospitals make up their general operating deficit overcharging the insured or state covered indigent, from the below cost reimbursement by both health insurance and Medicare/Medicaid, huge drains on any public serving clinic. And the obscene costs of US Liability/tort law practices. You simply couldn't design a less helpful or more expensive health care system regulatory and compensation system than US tort law, with world leading Lack of timely delivery of living expenses, rehabilitation or justice to injured parties. Other countries who don't have to assign blame in hideously expensive trials, provide both timely rehab and necessary expenses for at most HALF the cost of the US system, which benefits only the lawyers, and heirs of the few tort winners. Payouts are years late, if ever, costs are crippling the medical delivery professionals in most fields, with many MD specialists paying 1/3 to over 1/2 of their Gross income for coverage against malpractice suits. My understanding is several specialities simply aren't graduating new doctors in the US. Med students look at the income, costs and both future and current earnings of those out in private or group practice, and they just won't go there. GP's and OB/Gyn are all coming from other countries, and mostly moving to working in institutions that cover the malpractice. The vanishing rural MD is far more serious of a situation in Trump country than what the combover plans to do to their health law. It doesn't matter what insurance or not, if there is no Doctor within driving distance.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)