Robo
Verified User
Unless it's a government administration, with the power to regulate. Then it becomes an authoritarian business making the laws for the business.
Some questions for our leftist friends at JPP.
- Thread starter Robo
- Start date
Unless it's a government administration, with the power to regulate. Then it becomes an authoritarian business making the laws for the business.
Robo
Verified User
And the leftist have done ------- for this country?
Robo
Verified User
Democrats say government is the answer to everything, then get elected and prove they're insanely wrong!
Robo
Verified User
Government streamlining of anything results in a stack of paperwork regulations six feet high! Remember Obamacare? congressional aids are still reading that stack.
Believing that our federal government taking over health insurance would not result in a mountain laws and regulations is either insanity or naivety on steroids. They will regulate even your ass boils. They'll tell you what doctor you can see, what treatment you can get, and when you have to die. You'll wait months to see a doctor and you'll have to go to Mexico for care to save your life. And if you believe for a New York minute that BIG Pharma and BIG insurance corps won't have their grubby paws in the government pot, think again!
You are certainly not. Off you go, back to the Reich and your trial at Nuremburg!
Robo
Verified User
I don’t have that problem. I’ve never had an issue with my insurer not paying anything.
If what you say is true about private insurers, I do believe you’re gonna be sadly disappointed with any Single Payer system. There’s gonna be more procedures you won’t qualify for and you’ll have fewer choices than you have now and the procedures you are allowed to get, you may die waiting for them.
Then of course you can provide us with the actual provable “SAVING” numbers that a federal government Single Payer bureaucracy system will cost and where the money will come from, right?
Trump's Right: The U.K.'s Health System Is Broke And Failing
censing
2/07/2018
Health Care: Amid the news crush of the week, it would have been easy to miss President Trump's tweet blasting Britain's National Health Service. As with everything else he does or says, Trump managed to get people riled up. This time, it was for telling the truth.
On Monday, Trump tweeted that "The Democrats are pushing for Universal HealthCare while thousands of people are marching in the UK because their UK system is going broke and not working. Dems want to greatly raise taxes for really bad and non-personal medical care. No thanks!"
The usual suspects expressed shock and horror that Trump would say such a thing, including outraged members of the British government, who said that the protesters love the NHS, they just want the government to spend more money on it.
The New York Times even devoted 1,000 words "fact-checking" Trump's 41-word tweet, but ended up admitting that in Britain, "patients often wait months, even for essential procedures" and that "some patients wait up to 12 hours in emergency wards before being seen." Isn't that what Trump was saying?
In any case, the problems at the NHS are far worse than the Times lets on.
Just a few months ago, in fact, the British Red Cross described conditions in U.K. hospitals as a "humanitarian crisis." The president of the Royal College of Medicine recently said the emergency care system was "on its knees."
MORE AT, https://www.investors.com/politics/...t-the-uks-health-system-is-broke-and-failing/
Robo
Verified User
This is what PoliTalker wants for America!
July 10, 2018
The U.K.’s government-run healthcare system, the National Health Service, turns 70 this month. There’s not much to celebrate.
The NHS is collapsing. Patients routinely face treatment delays, overcrowded hospitals, and doctor shortages. Even its most ardent defenders admit that the NHS is in crisis.
Yet American progressives want to import this disastrous model. About one in three Democratic senators and more than half of Democratic representatives support single-payer health care.
Why? The British experiment with socialized medicine has been a monumental failure. It would be foolish to repeat that mistake here.
Single-payer is fundamentally flawed. It relieves consumers of any obligation to pay for their care, at least directly. If the price of care is zero, then every patient can demand an infinite amount. The supply of care, meanwhile, is limited. And the amount of money the government can spend on health care is finite.
In a functional market, patients would demand care and providers would furnish it at mutually agreeable prices. If prices were too high, patients would demand less care, and marginal providers would exit the market. If prices were too low, patients would demand more care, and new providers would enter the market to supply it.
These basic market-clearing principles cannot operate in a single-payer system. Governments must forcibly cap demand at whatever level they’re willing to supply—that is, to pay for it.
