Why would ANYONE not want universal health care?

[canetoad]

Lots of countries have implemented it sucessfully, without huge job loss in the insurance sector. The tentacles of insurance companies can be found in all financial dealings.

Is it time to investigate the links of those politicians who actively reject single payer?

[rucky]

1. Then they won't feel like they're more worthy as human beings.

someone has to suffer, ya know.

[Mika]

100. Cubans in Cuba don't want world class universal health care nor universal higher education.

Castro forces it on them.

:sarcasm:

[stray cat]

2. Wouldn't it depend just a little bit on the plan?

[canetoad]

I think the plan

with a few variations is essentially the same in all the countries that have health care. Taxpayers pay a % levy. Not negotiable. This funds the health care system.

[stray cat]

43. but what gets cared for and what doesn't changes from country to country

health care by necessity is rationed in some way in all countries. You have to choose what you will treat and what you won't.

[bvar22]

57. None of them would give up their system....

...for the one we currently have in the US.
Not even close.

Many Seniors here complain about Medicare, but just try to take it away from them.

Private For Profit Health Insurance will still be available in the US, even under a single payer system. If you wish to pay for extra benefits, you will be just as free to do so as you are today.

[sfpcjock]

63. By rationing you are saying?

In Canada you would have to wait for a hip replacement but not for essential treatments. My friend just died at 27 years old because our "health care" insurance companies would only sell him a catastrophic policy that did not cover essential medicine and treatment:

MichaelWieser.blogspot.com

RIP friend

[Number23]

72. Your friend was absolutely gorgeous

[canetoad]

66. True

there will be a list of essential and non-essential items, such as some plastic surgery, certain drugs. Once decided, the door is open to non-system insurers to cover the extras and non-essential stuff.

[Warren Stupidity]

80. Well yes, but in a democracy we get to decide what the plan is.

Of course that begs the question "are we actually a functional democracy"?

[tsuki]

3. Other countries do not pay William McGuire-esk CEO salaries of

1.7 Billion dollars. Their CEOs have to live on less.

[Metta]

4. Because they're puppets of immoral, greedy, narrow minded, cold hearted industries.

Other than that, got me. Oh, they could be phony, hypocritical Christians.

[theoldman]

5. Lots of people do not want Universal Health Care.

This includes people working for insurance companies and the stock holders.

[Cleita]

11. Don't forget Congress and a bevy of Washington lobbyists.

They still don't constitute a majority. 60 to 70 percent of Americans want single payer depending on which poll you read. They are all in the majority.

[Selatius]

14. They are against it until they themselves are saddled with crippling medical debt.

Then they, too, want someone to help them out. Their stupidity or perhaps greed blinds them to this fact.

[canetoad]

21. So, do you think

it is an idealogical opposition? That a national health service is somehow the road to communism?

[Cleita]

25. They frame it that way so that you will be afraid, very afraid.

The fact is that socialism is practiced in this country with our Medicare and Social Security programs and they work very well when the corporate bailouters and military/industrial complexes aren't raiding them for cash. I challenge any Senator or Congressman who thinks this way to introduce bills into Congress to eliminate Social Security and Medicare altogether; to put their money where their mouths are. You will hear crickets because none of them is stupid enough to shoot themselves in the foot this way.

[eridani]

78. "Socialism" according to repukes and conservatives =

any public good at all. Spending on public goods does not imply public ownership of every single means of production.

[Selatius]

34. The short answer is most of them don't think beyond the six or seven figure income.

For them, it's a matter of numbers. If the federal government enacted single-payer within the next decade, they wouldn't be able to roll in those checks anymore. The communism argument is an old canard meant to scare gullible voters into opposing what would materially benefit them. Most of them know it's a crap argument, which is why they wouldn't be above asking someone else for help when they themselves are in trouble with no safety buffer like health insurance. However, I wouldn't be surprised if there were people in the industry who really did believe in the "road to communism" argument. That thought alone is almost scarier than pure self-interested greed.

[CTyankee]

56. A significant portion of the American people are too young to know anything about

communism. It isn't the bugaboo it was when I was growing up.

Now they have this mythical argument of "rationed" health care and they rail about western European countries. The fact is that nobody but the raving rwing loonies believe that about Europeans. Some people in this country actually have travelled there but in any case they don't see our borders overrun with Swedes, French and Italians.

[PassingFair]

67. Worse! The HORRORS of ....

Socialism!!!1

:scared:

[roody]

107. I'm going to be needing some communism.

I don't have kids and will be elderly in one decade. I will need some quality elder care. I better emigrate soon to a country that cares for its people.

