LoZoccolo explains opposition to single-payer health care.

[LoZoccolo]

Are you kidding me??!! We should never put that much power in the hands of the government! After all that we've just been through??!! No thanks. Someone could come along who will fuck with political dissidents, let them die in the hospital or put LSD in their Sprite or some junk. Or even if they don't, the issue of what the government is willing to pay for will become a constant political football and a wedge-issue generator for the Republicans. Wait until they start deciding not to pay for abortions, or not treat drug addicts or some junk, and then you will be complaining.

I support universal healthcare, and even my more-conservative doctor friend thinks that we should have it for children. But don't give the government the say to pay or not pay. There has to be a way around the system, or else they can veto your life!

[bluestateguy]

1. Did that happen to the NHS in Britain under Margaret Thatcher?

Just asking, because I honestly do not know.

[cali]

2. huh? Are you serious? That's the worst argument I can imagine against

single payer. So many straw men lined up in one place.

[Occam Bandage]

3. To my knowledge, there isn't a country in the world without a private option.

As for a "wedge-issue generator for the Republicans?" Anything the Dems succeed at is a wedge-issue generator for the Republicans. Let them create wedge issues, so long as we've guaranteed cheap health care for the entire nation.

[liberalpragmatist]

18. I believe Canada, or at least some Canadian provinces, do ban private insurance

But as far as I know, nobody in the U.S. is proposing that.

[Oregone]

21. For basic care, there is just the public option in most provinces

which (at least here) runs $100 a month. For another $100 month, you can buy a private extended health care plan that covers vision/dental/psychological, etc, all the goodies. You can get a solid-shut, buttoned down program for your entire family for around $200 a month in Canada (with a private/public combo).

[liberalpragmatist]

23. OK. I thought that Quebec banned private insurance...

... I remember reading that was the subject of a lawsuit before the Canadian Supreme Court a few years ago.

[Oregone]

27. It could of been banned for the basic care

As far I know, private supplemental plans are common province to province. They aren't meant to pay for the basic stuff, but the frills that aren't covered. But its province by province, so who knows. Maybe a Quebec person can fill me in if I am incorrect.

[Lyric]

4. People's lives are ALREADY being vetoed.

Poor people. The ones with no insurance at ALL who can't get ANY care.

Their lives and health are more important than your kooky conspiracy theories.

[LoZoccolo]

19. Which is why I support universal health care.

Thank you for reading my post. All my post.

[Oregone]

22. If you support Universal Health Care, but without single-payer insurance, the only alternative...

(That I know of...)

Is the have the government own and operate EVERY health care facility in the country (by buying or seizing them) and providing unconditional free care.

Its a pipe dream that would result in a bloated and inefficient system, with overhead and waste.

Maybe you have some other definition of "Universal Health Care"? Who knows. LSD in your Sprite? LOL

[Warren DeMontague]

26. Right. Which gels with the for-profit Insurance Industry....

....how? :shrug:

[rucky]

5. I think the general idea is to leave those decisions to the doctors. n/t

[ecstatic]

6. I would like to see more of the pros and cons discussed

We're ALWAYS talking about the pros, but never the cons. There are some questions that I can't seem to get an answer about--like if such a system would lead to lifestyle restrictions in an effort to cut costs. Or how free access to marijuana and cigarettes would jack up the cost for everyone else. And you raise a good point about what might happen if another RW admin takes office--how would womens' services fare? :shrug:

[nonconformist]

7. As opposed to a for-profit insurance company making those decisions?

I'll take my chances.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

8. Newsflash: The insurance companies are already vetoing people's lives

:eyes:

They reward their employees for denying coverage.

[The Magistrate]

9. With All Due Respect, Sir, This Is Nonesense

The power of private, for profit bureaucracies is greater than that of government, in the effects it can have on people's lives. Government agencies can be reached, and to some degree regularly influenced, by appeal to elected officials, who must respond to the public en masse sooner or later. There is no such regular route of appeal for redress where private corporations are concerned. Private corporations answer to no one and nothing but profit for their share-holders. This assures their real business is simply to gouge, whatever the field they are operating in. As matters stand now, private health insurance corporations are organized to cheat their customers out of the benefit of their paid in premiums to very limit ingenuity and lax law will allow. The ideal goal all insurance companies aim for is to collect premiums without ever paying claims. Most of the administrative costs charged against health-care premiums by private insurance companies are the costs of bureaucracy maintained to deny claims and refuse payment to policy-holders. This, and the profits extracted for share-holders from the income stream, are pure dead-weight in health care costs, in terms of benefits received for expenditure by the public and income to medical providers, and this dead-weight is a principal factor bloating health care costs in this country. As matters stand now, medical decisions are made not by doctors but by unelected, privately employed bureaucrats charged with maximizing their employer's profits, whatever the consequences to patients; health care is rationed by cost of insurance, and further by the highly profitable refusals to pay for care that are the chief business of private insurance companies. Any useful reform of health-care in this country can only begin by putting private health insurance companies on a path to extinction, and hurrying them along it forcefully.

[JVS]

10. That's a John Birch Society style argument that can be applied to almost any government program

Social security, gun control, vehicle registration and driver's licensing, the income tax assessment process, etc.

[Starry Messenger]

11. ZOMG!1!

You don't trust the President?

[L0oniX]

12. Gotta luv that paranoia and fear huh

[JVS]

13. Oh, one more thing. If and when the government decides it wants you dead, dicking around...

with your medical benefits is the least efficient option on their part.

[Hippo_Tron]

14. What gets covered already is a political football on the state level

It is mandatory for insurance companies to cover certain procedures in certain states. The best thing to do is to set up a politically independent board to make these types of decisions.

Additionally, there will almost certainly be a market for supplemental insurance just as there is with Medicare now. If you don't like what the state provides you can buy a supplemental.

[OwnedByFerrets]

15. So?? Medicare suck that bad huh? It has a 3% overhead

and treats millions who otherwise would NOT be able to be treated.

[msongs]

16. blue cross and Kaiser can ALREADY veto "your life". nt

[madrchsod]

17. i hate crappy weather in northern illinois....

it`s still raining and it`s going to rain the rest of the night.

[Oregone]

20. LSD in Sprite?!?

LOL. What a joke of a thread

[sendero]

24. You've never been..

... all that bright and this doesn't help any.

[Warren DeMontague]

25. Really? Tell people on Medicare. Tell congress.

Actually, I can't think of anyone LESS qualified to wield that sort of power than the for-profit Insurance Industry.