30 May 11
Here's some news I haven't seen any discussion about.
This month Vermont made its first step toward implementing a single-payer health care system. Apparently, the system in question isn't as progressive as other industrialized countries' systems, per se, but certainly it distinguishes itself from the individual mandate system enacted federally.
I guess the real question is, if the system works by increasing coverage while decreasing costs, will 1) other states follow suit, or will 2) Congress follow suit nationally?
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/05/vermont-single-payer-health-care#disqus_thread
30 May 11
Originally posted by willy wonkaFor the immediate and mid-term future:
Here's some news I haven't seen any discussion about.
This month Vermont made its first step toward implementing a single-payer health care system. Apparently, the system in question isn't as progressive as other industrialized countries' systems, per se, but certainly it distinguishes itself from the individual mandate system enacted federally.
I ...[text shortened]... y?
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/05/vermont-single-payer-health-care#disqus_thread
No.
No.
30 May 11
Originally posted by wittywonkaPeople already know single payer is more efficient. If that was a good reason to implement single payer health care, they would have done it already.
Here's some news I haven't seen any discussion about.
This month Vermont made its first step toward implementing a single-payer health care system. Apparently, the system in question isn't as progressive as other industrialized countries' systems, per se, but certainly it distinguishes itself from the individual mandate system enacted federally.
I ...[text shortened]... y?
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/05/vermont-single-payer-health-care#disqus_thread
30 May 11
Originally posted by willy wonkaMaybe 20 years or so. We'll have to realize that we can't keep spending huge amounts on military domination of the planet and that our tax policies have been wrongheaded for 30 years at least. Then perhaps we can get around to providing levels of public service commensurate with what most of the Western world has for 50 or so years.
So how long do you reckon it'll take before we swallow our pride?
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 201753
30 May 11
Originally posted by wittywonkaNot for a long time.
Here's some news I haven't seen any discussion about.
This month Vermont made its first step toward implementing a single-payer health care system. Apparently, the system in question isn't as progressive as other industrialized countries' systems, per se, but certainly it distinguishes itself from the individual mandate system enacted federally.
I ...[text shortened]... y?
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/05/vermont-single-payer-health-care#disqus_thread
Of course, we already have a single payer system federally. It's called Medicare. If we could only universalize it. But not while the fringe rules the Republican Party and we have insurance company owned pols like Joe Lieberman in the opposing party.
30 May 11
Originally posted by wittywonkaWell, good luck.
Here's some news I haven't seen any discussion about.
This month Vermont made its first step toward implementing a single-payer health care system. Apparently, the system in question isn't as progressive as other industrialized countries' systems, per se, but certainly it distinguishes itself from the individual mandate system enacted federally.
I ...[text shortened]... y?
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/05/vermont-single-payer-health-care#disqus_thread
Let's see how it works. It's nice of the Green Mountaineers to try the experiment.
Then again, if they really need an MRI in less than 7 months, they can always cross into NH or NY, so it's not that much of a risk after all.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/new-health/health-news/canadas-costly-spine-surgeon-backlog/article2020599/
31 May 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraPeople who really know, and the evidence piles up daily, that single payer is not either fair or efficient. There are as many or more persons denied service or delayed until they die, as there were previously uninsured. Doctor and other provider shortages are everywhere.
People already know single payer is more efficient. If that was a good reason to implement single payer health care, they would have done it already.
Who is John Galt?
31 May 11
Originally posted by normbenignNo, no, government "good" private sector "bad".
People who really know, and the evidence piles up daily, that single payer is not either fair or efficient. There are as many or more persons denied service or delayed until they die, as there were previously uninsured. Doctor and other provider shortages are everywhere.
Who is John Galt?
Can I make it amy simpler for you to understand? 😛
31 May 11
Originally posted by sh76At least a State trying something may be rolled back when it is a failure. It certainly is more a State issue than federal due to the 10th amendment.
Well, good luck.
Let's see how it works. It's nice of the Green Mountaineers to try the experiment.
Then again, if they really need an MRI in less than 7 months, they can always cross into NH or NY, so it's not that much of a risk after all.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/new-health/health-news/canadas-costly-spine-surgeon-backlog/article2020599/
How long will Vermonters be as disallusioned as Baystaters are with RomneyCare?
31 May 11
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperThere will always be those who will argue that one person's need justifies taking another's productive work to pay for it. This argument is both immoral, and destructive of human will, and incentives. It destroys the productive and inventive and rewards sloth, irresponsibility, and pushes those in the middle toward the later.
The Republicans will always and forever rail hard against single payer, both for partisan reasons and because the health insurance industry has them by the balls. Them and some blue dog Democrats. I think it's a shame.
It matters not what commodity is being produced and distributed. Placing it out of the free market ends up harming those least able to afford it, by causing shortages, and increasing costs.
While Americans, even the poor, could pick up toilet paper in dozens of ranges of quality and price, those in the former Soviet Union had to wait in line for hours to receive the ration.
Anyone who believes that government force can produce more and better than voluntary trading is either deceived or morally bankrupt.
31 May 11
Originally posted by no1marauderTotally irrelevant.
Maybe 20 years or so. We'll have to realize that we can't keep spending huge amounts on military domination of the planet and that our tax policies have been wrongheaded for 30 years at least. Then perhaps we can get around to providing levels of public service commensurate with what most of the Western world has for 50 or so years.
Could it be that both unlimited military spending and notions of social utopias are equally wrongheaded?
One can't argue that one immorality or wasteful program makes another moral or just.
31 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenign"There will always be those who will argue that one person's need justifies taking another's productive work to pay for it. This argument is both immoral, and destructive of human will, and incentives."
There will always be those who will argue that one person's need justifies taking another's productive work to pay for it. This argument is both immoral, and destructive of human will, and incentives. It destroys the productive and inventive and rewards sloth, irresponsibility, and pushes those in the middle toward the later.
It matters not what comm ...[text shortened]... rce can produce more and better than voluntary trading is either deceived or morally bankrupt.
So then you're under the belief that someone who doesn't pay taxes (jobless, students, etc.) should not be allowed to utilize public roads, send their kids to public schools or dial 9-11?
" It destroys the productive and inventive and rewards sloth, irresponsibility, and pushes those in the middle toward the later."
So let me get this straight. You're saying people on Medicare and Medicaid are a bunch of irresonsible sloths? Wow.