[annabanana]

85. You mean EXCLUSIVELY

"people working for insurance companies and the stock holders"

[lostnotforgotten]

6. Greedy Multinationals That Rake In Billions In Premiums While Being Allowed To Deny Claims

As a business model, it represents government sanctioned and guaranteed profits.

Businesses that don't have to work very hard to make and maintain profits like to keep things that way.

[JVS]

7. Because they are cruel, stupid, and greedy.

[Cleita]

8. Politicians claim that people want their own insurance. I have heard the same

excuse from Debbie Stabenow, Tom Daschle and Barack Obama among the Baucus caucus for making universal health care mandatory by forcing people to buy health insurance or if they are dirt poor, the government will buy it for them. This plan has been tried in other states like Massachusetts, Tennessee and Oregon. It has proved to be costly to the states, many people are still not covered and the insurance companies can dictate the terms. Most middle class are underinsured. It's just like now, except that the insurers now have a new sugar daddy, the government, just like big PhRMA got with the Medicare part D prescription drug benefit for seniors. I still even today am deciding whether to buy a prescription I need or go to the store to get food I need until my next SS check and I also have a job.

My opinion is that government employees like our Congress people get a gold plated type of insurance that actually pays for everything. Who do you think paid for Strom Thurmond to live in a hospital in his last term? They don't want to give it up and share a waiting room with the rest of us on an equal level. This is why single payer is off the table. It's not the majority of Americans who want to choose their own health plan, it's them and they are a minority. Very conservative polls have shown that 60% of Americans want single payer and many other polls as high as 70%. There is a place for private insurance in a single payer system, however, details cannot be worked out if the single payer advocates are shut out of the system.

As far as investigating the politicians, Ed Schultz, on his show the other day, detailed the amount of money Senator Baucus has received from the health insurance industry, for profit HMOs and especially big PhRMA. That's why they won't budge.

[canetoad]

24. I am so sorry

that you are forced to choose between food and medication. That is barbaric.

It is correct that there is room for private insurance under a national system, and that should be enough to pacify those who don't want to mix with the proles in hospital. Sort of nixes that argument.

[annabanana]

87. +1

[enlightenment]

9. There are plenty of people in the US, even some here on DU,

that have bought the 'health care will be rationed' canard hook, line, and sinker. They don't seem to understand that health care is always rationed, regardless of the system in place.

[canetoad]

27. Exactly

and those people are free to PM me with any question they like about living under a national health care system. Ours isn't perfect, and I ain't rich, but there is not a worry in the world about being able to afford a doctor or drugs.

[TheBigotBasher]

110. I will add my voice and views to that.

In the UK, not one Party would suggest cutting the NHS budget. We actually do have a good system. Private treatment is available if you want it. There is rationing, but except for Wales, who run a slightly different priority system due to Government devolution, I bet for most operations, they can be achieved quicker on the NHS than on most standard health care insurances in the US.

http://www.nhs.uk/Pages/HomePage.aspx

[aquart]

10. People are afraid they'll lose the doctors they like and freedom of choice.

They don't really understand what it means.

[Cleita]

16. Like the HMOs PPDs and other insurers allow that. What they don't mention

is that most doctors on their list of choices have long ago stopped taking patients from those insurers and are demanding cash. Sure, they will submit the insurance form for you, but you pay up front. You are lucky to get reimbursed for anything, because of the high deductibles and when you do it's often less than half. Seldom do you get reimbursed for the full 80% they are supposed to reimburse you for.

[sandyd921]

23. Yes, it's people who have bought into the lies.

And the problem is that a large chunk of the population is misinformed about single payer. I just talked to a fellow faculty member yesterday (an intelligent person with a doctorate) who stated several of the myths about single payer. She said she is afraid that bureaucrats would make health decisions for her. When I said the bureaucrats are already making decisions about her health care (i.e., the health insurance company) she was not sure what to say. It turned out that she hadn't really looked into the issue, she was just repeating something she's heard somewhere.

[canetoad]

32. The banker always holds the upper hand

Insurance in essence is gambling. Your stake is your premium. The insurer has the odds worked out against the event happening.

Tell your colleague that at the moment some big old hustler is in charge of her health care.

[cascadiance]

35. Like PPO's even guarantee "choice" these days? HAH!

So many of the doctors these days only are not included in many of these "PPO" plans that are supposed to provide you choice.

