Is Pres. Obama lying about his administration's goal re: single payer?

[TripleGreen]

Is he lying in order to get his "public option" foot in the door, since once that foot is in the the door, there will be little to prevent him from implementing and forcing upon the country the single payer option?

Or is he just that far out of lockstop with Democratic leadership in Congress and the Senate?

YouTube - The Single Payer Bunch

[Compound]

I didn't watch your video, but yes, he wants a single payer. He has said this in the past.

[Madhatter536]

Originally Posted by Compound

I didn't watch your video, but yes, he wants a single payer. He has said this in the past.

The good lord willing it will come to pass. And it will be the best thing any president could do for the country. GO OBAMA!!

[Compound]

Originally Posted by Madhatter536

The good lord willing it will come to pass. And it will be the best thing any president could do for the country. GO OBAMA!!

If I wanted to live off the government teet, then I'd probably think it's a good thing too....

[Redwingenator]

Single payer will destroy private insurance. The government doesn't have to play by the market principles, they can undercut private insurance rates without the need to actually make a profit. I find it astonishing that our government is willing to nuke the current health insurance system instead of attempting to fix the major problems with it.

[Madhatter536]

Originally Posted by Redwingenator

Single payer will destroy private insurance. The government doesn't have to play by the market principles, they can undercut private insurance rates without the need to actually make a profit. I find it astonishing that our government is willing to nuke the current health insurance system instead of attempting to fix the major problems with it.

Single payer would most certainly destroy private insurance, and it cannot happen too soon. I find it astonishing that so many people view health care as a commodity instead of a fundamental right. A healthy populace is a good thing, and having affordable access to health care is essential for achieving that. Under the current system that treats health care as a commodity by focusing on health insurance millions are excluded from receiving care. Why is that acceptable to conservatives? The current system, as redwing points out, has major problems. The many attempts to fix them have been met with huge opposition from those that now control the cash cow of health insurance. They spread lies and bribe politicians with "campaign contributions" to keep the current broken system in place to safeguard their wallets. Why are conservatives okay with that? Some things are too important to a society to be trusted to private enterprise. And health care is one of them.

[Compound]

Originally Posted by Madhatter536

Single payer would most certainly destroy private insurance, and it cannot happen too soon. I find it astonishing that so many people view health care as a commodity instead of a fundamental right. A healthy populace is a good thing, and having affordable access to health care is essential for achieving that. Under the current system that treats health care as a commodity by focusing on health insurance millions are excluded from receiving care. Why is that acceptable to conservatives? The current system, as redwing points out, has major problems. The many attempts to fix them have been met with huge opposition from those that now control the cash cow of health insurance. They spread lies and bribe politicians with "campaign contributions" to keep the current broken system in place to safeguard their wallets. Why are conservatives okay with that? Some things are too important to a society to be trusted to private enterprise. And health care is one of them.

If you were capable of understanding that in order to provide health care to people you have to infringe on other people's rights to get it, then you would be on the road to understanding how health care is not a right.

[vator88]

Originally Posted by Madhatter536

Single payer would most certainly destroy private insurance, and it cannot happen too soon. I find it astonishing that so many people view health care as a commodity instead of a fundamental right. A healthy populace is a good thing, and having affordable access to health care is essential for achieving that. Under the current system that treats health care as a commodity by focusing on health insurance millions are excluded from receiving care. Why is that acceptable to conservatives? The current system, as redwing points out, has major problems. The many attempts to fix them have been met with huge opposition from those that now control the cash cow of health insurance. They spread lies and bribe politicians with "campaign contributions" to keep the current broken system in place to safeguard their wallets. Why are conservatives okay with that? Some things are too important to a society to be trusted to private enterprise. And health care is one of them.

How'd that payoff by Obama to Big PHrma, and the attempted payoff to the AMA workout? Yep, once government gets in charge, no one ever takes a bribe, gives out a preference, takes money to reward their donors. Nope, it's all just what is in the best interest of the masses.

What do you do for a living? If I were a doctor, nurse or other health care practicioner I would surely reject that you have a claim on my abilities, time, or willingness to provide a service because your deem it a 'fundamental right', what am I your slave or something? I'd like to make that same claim against whatever value added service you bring to the equation. Further, what does it mean to say it is a 'fundamental right'? What if the government rejects the course of care you and your physician think is best, to whom do you take your claim of a 'fundamental right'?