The NHS experienced these problems from the start. In its first year, the service went well over its budget. Prime Minister Clement Attlee even begged citizens not to overuse health services. Staff shortages, caused in part by low pay, have plagued the system for decades. The NHS started recruiting doctors en masse from India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka in the 1960s to the issue.
http://fortune.com/2018/07/10/nhs-70-years-uk-britain-single-payer/address
July 10, 2018
The U.K.’s government-run healthcare system, the National Health Service, turns 70 this month. There’s not much to celebrate.
The NHS is collapsing. Patients routinely face treatment delays, overcrowded hospitals, and doctor shortages. Even its most ardent defenders admit that the NHS is in crisis.
Yet American progressives want to import this disastrous model. About one in three Democratic senators and more than half of Democratic representatives support single-payer health care.
Why? The British experiment with socialized medicine has been a monumental failure. It would be foolish to repeat that mistake here.
Single-payer is fundamentally flawed. It relieves consumers of any obligation to pay for their care, at least directly. If the price of care is zero, then every patient can demand an infinite amount. The supply of care, meanwhile, is limited. And the amount of money the government can spend on health care is finite.
In a functional market, patients would demand care and providers would furnish it at mutually agreeable prices. If prices were too high, patients would demand less care, and marginal providers would exit the market. If prices were too low, patients would demand more care, and new providers would enter the market to supply it.
These basic market-clearing principles cannot operate in a single-payer system. Governments must forcibly cap demand at whatever level they’re willing to supply—that is, to pay for it.
The NHS experienced these problems from the start. In its first year, the service went well over its budget. Prime Minister Clement Attlee even begged citizens not to overuse health services. Staff shortages, caused in part by low pay, have plagued the system for decades. The NHS started recruiting doctors en masse from India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka in the 1960s to the issue.
http://fortune.com/2018/07/10/nhs-70-years-uk-britain-single-payer/address
Last edited:
Robo
Verified User
Britain’s N.H.S. in Crisis: ‘We Might Break’
Jan. 16, 2018
LONDON — Britain’s National Health Service, put in place by the country’s post-World War II Labour government, holds a unique place in the country’s psyche as both source of constant frustration, object of affection and — somehow — a central pillar of arguments both to leave and remain in the European Union. In a country riven over Brexit, at least most people can agree on the importance of the N.H.S.
What its future should be is less clear.
The N.H.S. suffered from staff shortages and tight budgets long before Brexit, but in the year following the referendum almost 10,000 nurses quit. In November, Simon Stevens, the chief executive of the service in England, said that after seven years of budget constraints “the N.H.S. can no longer do everything that is being asked of it.”
Amid a flu outbreak, colder weather and the continuing shortages of beds and staff this winter, some hospitals declared “black alerts,” meaning they were unable to deliver comprehensive care. Nonurgent surgeries were postponed and patients waited more than 12 hours in emergency wards before being tended to — undergraduate medical students were reportedly asked to volunteer to ease some of the strain.
In early January, Prime Minister Theresa May was asked if the service was in crisis, and responded that it was better prepared for winter than “ever before.”
In interviews over the last few months, we asked N.H.S. staff to describe what it’s like to work for the service now, and what they hope and fear for its future.
2. According to the staff we spoke to, the N.H.S. has come to a decisive moment: Is there still the political will and public support for universal health care in Britain? Or is a privatized system, similar to the United States, its future?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/16/opinion/nhs-britain-crisis.html
Jan. 16, 2018
LONDON — Britain’s National Health Service, put in place by the country’s post-World War II Labour government, holds a unique place in the country’s psyche as both source of constant frustration, object of affection and — somehow — a central pillar of arguments both to leave and remain in the European Union. In a country riven over Brexit, at least most people can agree on the importance of the N.H.S.
What its future should be is less clear.
The N.H.S. suffered from staff shortages and tight budgets long before Brexit, but in the year following the referendum almost 10,000 nurses quit. In November, Simon Stevens, the chief executive of the service in England, said that after seven years of budget constraints “the N.H.S. can no longer do everything that is being asked of it.”