Yeah, you can choose another physician of your choice in many instances. But you'll wind up paying more if they don't participate in your insurance's medical group, etc. And these keep changing all of the time too. You might have a physician that is in your employer's plan, but right after you have your "open enrollment" period where you can switch plans, that physician stops working with your insurance company and you're trapped. And even if you have an open enrollment period, your employer might not be providing a plan that will work with your physician.

Choice of physicians are also an illusion that is false.

[eridani]

79. It is fhe fawking PRIVATE INSURERS who strip us of choice

--with their fawking preferred providers lists. I'm going to lose my doctor of 25 years next year because of that. My husband gets to keep our doctor because he is old enough for Medicare.

"Choice" of various insurance schemes are as stupid and useless as having choices about what size electrical outlets and plugs are going to be. Because there is no choice at that level, consumers have far more choices in appliances.

[Lex]

12. Some people would rather do without themselves rather than have someone else benefit

that they don't think deserves it. That's what it boils down to I think.

[annabanana]

89. There is nothing you can do about people like that. It requires years

of therapy.

[GKirk]

13. I might be an example of one

who is not in favor of it.

I'm a small business owner, by small I mean less than 10 employees. If I were required
to pay anything but a small portion of their coverage it would eat up my entire profit
margin and put me out of business.

[canetoad]

37. That would not be valid

under a levy on the taxpayers. Your employees would be paying for their own health insurance.

[Doremus]

38. Do you provide any health insurance now?

One of the main reasons to reform the healthcare system is that our current system depends on businesses to provide it for their employees. Lose your job, lose your coverage. Companies have a harder time competing globally because their foreign competitors don't have the huge expenses.

I think you might possibly be better off with a single-pay system than you are now. Just guessing though.

[canetoad]

40. I work for a small company

5 people. My boss pays exactly the same percentage for health cover as I do. I don't see how this can disadvantage a small business.

[GKirk]

47. I don't supply it for them or

for myself.

[Doremus]

64. I know how expensive it is .... we have a small biz and self-pay.

Ours is $1000/mo. for the 2 of us. We don't have any employees. Policies for young, healthy people aren't as high. We pay $175/mo. for our 18yo daughter.

Anyway, of the various plans being talked about, I'd have to believe that single-payer would be most small-biz-friendly. Certainly moreso than the mandatory employer-provided scheme that's currently a favorite of the corporatists that masquerade as congresscritters.

[yodoobo]

97. Then you should be out of business

And business's that do provide healthcare will pick up the slack.

Healthcare is a civil right and any business that refuses to provide it in the name of profit shouldn't be allowed to operate.

[Maru Kitteh]

99. That's a shortsighted and poorly thought out thing to say. The poster can't even afford insurance

for THEMSELVES.

Your high-horse position puts those 10 people in the company plus the owner not only without health-insurance, as they are now, but now UNEMPLOYED as well.

Fucking brilliant.

[yodoobo]

105. Its harsh I know

But it isn't personal at all. I don't know the original poster and I hope that he can turn his business around enough that he can fulfill his responsibilities.

Here's the thing: any business that cannot provide for their employees basic necessities is only taking away business from companies that DO provide for employees basic necessities.

If this business were to close its doors, its customers would go to other business that do provide these necessities. Because business would pick up, they would have to then hire more people, possibly including those who worked at the former non-health care providing company.

Net result is more people covered by insurance and same number of people employed.

[Warren Stupidity]

106. Another reason why universal health care is essential: Free Riders.

Whatever tax structure is put in place will level the playing field for businesses. The cost of doing business will then include the cost of the employer's share of healthcare coverage. Nobody will be able to get a competitive advantage by not providing coverage (and thereby getting a free ride at everyone else's expense) and nobody will be at a disadvantage for doing so. The OP's complaint is interesting in that it points out (unintentionally) how this helps all businesses and all workers.

[sandyd921]

39. Here's what Physicians for a National Health Program say

about small business and single payer:

Isn’t a payroll tax unfair to small businesses?

The payroll tax means a cost increase for businesses that are not currently insuring their workers. However, it is much less than they would pay at present for adequate coverage for themselves and their workers. For most small (and large) businesses already providing coverage, the payroll tax will mean substantial savings.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#payroll

If anything, single payer would be a real boon to the economy in that it will free up the large amounts of money that many business are paying in premiums to the insurance industry and allow them to be competitive with business in other countries that do not have this burden. This can only benefit all businesses in the US.