[Compound]

Originally Posted by vator88

How'd that payoff by Obama to Big PHrma, and the attempted payoff to the AMA workout? Yep, once government gets in charge, no one ever takes a bribe, gives out a preference, takes money to reward their donors. Nope, it's all just what is in the best interest of the masses.

What do you do for a living? If I were a doctor, nurse or other health care practicioner I would surely reject that you have a claim on my abilities, time, or willingness to provide a service because your deem it a 'fundamental right', what am I your slave or something? I'd like to make that same claim against whatever value added service you bring to the equation. Further, what does it mean to say it is a 'fundamental right'? What if the government rejects the course of care you and your physician think is best, to whom do you take your claim of a 'fundamental right'?

[Compound]

Originally Posted by Heathens 87

I'd really be curious to hear a bit more explanation about this line of thinking. How exactly does ensuring that all Americans have access to a basic level of healthcare "infringe" on other's rights to healtcare?! There's a leap of logic in this that I'm missing.....

ok, good question. It doesn't infringe on their right to healthcare, it infringes on their rights. There are two ways that by expecting health care to be a "fundamental right" that you are infringing on other people's rights. The first way is that there is a finite amount of Dr's, nurses, etc. These people also have a finite amount of time in their life. To force them to take care of everybody, is (as another poster said above), essentially enslaving them. What if I think watching basketball is a fundamental right. Should I be able to pass legislation and force Lebron James to play basketball for me? Furthermore, the equipment, R&D, their education, etc all cost money. Their are reasons that health care costs money. You can't just demand health insurance, it has to be paid for.

Which leads me to the second way that it infringes on other people's rights. Instead of just paying the Dr's, what you are doing is stealing the money (individual property) of more successful people (through taxes) and then giving to to those who are less successful to pay for what you deem as "a fundamental right". Money is private property. Money is the fruit of someone's labor. They have a finite amount of money because they have a finite amount of time and life. By taking their money to pay for another person's healthcare, you are essentially stealing portions of their life for what you deem as your "fundamental right".

Besides being ethically wrong, against our constitution, etc, it is simply wrong to take from one person and give it to another person just because it fits your idea of social justice. Further more, at what point does this end? There is always going to be somebody who deems something a fundamental right that is not. Some people will try to legislate housing, food, etc. You can't enslave one person to give to another person just because you think society would be better for it.

[Compound]

Originally Posted by Heathens 87

Apart from the inclusion of the "basketball as a right" metaphor () this is a well-stated and reasoned view of an individualistic approach to healthcare. I'm a nurse by the way, so I tend toward a belief of having some insight into how hospitals and healthcare functions, especially as to how we allocate resources. You might imagine that I'd disagree as I view our current approach to healthcare as morally reprehensible and in stark contrast to the Constitution as we've handed our "general walfare" over to those who view that as a commodity.

That said, I'd only ask that you see that many, such as myself, see this as an issue of ensuring that we as a society provide a basic level of healthcare (not ER, but wellness and preventative focused) to our citizens, for the true measure of a society is how we care for those with the least (the poor, the sick, the huddled masses). Add in the reality that our current system cannot sustain itself fiscally and the need for a more collective approach to the challenges of an aging society become more real.

I would add that I believe healthcare is a fundamental right, and I'd be perfectly happy if American society continued to expand what we consider rights into other areas. I think that's entirely American..........

I respect your opinion, but I have a problem with taking from one person to give to another because of what one person deems "a fundamental right". I agree with you that our current system is not sustainable, but there are many many ways we can fix it without stealing property from one group to give to another group.

[ninowesco]

Originally Posted by Redwingenator

Single payer will destroy private insurance.

god willing

[PRStoetzer]

Originally Posted by Redwingenator

Single payer will destroy private insurance. The government doesn't have to play by the market principles, they can undercut private insurance rates without the need to actually make a profit. I find it astonishing that our government is willing to nuke the current health insurance system instead of attempting to fix the major problems with it.

Private insurance exists alongside the NHS in the UK as a supplement.