Amid a flu outbreak, colder weather and the continuing shortages of beds and staff this winter, some hospitals declared “black alerts,” meaning they were unable to deliver comprehensive care. Nonurgent surgeries were postponed and patients waited more than 12 hours in emergency wards before being tended to — undergraduate medical students were reportedly asked to volunteer to ease some of the strain.
In early January, Prime Minister Theresa May was asked if the service was in crisis, and responded that it was better prepared for winter than “ever before.”
In interviews over the last few months, we asked N.H.S. staff to describe what it’s like to work for the service now, and what they hope and fear for its future.
2. According to the staff we spoke to, the N.H.S. has come to a decisive moment: Is there still the political will and public support for universal health care in Britain? Or is a privatized system, similar to the United States, its future?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/16/opinion/nhs-britain-crisis.html
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Robo,
I just want proper medical care from a system designed to deliver that. The system we have now is not. It is designed to make money for the super-rich.
That would take an investigative journalist to produce that figure. I know there are darn few of those left, but it would be educational to learn how much is wasted by corporate bureaucrats.
That would be rare.
That's an EDITORIAL! The slant is OBVIOUS:
"These problems aren't the result of too little taxpayer money. They are the inevitable outcome of a government-run health care system." <-- NOT TRUE. Classic spin.
There are government run health care systems all over the world and they are doing just fine. The Brits don't want a system like the US. They are simply demanding much needed changes. That system has been in place since WWII. There is no movement to replace it with what we have. They like their universal healthcare. They simply want it to work better.
I just want proper medical care from a system designed to deliver that. The system we have now is not. It is designed to make money for the super-rich.
That would take an investigative journalist to produce that figure. I know there are darn few of those left, but it would be educational to learn how much is wasted by corporate bureaucrats.
That would be rare.
That's an EDITORIAL! The slant is OBVIOUS:
"These problems aren't the result of too little taxpayer money. They are the inevitable outcome of a government-run health care system." <-- NOT TRUE. Classic spin.
There are government run health care systems all over the world and they are doing just fine. The Brits don't want a system like the US. They are simply demanding much needed changes. That system has been in place since WWII. There is no movement to replace it with what we have. They like their universal healthcare. They simply want it to work better.
Robo
Verified User
Again, I’ll remind you that is an “insurance” flaw not a healthcare flaw. If you truly want to fix that, good luck! You’ll need to find a way to reform the bribed swamp rats and install moral standards in their corporate bosses. That might be accomplished with legislation, but, from other elected folks other than Democrats and Republicans.
Successful corporations don’t waste money, they use it to make them even more successful and that’s their duty to their investors. If you want to see real waste investigate the federal government.
Well you could always go to the UK and see for yourself and those other Single Payer countries you “investigated” when you were convinced that the WHO’s slant was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, huh?
And you know that because the WHO told you so, right? Or did you investigate the opposing views readily available on the net and just shun them all out of pure progressive ideological bias?
I’ll tell you friend, I’ve had 83 years of watching central governments around the world operate. And I’m totally convinced that central governments, especially in large countries are an abomination to humanity. They’re stupid, incompetent and always corrupt! There’s no greater saying than, “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely!” That friend is what our founders knew when they created our government experiment of checks and balances and three separate but equal branches of central government. To bad we’ve trashed our Constitution!
And you know what the Brits want because?
Yeah well! We want our private market healthcare insurance system to “just work better” too! Seems we have similar but different problems, huh?
Actually friend if you’ll bother to look around while leaving your progressive socialist biases on the sideline, you’ll find what I’ve found. The Single Payer systems that are somewhat successful around the globe are somewhat successful because, they’re mostly smaller more sparsely populated countries that pay next to nothing in a percentage of their GDP on their national defense compared to America, (they depend on America’s military to carry the major load for their national defense). Another thing they have in common is the fact that they operate a “Two Tiered” healthcare system, a Single Payer system, and a Private Market system. Their private market system subsidizes their single payer system, just the opposite of America where Medicare and Medicaid subsidize our private healthcare system.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Robo,
I don't ever expect the immoral to become moral due to legislation. The challenge is to find ways to minimize the devastation wracked by their immorality.