You also have to keep in mind that the premiums being paid now are greatly inflated by the high overhead of the insurance industry (i.e., paying for advertising, multi-million dollar CEO salaries, lavish executive suites, etc.). The administrative costs of government programs like Medicare, for example, are around 3% while those of for-profit insurance companies are in the range of 20-30%. What you as a small business owner will get with single payer is the opportunity for you and your employees to have comprehensive health care at a much lower cost than you can now. And if you are not paying for health insurance now because of the costs of private policies you will now be able to do so at a very reasonable cost.

What is there to be afraid of?

Educate yourself here:

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_resources.php

[nichomachus]

41. No, you've bought into the lie

Under a single-payer system -- employers don't pay anything for their employees' health care. That's the beauty of it -- and that's why some larger corporations are starting to come around.

[GKirk]

50. I've certainly heard of

health care solutions that require the employer to pay for everyone's health care insurance.
Not the same thing?

[nichomachus]

58. That's not a solution

People talk all sorts of unacceptable things that they call "solutions" -- like requiring everyone to buy insurance from private companies. They're all bullshit. I'd oppose any solution that required employers to pay for employees' insurance because that's what we're trying to get away from.

Also, it ties your health care to your job -- which is unacceptable.

We need universal, single-payer health care that works like Medicare.

I can tell you for sure that your company isn't going to be helped at all by a workforce that doesn't have access to adequate health care. And, your business is going to suffer if your customers are paying through the nose for health care, because that's money they're not going to spend with you.

[Warren Stupidity]

83. No not the same thing.

First - we are talking about medicare for everyone, not buying a Blue Cross HMO plan for your employees. The cost structures are vastly different, as has been discussed elsewhere. And the funding would likely be payroll tax based, like social security is, with the costs shared between employer and employee.

[Warren Stupidity]

82. That might not be accurate.

Funding a universal single payer system would use something like our existing payroll tax system - the one that pays for social security and medicare, and would quite likely include an employer portion and an employee portion to fund medicare for everyone. There is nothing wrong with that, and as every business large and small would have the same cost here - nobody would be put out of business from domestic competition due to the costs of funding single payer.

[mwooldri]

112. Not true for UK's system

Both employers and employees have to make National Insurance (NI) contribtions. NI pays for the National Health Service as well as other things. Self employed people have to pay higher NI contributions because there's no employer paying for them.

However having said that the USA should have a UK-like NHS system in place as a basic minimum of health coverage with private insurance offering top-ups. Figures speak for themselves: UK government spends $2,500 on healthcare per individual each year. The USA spends $8,600 on healthcare per individual per year for those in Medicare (not counting Medicaid).

[hunter]

52. You'd be better able to compete with big business.

You'd have a much greater pool of potential employees to draw from, and they would stick around longer because big employers wouldn't be able to lure them away with promises of health insurance. More people would choose to work for small businesses, and they never get "stuck" working for bigger business for fear of losing their health insurance.

With single payer It's also likely the cost of other sorts of business insurance would be reduced.

Think of it this way -- every employee would come with their own health insurance and you as an employer would never have to worry about that crap unless you wanted to provide some sort of supplemental coverage.

[demodonkey]

95. Here are at least SIX ways you would SAVE under Single-Payer:

Under Single-Payer you would pay a flat, upfront "wellness tax" on your employees, possibly something like 10% of payroll. Before you say "oooooo, I can't afford that" consider these ways you will save:

1) Your other costs of doing business would drop because your suppliers would have their expenses drop, and their suppliers would have THEIRS drop, etc. down the line because they would pay less for their employee healthcare, other insurance, and taxes. (see the following.)

2) You would no longer have to pay workers compensation insurance, because workplace injuries would be covered under the single-payer plan.

3) Your other insurance costs would go down, because injury would be covered under the single-payer plan and your liability would decrease.

4) Your other taxes would go down because the city, county, state, etc. would get savings on what they pay for their employees health insurance and workers comp. These savings are substantial. I did some research in my county and my county would save about half -- my county government alone would see almost $8 million in savings, and my local government about $2 million.

5) You would have a more productive workforce because they wouldn't be under the stress most Americans face daily of worrying about their health and healthcare costs. You wouldn't face having a good employee hired away by a company that DOES provide full coverage when YOU don't. (everyone would be covered no matter where they work)

6) Your own personal expenses would go down in terms of your own healthcare costs, your personal taxes, and other costs that have the high price of covering health insurance to workers factored in now. Plus YOU wouldn't have the stress of worrying.