[Redwingenator]

Originally Posted by Madhatter536

Single payer would most certainly destroy private insurance, and it cannot happen too soon. I find it astonishing that so many people view health care as a commodity instead of a fundamental right. A healthy populace is a good thing, and having affordable access to health care is essential for achieving that. Under the current system that treats health care as a commodity by focusing on health insurance millions are excluded from receiving care. Why is that acceptable to conservatives? The current system, as redwing points out, has major problems. The many attempts to fix them have been met with huge opposition from those that now control the cash cow of health insurance. They spread lies and bribe politicians with "campaign contributions" to keep the current broken system in place to safeguard their wallets. Why are conservatives okay with that? Some things are too important to a society to be trusted to private enterprise. And health care is one of them.

I agree with everything except the part in bold. Health insurance is not a right. Everyone in this country is provided health care if they go to an emergency room regardless of their ability to pay.

[vator88]

Originally Posted by Heathens 87

Exactly, government guarantees a certain level of access to and financial coverage for healthcare. If you want to go beyond that, it's available on the free market. It all seems pretty simple to me....

- We're already paying for un or under-insured individuals through private insurance. An aspirin doesn't cost $40. It's billed at that level to cover all the other indirect, uncovered, and unpaid costs associated with operating the facility.

- Premiums keep going up and up as society ages, employer-based insurance builds a list of pre-existing conditions, and medical costs rise. It'll soon be unaffordable to even middle class Americans.

- A public option provides an outlet to provide healthcare to a growing segment of society who is un or under-insured, medical facilities recieve income, and premiums can be kept in check as they're not asked to cover the costs of this segment of society.

Or we can take a gated-community approach to healthcare, and if you haven't been in a hospital recently, let me tell you that we do indeed ration healthcare in the US right now. How the Democrats are managing to screw widely popular and easily created (it's just another Medicare and Medicaid, we're not re-inventing the wheel, and look at how popular those "socialist" programs are) is truly amazing.....

Nice. Except this doesn't resemble what is being discussed at all. The current proposal out there mandates you get private insurance, if you don't, you'll pay a comparatively nominal fine. Since they cannot deny pre-existing conditions, you will be better off to pay the 1500 fine versus 10k for an insurance policy, then when you get sick wander in and demand coverage. Insurance companies will be gone within the year as their investors bail on them.

[vator88]

Originally Posted by Heathens 87

I don't view taxation as stealing property, and as we make collective decisions through government, we don't get to pick and choose what's funded on an individual basis. If we, as a society, view something as a right, then one person deciding they disagree doesn't really change that equation. We fund those initiatives through taxes, whether we agree or not.

In a country where healthcare is only allocated through an employer-based system, it's becoming increasingly clear that we're already paying for the care of others who don't have insurance through those that do. We already view access to healthcare (at a basic level) as a right. The question really is how do we pay for those services.

As for re-allocating wealth, we can dance around that for days, but in reality, I readily admit that's the purpose of government. Some put far more into the system than they'll ever take out, while the opposite is true for others. The thought, for some, is that a rising tide raises all ships. One for all, all for one. That line of thinking......

I don't see much difference between someone breaking into my home to steal some cash so that they can get some food and the government taking it for them. Absent the violence in the first scenario, the end result is the same. Besides, don't pay the government their share and eventually they too will show up with armed people and kick your door in.

As to your reallocating of wealth it isn't the purpose of governement at all, and you haven't describe all for one, one for all. What you are describing is Marx's from each according to his ability to each according to his needs.
__________________

[Redwingenator]

Originally Posted by Heathens 87

Well said and quite true. The challenge now is to implement some form of public option that proves itself to be well-run and beneficial to the health of the public. If so, then I have little doubt that we could see some form of single-payer insurance, as well as a national approach to issues such as medical records. I highly doubt that we'd ever see the day in the US where private companies didn't play a substantial role in this, but should a public option do well, yeah, that could lead to more, and needed, reform. Progress is incremental. That doesn't equate to some paranoid form of "trojan horse" thinking....

A single payer system gives ultimate control of reimbursement and allowed procedures to one all powerful entity. Guess what happened when state Medicaid in Michigan continued to slash reimbursement to doctors to balance the state budget? Doctors opted out and now only 64% of doctors accept Medicaid, almost all of which work in hospitals. That means as few as 18% of doctors in private practice in Michigan accept Medicaid.

Medicare reimbursement has not been keeping up with inflation, and doctors are beginning to opt out because of the difficulties associated with their reduced reimbursement. For most offices, opting out of Medicare is not an option because of the number of patients they see covered by it. However, there is a tipping point where reimbursement is not sufficient to break even and doctors begin losing money when treating patients, as is the case with Medcaid, and Medicare is following suit.