Total baloney. I know better. I worked for plenty of them. Every large organization wastes money whether it is public or private.
Success? The 911 attackers were successful in their goal. In the case of the health insurance industry success means they get as much of your money as possible while spending as little as possible providing you with health care. They will twist poke, and dig at the law until they find every possible way to extract your wealth. If the law doesn't suit them, they will use some of the money they already extracted from you to influence the government to change the law to their favor, so they can extract even more of you money. Crony capitalism at it's finest. The system works to mask immoral activities so the investors don't have to feel guilty that the combined power of their investments is being used to rip people off.
Now you're just making things up.
What is so horrible about a global initiative to improve health? Do doctors see this as unwanted competition cutting into their profits? I know if people get sicker it creates more profits for doctors. The healthier people are, the less business there is for for-profit doctors.
And you would prefer the lack of government instead? An example of this can be found in Somalia. It doesn't appear to be working out too well. War lords rule. Prosperity is crushed. One thing is similar to the USA. They have extreme wealth inequality.
If they wanted a US style system, they would be protesting for that, and the US right would never shut up about it.
Our problem is more grave. The way we are going, health care will eat us out of house and home. The US spends double the per capita levels of other countries, yet our average lifespan is shorter. The reason we are not getting our money's worth is we are getting ripped off. Lots of people are getting very rich, some fabulously rich, off the US health care system if that is their income source, but access is not open to all. The CEO of Merck is paid $17 million a year. He is paid in one hour more than a min wage worker earns in half a year. (assuming 40 hours per week - not always the case)
That gives me an idea. Why not use the power of our military to provide health care? That would be a far better use than to send them to camp on the border waiting for a ficticious 'invasion.' Simply expand the number of medical workers in the military to accommodate the entire population of the USA. President Trump could easily accomplish this by delcaring the rising cost of health care in the USA a national emergency and redirecting Congressionally allocated funds for military expenditures to build military hospitals instead of walls.
Oh, wait a minute. That wouldn't work. We spend more on health care than we do on the military. Health care costs us $3.2 Trillion a year. The military is a comparative bargain at $600 Billion. But you know what that means. That also blows the conservative theory about other nations diverting possible defense spending into health care out of the water.
Conservative Myth: Busted.
I don't ever expect the immoral to become moral due to legislation. The challenge is to find ways to minimize the devastation wracked by their immorality.
Total baloney. I know better. I worked for plenty of them. Every large organization wastes money whether it is public or private.
Success? The 911 attackers were successful in their goal. In the case of the health insurance industry success means they get as much of your money as possible while spending as little as possible providing you with health care. They will twist poke, and dig at the law until they find every possible way to extract your wealth. If the law doesn't suit them, they will use some of the money they already extracted from you to influence the government to change the law to their favor, so they can extract even more of you money. Crony capitalism at it's finest. The system works to mask immoral activities so the investors don't have to feel guilty that the combined power of their investments is being used to rip people off.
Now you're just making things up.
What is so horrible about a global initiative to improve health? Do doctors see this as unwanted competition cutting into their profits? I know if people get sicker it creates more profits for doctors. The healthier people are, the less business there is for for-profit doctors.
And you would prefer the lack of government instead? An example of this can be found in Somalia. It doesn't appear to be working out too well. War lords rule. Prosperity is crushed. One thing is similar to the USA. They have extreme wealth inequality.
If they wanted a US style system, they would be protesting for that, and the US right would never shut up about it.
Our problem is more grave. The way we are going, health care will eat us out of house and home. The US spends double the per capita levels of other countries, yet our average lifespan is shorter. The reason we are not getting our money's worth is we are getting ripped off. Lots of people are getting very rich, some fabulously rich, off the US health care system if that is their income source, but access is not open to all. The CEO of Merck is paid $17 million a year. He is paid in one hour more than a min wage worker earns in half a year. (assuming 40 hours per week - not always the case)
That gives me an idea. Why not use the power of our military to provide health care? That would be a far better use than to send them to camp on the border waiting for a ficticious 'invasion.' Simply expand the number of medical workers in the military to accommodate the entire population of the USA. President Trump could easily accomplish this by delcaring the rising cost of health care in the USA a national emergency and redirecting Congressionally allocated funds for military expenditures to build military hospitals instead of walls.