Single-payer healthcare for ALL. We can't afford NOT to do this.

[TahitiNut]

15. FUD ... Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt

Exacerbated by the mongers of terror, misinformation, and slander.

[hfojvt]

17. any number of reasons

1. they buy into the propaganda that it would lead to shortages of service
2. they are worried they might not be able to choose their own doctor
3. they see it as another hand-out to people who will not work for it
4. they don't want to pay even more for such hand-outs
5. they think it will be full of fraud and waste like every other government program
6. they already have coverage, are satisfied with the current system and feel that change would not benefit them
7. they think that it is socialism and socialism, by definition does not work, it takes away freedom, reduces incentive and reduces efficiency


some of that is redundant and there are probably more

[ctaylors6]

59. I think it's combo of #5 and #6, at least for my republican relatives

most of my extended family are republicans. We've discussed health care many, many times (picture my head hitting a brick wall). The main objection they have is that they feel the federal government is huge and unwieldy and doesn't do anything effectively or efficiently. They think the federal government would completely screw up single payer health care, and that over time it would become more expensive and offer less benefits. One even said the only way he'd consider it is if the federal government outsourced it. LOL

I think their opinions are affected by the fact they have generally good health care coverage through their jobs or retirement plans. Only one has complained about health insurance over the years, because she changed jobs a number of times so her coverage has been sporadic.

I've never heard them say they don't think currently uninsured people shouldn't have coverage (really!! they're not evil, just tragically misguided), especially children. I honestly think, as backwards as it seems, that they'd be happier having the government pay for someone uninsured to have insurance than have single payer.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

18. Because they believe everything the right-wing media tell them

1. That you can't get immediate appointments.

2. That you can't choose your own doctor.

3. That you may not be able to get an MRI for a hangnail

4. That all universal health care systems are the same (For example, I've seen the Canadian system criticized because of problems with Britain's National Health Service, even though the systems are completely different. In short, Canadian doctors are independent practitioners who get "insurance" payments from the government, while British doctors are government employees who are paid a salary.)

[Lint Head]

19. It's nothing more than greed that is preventing the right to health care

to happen. Making money off of death has been very lucrative for insurance companies. They don't cover people that are diagnosed with
fatal illness's such as heart disease, cancer, diabetes, kidney disease etc. They cover people that can work and pay money to them as long as they are healthy.
:dem:

[bemildred]

20. Do drug cartels want legalization?

Do "financial management firms" want securities regulation?
Do oil companies want renewable energy?

[kestrel91316]

22. People don't want the "unworthy" to have medical care. They believe,

like the Calvinists did, that not having lots of money was a sign that you were not in God's favor, and deserved to be poor and suffer accordingly.

[Number23]

49. I think that there is so much truth to what you're saying

And those who think that way are abominations.

[PDJane]

26. What everyone seems to be missing in this argument

is that the cost of universal health care is shared, and it comes from taxes. If you have a system of taxes that puts most of the weight on those who can pay it, it's not going to hit you very heavily. If the taxes cut somewhat into your profit margin, I would point out that the benefits received would likely outweigh the cost of taxes in the case of most small businesses.

Moreover, if the country spent what it now pays insurers and for profit hospitals, there would be enough money to pay for not only universal medicare, but eyecare, dental and prescription care. You are spending 2.8 trillion dollars every year on health care, one third of which is spent to get someone else to pay for it. That expense is halved by single payer health care.

Doctors don't need the horrendous malpractice insurance, either. Why? Because the whole reason for those huge malpractice awards is that after a medical mistake, the patient cannot get insurance; those awards are meant to pay for the ongoing medical care of the patient for life.

There are many, many reasons for universal health care; the main reasons are that people deserve it. You shouldn't have to choose between food and shelter and a doctor for you or your child. Period.

[Lex]

33. Agreed!

:thumbsup:

[donco6]

102. Yes.

Eliminate all the litigation between those wanting care but can't get insurance to pay, those who received shoddy care and need to have coverage, those denied coverage because the insurance can't make enough profit . . . etc. etc. - that alone would save hundreds of millions. Then add in the sharing of the risk and the wealth and the cost, reducing bureaucracy through single payer, it all adds up. I think the overall cost would be LOWER, and doctor pay would stay the same.

[LBJDemocrat]

28. Because government spending is immoral

...unless said spending is for banks or defense firms. In short, government spending is immoral unless it enriches the privileged and has little chance of benefiting anyone else.