So what happens when the government ran health insurance they estimate to cost $1 Trillion ends up costing $1.5 Trillion, where can the government make up the costs? (hint, look to what the government has done with their other insurance plans when they ran out of money) This will lead to the only insurance company in the USA (the government) reducing reimbursement to doctors which will result in doctors opting out of the system and moving towards CASH only practices. What good is insurance if there are not enough doctors to treat 300 million patients, and the doctors that you can see only accept cash? Then you have to RATION care to reduce the number of patients receiving care.

But I"m just a crazy conservative that should just be like the liberals and accept that government insurance will be unicorns and rainbows and bring in a great Utopia of society where cats and dogs get along.

[tuff bob]

Originally Posted by PRStoetzer

Private insurance exists alongside the NHS in the UK as a supplement.

it exists only due to the failure of the NHS to provide quality and timely care, much like why private schools exist.

[vator88]

Originally Posted by tuff bob

it exists only due to the failure of the NHS to provide quality and timely care, much like why private schools exist.

You gotta like a government, that after it taxes you to pay for healthcare, allows you to go out in the private market to buy insurance because the system they taxed you for is inadequate.

[EComCon]

Originally Posted by Compound

I didn't watch your video, but yes, he wants a single payer. He has said this in the past.

Obama has paid lip service to single payer in the past. Whether or not he wants single payer now is debatable. What we do know, as Glenn Greenwald points out in the video below(8:30-mark), is that he is unwilling to spend any Political Capital on Single Payer, or the Public Option for that matter.

YouTube - MSNBC Rachel: Lieberman, Bought & Paid For!

[vator88]

Originally Posted by Redwingenator

This will lead to the only insurance company in the USA (the government) reducing reimbursement to doctors which will result in doctors opting out of the system and moving towards CASH only practices.

Be prepared for Canada type system which bars you from paying out of pocket to get it done. People will be taking out med loans to ravel to Mexico or the Carribean to get things done like knee scopes, shoulder repairs, etc.

If this thing really takes shape, I expect big development in fee for service medicine south of the border.

[Redwingenator]

Originally Posted by vator88

Be prepared for Canada type system which bars you from paying out of pocket to get it done. People will be taking out med loans to ravel to Mexico or the Carribean to get things done like knee scopes, shoulder repairs, etc.

If this thing really takes shape, I expect big development in fee for service medicine south of the border.

I expect things to be great to start with. The feds will set reimbursement at the levels of private insurance and doctors will flock to the "Holy Grail" of socialized medicine just like all their patients. Then, slowly the government with tighten their grip and slowly choke the patients and their doctors.

[Compound]

Originally Posted by EComCon

Obama has paid lip service to single payer in the past. Whether or not he wants single payer now is debatable.

If you want to call it "lip service" then so be it. He has said that he wants a single payer system and I believe him.

[Dr. X]

Originally Posted by Madhatter536

Single payer would most certainly destroy private insurance, and it cannot happen too soon. I find it astonishing that so many people view health care as a commodity instead of a fundamental right. A healthy populace is a good thing, and having affordable access to health care is essential for achieving that. Under the current system that treats health care as a commodity by focusing on health insurance millions are excluded from receiving care. Why is that acceptable to conservatives? The current system, as redwing points out, has major problems. The many attempts to fix them have been met with huge opposition from those that now control the cash cow of health insurance. They spread lies and bribe politicians with "campaign contributions" to keep the current broken system in place to safeguard their wallets. Why are conservatives okay with that? Some things are too important to a society to be trusted to private enterprise. And health care is one of them.

I understand your points and agree with many of them. My problem with a government takeover of the current system is that I distrust government as much as I distrust unregulated and corrupt private enterprise.

IMO, exchanging one broken system for another is not the answer.

[MSU '73]

Originally Posted by vator88

Be prepared for Canada type system which bars you from paying out of pocket to get it done. People will be taking out med loans to ravel to Mexico or the Carribean to get things done like knee scopes, shoulder repairs, etc.

If this thing really takes shape, I expect big development in fee for service medicine south of the border.

Please provide a link showing all those people leaving the Canadian medical system to go to "Mexico or the Carribean to get things done like knee scopes, shoulder repairs, etc."

Factual numbers, instead of just you spouting off, OK?