Oh, wait a minute. That wouldn't work. We spend more on health care than we do on the military. Health care costs us $3.2 Trillion a year. The military is a comparative bargain at $600 Billion. But you know what that means. That also blows the conservative theory about other nations diverting possible defense spending into health care out of the water.
Conservative Myth: Busted.
The system is being looted by insurance companies and execs. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/sunday-review/doctors-salaries-are-not-the-big-cost.html Heads of insurance companies are getting about 20 million a year. Insurance is a ripoff and only adds complexity and cost to our system. Our system is terrible.
Robo
Verified User
AND THE ANSWER IS????? Go to mother government and see more and more vicious immorality backed by the force of arms and government loving idiots!
Plenty of them? Had a problem dealing with capitalism and keeping a job, right? That explains everything!
I thought I was making the best possible decision when I signed up to keep my healthcare insurance provided through my employer in the retirement plan, when I retired. Some employees dropped it to get a few bucks more in their retirement checks. Now I feel like a genius for making that decision. Every time I see the lefties tell everybody how rotten America’s healthcare system is, I wonder what the hell system are they talking about. Seems I have top shelf, gold standard healthcare and healthcare insurance. Makes me think if some folks, (lefties), had paid attention to their opportunities as they moved through their life’s experiences they’d have been as smart as me! I can go to any doctor I want GP or specialist of any kind without referral. My premiums are not cheap, but still manageable and I never paid an out of pocket co-pay until the feds shoved Obamacare down the citizen’s throats.
No just a limited federal government shackled to the actual real dictates of our Constitution. The federal government’s only justifiable reason to even exist is to protect the rights and immunities of the union’s citizens against violations between each other, against hostilities between the States and against acts of war by foreign nations. I once believed there was a justifiable reason for the feds to deliver the mail too. I’ve since rejected that opinion, they have no clue how to make a profit doing it or even break even.
Why would they protest for an American style system when the vast majority of generations in the UK now have been brainwashed by their majority socialist media, just like America and their institutions of learning have been teaching socialist theory since WWII? Hell, they don’t even know anymore that America bailed their asses out in WWII. All they know About America and Americas system is what the socialist have told them, just like you.
Because the WHO told you so, right?
Our Vet hospitals can’t keep up with what they have to handle now. They have waiting list like every other government run healthcare program.
Presidential Emergency Orders are unconstitutional! The Congress has no power of authority to expand the powers of any President without a constitutional amendment!
Robo
Verified User
The socialist ideology has no reservations about incorporating bias in everything and anything they say. The objective of socialism is to promote the socialist ideology by any means. WHO is a highly socialist biased operation.
How so? How does administration = regulation?
And insurance companies regulate you right now by restricting your choice as to which doctor you can see for treatment. Don't you like choice?
How does streamlining the administration or reimbursement to your provider translate to authoritarianism?
What are you actually afraid of?
Ended slavery.
Established Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid
Established the WPA.
Won WWII.
Passed Civil Rights & Voting Rights.
Won marriage equality.
Passed the ACA.
Recovered the economy from your Bush Recession.
Clean Water Act.
Clean Air Act.
EPA.
5-day work week.
Minimum Wage.
Ended Child Labor Laws.
Gave women the right to vote.
Desegregated public schools.
Killed Osama bin Laden.
That's just off the top of my head.
Except they don't, and now we have a POTUS who promised a wall Mexico would pay for?
Where's that wall, anyway?
When placed in normal margins, the ACA was no longer than a Harry Potter book. My niece can read one of those in a day. What's your excuse?
It already does that for 65 million people, and most insurers use Medicare's forms and paperwork as the basis of theirs.
In fact, according to CMS, Medicare generates about 1% overhead vs. private insurance which is 15-20%.