[krispos42]

30. Government spending is immoral unless it's on doing immoral things

Then the whole double-negative thing kicks in and all of a sudden it's what Jesus would do!!!!! :crazy:

[krispos42]

29. Because they think the insurance companies cure them, not the doctors

The insurance companies get a bill, and pay it. It's basic accounting that was being done in ancient Sumer 4,500 years ago with a clay tablet and an abacus.


It's something that hardworking government bureaucrats can and will do well for a modest salary and decent benefits, and with little overhead.


By putting EVERYBODY in the insurance pool from birth until death and charging a flat percentage of income, there's no need to do all the data-processing that insurance companies do to calculate rates. That kind of data-crunching is hard work, and done properly in a market economy can result in profits for companies. And all the signs of a profitable business... bonuses, high executive pay, dividends, etc.

By removing the data-crunching part of the job, it becomes simply an exercise in accounting. Something safe and boring.


The Secretary of Health and Human Services makes about $170,000 a year, with no stock options, no dividends, and only small (as a percentage) bonuses.


However, this is AN EXPANSION OF GOVERNMENT, and therefore inheirently a bad thing. You see, it's okay if a private, for-profit corporation has bureaucrats that ration health care and it's providers, but not for a a government agency. 'Cuz you don't have a choice in who processes the bills, you see.


To me, it's like saying that a person in jail is still free because he can pick the color of his cell, and change it any time he wants to. He's FREE!!! He's FREE!!! :eyes:



And the pro-corporate people want it because a)insurance corporations are HUGE and flush with cash, and b) making health insurance tied to employment weakens labor and strengthens corporations.

[cascadiance]

31. Because some of them are health insurance sales critters...

And are SELFISH!

[Gidney N Cloyd]

36. Because 'some' people get campaign contributions from health insurers.

[jtrockville]

42. Some people are willing to pay more... as much as 2x more....

because they don't want ONE THIN DIME of their $$$ going towards helping someone less fortunate than themselves.

[rhett o rick]

44. The ruling class does not want the working and poor class to have anything.

We are much better servants when poor and starving.

[GeorgeGist]

45. One-way socialists want to do it their way ...

thats why.

[nichomachus]

46. Let me give you a small example of why

Recently, there was a business news story about a pharmaceutical insurance administrative company that was sold for $4.6 billion. Now, this company doesn't do anything that directly affects you. It doesn't make drugs. It doesn't distribute drugs. It doesn't prescribe drugs. It doesn't even provide insurance. It is a mid-level administrative "provider" that shuffles papers between the administrative units of insurers and HMOS and and pharmacy corporations. In other words, it makes all its money from the multi-payer system -- just passing papers around -- and it's worth $4.6 billion. And this is only one such company.

If we have a single-payer system, there is no longer a need for this corporation and those like it. How much money do you think they will spend on lobbying and propaganda to make sure that the current system stays in place? No corporate entity is going to quietly give up tens of billions of dollars in revenue.

[stray cat]

48. Some countries do take better care of their citizens health care but 50% tax rates help cover it

If we want a better security net we have to be willing to all sacrifice to cover the expense - expecially to cover the expense for those in the lowest income brackets (and no that does not include the middle class or lower middle class)

[nichomachus]

61. You pay one way or the other

I moved from MA, which people sneered at as Taxachusetts and moved to NH which prides itself on no taxes. At the end of the year, my out-of-pocket expenses were higher in NH. In NH, you have to pay for fixing your own road, taking care of your own trash, plowing your own road, providing your own water, providing your own sewage system, etc, etc, etc. I turns out that those things are more efficient when done centrally, rather than letting every one fend for themselves.

And, for the record, there are only two countries that have a personal tax rate of more than 50%. And, there are countries with universal health care that pay less in taxes than the US. Actually, if we cut our Pentagon budget in half, we could do a lot for health care.

[TheBigotBasher]

108. Until the collapse of the financial Industry

The UK had a top rate of 40%. A 50% + tax rate is not necessary.

[moondust]

51. It would level the playing field between rich and poor.

Everybody is treated the same without regard for their financial situation. Some of those who would not like it are naturally those who have the money to buy "unequal/special" care under the current system of gross inequality.

Single payer works just fine for the military and the VA. I have experience with both as well as private insurance.

[walldude]

53. I have seen more than one neo-con say that health care is a privilege

not a right. Basically they are just assholes.

