We can't afford NOT TO do single payer health care

medicare/medicaid is nothing more than a government regulatory scheme implementing health insurance.

Prior to Medicare/Medicaid if you were elderly or became disabled, insurance companies dropped your coverage.

The first year of Medicare saw 19,000,000 people enroll in the program because they had no health care coverage.

So by "scheme" you mean provide access to health care for 19 million people at the jump, every disabled person, and every person over the age of 65 for the last 60 years.


it would have the same, if not worse, negative effect as private health insurance.

Why do you think that? M4A will pay every medical claim. Say, do insurance companies pay every claim today?

Insurance has nothing to do with how health care is delivered to you; all for profit insurance does is cut off points of access. M4A doesn't.

All for profit insurance does is create the need for provider networks; Medicare simply doesn't.

Provider networks are a direct result of for-profit private insurance.
 
Your response my be national level is different than state level but I can speak to what's happening in California. There's been a big push for M4A in California and go look at Newsom's rhetoric when he ran for re-election a year or two ago, he was all in. Fast forward to today. (Reminder that Democrats have a super majority in California so they can pass legislation without a single Republican vote.)

They can't even get a vote in the assembly on a M4A bill now. And Newsom has done nothing to push for one after all his rhetoric on the campaign trail.

There's a reason California gets so much national attention because as they say 'as goes California so goes the nation'. Well if M4A can't even get a vote in the assembly here, how realistic is it to expect one nationally?

M4A only works if everyone is on it.

The larger the insurance pool, the lower the premiums.
 
How is that different then the insurance structure we have now? If we go to medicare for all who would be the doctors customer?

The patients.

That is who would be the doctor's customer...THE PATIENTS.

If all providers are reimbursed at the same rates for the same procedures and treatment, then the competitive free market shifts to the actual physicians. So doctors would have to compete for your care instead of insurance companies forcing you into a provider network. That would only improve patient outcomes because the doctor would need to be good at their job in order to attract customers (patients).

You also have the ability to "shop around" to find the best doctor for you. Right now, you don't have that freedom. You might think you have the best doctor, but what is your frame of reference? How do you know you like your doctor if you haven't had the chance to comparatively shop for one?

Isn't it more freedom to be able to go to any doctor you want? You can't under the current system (unless you want to pay for treatment outside your provider network), but you can under M4A.
 
Prior to Medicare/Medicaid if you were elderly or became disabled, insurance companies dropped your coverage.
because it's a scam

The first year of Medicare saw 19,000,000 people enroll in the program because they had no health care coverage.
how much did it cost them? how much did medicare cover?

So by "scheme" you mean provide access to health care for 19 million people at the jump, every disabled person, and every person over the age of 65 for the last 60 years.
and unless you're trying to hide the fact that you're going to require every single one of those health care providers to work for free, it has to be paid for.......who is going to pay for it?

Why do you think that? M4A will pay every medical claim. Say, do insurance companies pay every claim today?
lets boil this down to a simple question..........would you trust trump to run medicare with honesty and integrity?
 
The U.S. ranked first in Science & Technology related to medical innovation

Second-place Denmark was a distant second place too.

The entire world would suffer if America listened to the moron class and removed profits from healthcare
 
so your premise in single payer is to eliminate profits from doctors, nurses, med techs, hospitals, etc?????

They still profit if they're managed well, just like any business...in fact, they'd probably be more profitable because they would spend way less on administrative overhead.
 
that sounds like a perfect plan to destroy medical care in the country.

If a system is set up that doesn't concern itself with profits and instead focused on outcomes, how would that destroy health care?

It would destroy private for profit insurance and most pharmaceutical companies, but is that really a bad thing?
 
here is the hypocrisy and retarded thinking of the moron left today - they actually say and think the above, but would never be concerned with the below:[/B]

"Why enable a person to be independent when they can be a subservient of government for the rest of their life."

How is government insurance making someone "subservient"?

What are you even trying to say here? Is this yet another example of you trying to sound smart but in reality, you're just an incredible dumbass?
 
If a system is set up that doesn't concern itself with profits and instead focused on outcomes, how would that destroy health care?

It would destroy private for profit insurance and most pharmaceutical companies, but is that really a bad thing?

doctors are going to want to make profits. hospitals are going to need to make profits. nurses and technicians are going to want profitable salaries. pharmaceuticals are going to want to profit. you cannot get rid of profits.

Is the 'medicare for all' plan intended to eliminate all private health insurance and big pharma?
 
Back
Top