[CTyankee]

65. Give up on the "right" vs. "privilege" argument. It never works for us. Instead,

talk about why Western European democracies have single payer. They know that their strength as a nation is dependent on a healthy population. Tell them the story about how in the early days of WW 2 doctors examining potential inductees into the Armed Services found a significant number of young men were malnourished and had to be exempt from military service. THAT was the reason we started the school lunch program for poor kids. Of course, it wasn't for the right reasons but it does get to the issue of national security, doesn't it?

[left is right]

68. this is certainly true

my dad was a flight engineer in the Navy during WWII. He said that flight crews were given extra rations of proteins as a remedy for their poor nutritional levels. Evidently, the Navy was unwilling to trust their expensive planes to malnourished flight crews.

[The Gunslinger]

54. Cause it's socialism

And socialism is bad for Murika. That's what Rush and the rest of the MSM tells the folks.

[liberal N proud]

55. Only those who have been convinced that it is socialism

The same group has been convinced that socialism = communism

[Indy Lurker]

60. According to my greedy neighbor down the street

He believes it will cost more and he will get less.

Right now he pays $1,500 a year out of pocket max, and always finds a way to get at least 10k of "treatment" even though he is generally healthy. He always get's a full body cat scan under some pretext, and this year went to a sports medicine doctor for physical therapy, because he thinks it will improve his golf game. His sister is an out of state nurse, who tells him the proper complaints to get what he wants.

He makes good money, so his cost would most likely go up.

[Doctor_J]

62. The government (meaning Big Business and their button men in DC) want you to FEAR

that's how they keep us in line

[progressoid]

69. Why? Anyone making millions in the insurance industry wouldn't want it. eom

[Wednesdays]

70. K&R

:kick:

[NewJeffCT]

71. They've been brainwashed over the last 60 years to think it is bad

You will have rationed health care, people will die waiting in line for an operation, takes 3 years to get a hip replacement, etc. If Canada was so good, why do so many Canadians come here for health care?

If you listen to what people against single-payer, it's almost always those sorts of things.

[Mariana]

74. As if "rationing" doesn't go on now.

Only now it's "rationed" by ability to pay. Plenty of people "ration" themselves right into death or permanent damage because they can't afford to get care in a timely manner!

[NewJeffCT]

76. That's not the only rationing

People who have high deductible plans and not a lot of money have to weigh going to the doctor & paying out of pocket, or sucking it up and waiting until the problem really gets serious & you need to go the emergency room.

[mwooldri]

113. Rationed health care under single payer happens when it's not funded properly.

Underfunding of the NHS in the UK resulted in longer wait times for operations.

No system is perfect. I personally believe a good solid basic universal or single payer system that's free at the point of delivery is the way forward with the private sector available to top up for what the public system doesn't supply, such as cosmetic surgery or hurrying up the procedure for an elective procedure. There is always a price to be paid - if you have the money you can pay to have your elective procedure right away, or if you don't you can pay by waiting some time, though 3 years is way too excessive - I'd cap the wait time at 6 months.

[Mariana]

73. My parents believe that old and disabled people will be left to die

because it will cost too much to care for them. They are honestly afraid that this will happen to them.

When I asked them if that has been their experience using Medicare (and I know it has NOT, the exact opposite is true), they argued that universal coverage would be totally different than Medicare. Talk about brainwashed.

[demodonkey]

96. Tell them that what we want is expanded and improved MEDICARE FOR ALL.

Almost any senior can understand that; one would hope at least.

[Karenina]

75. WHY? Amis sind TOTAL verdummert gewesen. Leider.

[subterranean]

77. Some people believe they have EARNED their health insurance.

They say they worked hard to get their health insurance, and they don't think they should have to pay for someone else's insurance too. They think they SHOULD have better health care than someone who is less successful.

[Catherine Vincent]

81. From what I hear.... physicians

Most strongly fear it. My niece, who is a PA, works for one and the doc was depressed and upset when Obama won because she thinks universal health care will arrive with his admin.

[Warren Stupidity]

86. I don't think that is generally true.

WASHINGTON, March 31 (Reuters) - More than half of U.S. doctors now favor switching to a national health care plan and fewer than a third oppose the idea, according to a survey published on Monday.

The survey suggests that opinions have changed substantially since the last survey in 2002 and as the country debates serious changes to the health care system.

Of more than 2,000 doctors surveyed, 59 percent said they support legislation to establish a national health insurance program, while 32 percent said they opposed it, researchers reported in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine.

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN31432035

[Catherine Vincent]

92. Thanks for the link!

[SmileyRose]

90. Oddly - every, I mean EVERY doctor I've talked to is all for it.

My husband has been gravely ill since August and EVERY SINGLE medical professional I've talked about this to since then is STRONGLY for universal single payer as long as it's done right. And yes, I am stunned that out of the 30 or so doctors I have dealt with in the last 10 months not even one was ambivalent, let alone against it.

[Catherine Vincent]

94. That's good to hear

Maybe the docs I'm hearing are repigs and won't go for universal health care regardless. Or they think it may cut into their pocket book.

[Raksha]

103. I imagine the doctors are more fed up with the insurance industry than anyone.

They are sick of dealing with all the red tape, and sick of being told how to practice medicine. As it stands now, treatment is determined by what the insurance company will cover, not what the patient actually needs. How any doctor with a shred of basic ethics could tolerate that is beyond me.

[Balbus]

84. Because they don't trust the government?

I don't. I won't and never will... Does that mean I trust insurance companies over the government? Abso-fucking-lutely.

[Warren Stupidity]

88. you trust for profit insurance companies over the government?

why?

[SmileyRose]

91. Your government ALREADY makes your medical care choices.

Some government somewhere (usually states) decides what private insurance choices are available to you and what they are forced to or outlawed from covering.

In addition you have government deciding what medications are legal in the US.

In addition you have government deciding what treatments are legal in the US.

In addition you have government deciding what doctors and hospitals are allowed to provide services.

In addition you have government deciding what Medicare will cover and how much will be paid for it - and I can promise you that every single solitary medical insurer in this country uses that standard for what they will cover and how much they will pay for it.

You are lying to yourself if you think it's just between you and your doctor.

[donco6]

101. From someone who has worked for both . . .

Your trust is extraordinarily misplaced.

[solinvictus]

93. Because..

Would you want your health care system run with the same efficiency as the average department of motor vehicles? That's why.

[Warren Stupidity]

104. That is such a wrong answer that I think you win the prize.

Single payer replaces the INSURANCE COMPANIES with a government agency that TRANSFERS PAYMENTS from the government to HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS. This agency already exists and handles this ACCOUNTING OPERATION at approximately 1/10 the cost that FOR PROFIT INSURANCE COMPANIES do the same job. What the government would do here is collect revenue, set standards for procedure costs, negotiate decent prices for prescription drugs, and make payments for services to HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS.

Single payer does NOT replace the health care system with a government agency. Where did you get that idea from? The 20th hijacker?

p.s. my department of motor vehicles is very efficient and generally a pleasure to deal with, which dealings generally take place online at my convenience.

[Maru Kitteh]

98. It robs them of an opportunity to feel superior? Cold, tny hearts? I don't know really.

Makes no sense to me.

[SUMMERTREE2]

109. When their job depends on it

It's not only the people who work for insurance companies that would be out looking for work but physicians employ a lot of people who try to convince insurance companies to pay up. This is one of the largest private jobs programs that has ever been created.

[ecstatic]

111. My sister had a baby 4 months ago using Medicaid

insurance. I was there with her in the hospital for two days, and let me just say, I was disgusted by what I saw. Countless doctors in and out the room, nobody bothered to introduce him/herself. Countless interns doing one thing or another in the room. There was no clear idea of who was in charge. I don't know if a universal plan would be sort of like what I witnessed for the Medicaid plan, but if it is, I think I'd want to pass. I know it's free, but free isn't everything.

[mwooldri]

114. Sounds like a crappy hospital to me more than Medicaid.

My sister in law delivered two children under Medicaid and it was nothing like you described above. She knew who was going to deliver and met with him beforehand.

In the UK you're more likely to be tended to by a midwife than an OB-GYN though if OB-GYN delivery is preferred that option is available. Home births are encouraged, as are water births.

[desk]

115. Why am I against it?

Becuase there is nothing in the US Constitution that allows the government to provide health care coverage or any other entitlements.

[neverforget]

116. "provide for the general welfare" bit in the Preamble

And here's a link for you to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.preamble.html

The Constitution of the United States of America

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

We provide for the common defense, why not the general welfare?

[desk]

117. Not quite

The rest of the Constitution goes on to provide for how the parts of the Preamble are to be accomplished and entitlements are absent.

[neverforget]

118. You're right, The Constitution also doesn't mention anything about the Marines

or the Air Force. So does that mean that they aren't allowed? And according to Article II Section 2, it implies that we shouldn't have a standing army.

Article II Section 2 states: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

If you want to quibble, I can play that game too. Welcome to DU. Enjoy your stay. :hi: