As a Christian, I defended Obamacare. But I really support single-payer.

[Reformed]

While Sanders' plan does include virtually every medical treatment available, I don't think anyone really expects that government funded abortions and sterilizations will ever pass in the USA

Do you actually believe our Progressive government will not include infanticide and sterilization as part of a single-payer system? Of course, it will! Maybe not at first (as a compromise in order to get the requisite votes), but not too long after it becomes law. After all, infanticide is a sacrament of the Progressive Left. Once the Left starts crying that women are being denied "essential reproductive services" it will be covered.

 

[James Flagg]

Do you actually believe our Progressive government will not include infanticide and sterilization as part of a single-payer system? Of course, it will! Maybe not at first (as a compromise in order to get the requisite votes), but not too long after it becomes law. After all, infanticide is a sacrament of the Progressive Left. Once the Left starts crying that women are being denied "essential reproductive services" it will be covered.

I believe what you're saying is correct.

A single-payer system may be passed without payments for abortion or sterilizations, etc. But 10 years later we would hear, "Why are old, white Christian men getting to decide what women do with their own bodies?" or "Why are we forcing women to have children they don't even want?" or something similar. And if you have a Democrat controlled House and Senate you know what happens.

ETA: Earlier I said that no one expects government funded abortion and sterilization "will ever pass in the USA", but I should have added some kind of qualifier.

 

[church mouse guy]

Socialism must be faithfully implemented to placate the extreme left and Bernie Sanders, who is owed the White House because of the way that Hillary cheated him. Bernie is the Democrat Party now and it is now a socialist party. If America faithfully implements socialism, we will be the first country in the world to make it work but there has to be death panels for abortion and to stop squandering precious resources on old white people, as has been pointed out in the last post. We have too many deplorable cave dwellers, as Gov. Brown has noted, especially in flyover country, the embarrassing so-called heartland. It will be a revolution. It will turn out the lights all over the world (saving electricity and ending climate change).

 

[FollowTheWay]

I never said that it had been proposed by anyone. I was simply saying that it would be possible and simple compared to the rest of the morass of taxation and legislation required to pass single payer.

While Sanders' plan does include virtually every medical treatment available, I don't think anyone really expects that government funded abortions and sterilizations will ever pass in the USA.

Pardon the pedantry (or don't), but mine was not an argument at all, but an opinion.

An extremely unlikely one based on past history wouldn't you say?

 

[Adonia]

I support single payer. Christians have no moral obligation to fund state welfare. Christian charity is at the individual and church level.

So after saying those things, how can you support single payer? Your taxes will have to go through the roof to fund a single payer system.

 

[Reynolds]

So after saying those things, how can you support single payer? Your taxes will have to go through the roof to fund a single payer system.

No, they won't.

 

[Adonia]

Single-payer is not inherently evil. It depends upon how it is implemented.


I wonder that quite often when I read posts from some of our brothers and sisters here.


Single-payer is not inherently socialist, although the word "socialist" has pretty much lost most of its meaning since it is used so recklessly in today's political discourse.


Our government already pays more for healthcare than just about any other nation in the world - including single-payer countries. Single-payer actually has the ability (if it is implemented correctly) to improve health and bring down costs due to efficiency and earlier intervention into health issues that turn into extremely expensive major diseases.


All healthcare is rationed. Period. It is either rationed by one's ability to pay, by a hospital that will only treat the uninsured to a level where they are stabilized, or to the level your insurance company will pay.

The claim of "rationing" doesn't have much weight since it is already rationed.


You bring up a good point. In the aftermath of World War II, the US provided most of the serious defense of both Europe and Japan as a consequence of the impoverishment of those nations after the war, and the Soviet threat. As those nations found their economic footing once again and they rebuilt their social structures, they were in the enviable position of being able to divert a significant amount of financial resources toward improving the health of their citizens through medical care.

However, those things have been changing and Europe is still providing reasonably good healthcare - with good outcomes - for their citizens. At the same time, the European model is not the only model. We could adopt a model that provides a single-payer safety net for persons who are critically ill/injured (for instance, for health expenses more than $100,000 for a person per incident) while retaining private insurance for all expenses below $100,000. That will allow a certain level of freedom to choose the level of care you need for normal issues and average surgeries and incidents under a reasonable private insurance payment without bankrupting everyone and their children in the event of a major health crisis. The risk of private insurers would go down tremendously, and so would the cost of the policies under a free market system.


Not if things are implemented properly.


Why do you think non-"progressives" will not have any political status or be able to convince anyone else to vote with them if any form of single-payer insurance is implemented? Don't you have faith in the veracity of your own beliefs?


Hardly. People are talking about considering single-payer and you are strangely talking about bondage.

There is no constititional basis for a Fedetal government provided single payer health care system. None whatsoever! But hey, who really cares about that pesky constitution nowadays anyway.

 

[Adonia]

Single-payer is not inherently evil. It depends upon how it is implemented.


I wonder that quite often when I read posts from some of our brothers and sisters here.


Single-payer is not inherently socialist, although the word "socialist" has pretty much lost most of its meaning since it is used so recklessly in today's political discourse.


Our government already pays more for healthcare than just about any other nation in the world - including single-payer countries. Single-payer actually has the ability (if it is implemented correctly) to improve health and bring down costs due to efficiency and earlier intervention into health issues that turn into extremely expensive major diseases.


All healthcare is rationed. Period. It is either rationed by one's ability to pay, by a hospital that will only treat the uninsured to a level where they are stabilized, or to the level your insurance company will pay.

The claim of "rationing" doesn't have much weight since it is already rationed.


You bring up a good point. In the aftermath of World War II, the US provided most of the serious defense of both Europe and Japan as a consequence of the impoverishment of those nations after the war, and the Soviet threat. As those nations found their economic footing once again and they rebuilt their social structures, they were in the enviable position of being able to divert a significant amount of financial resources toward improving the health of their citizens through medical care.

However, those things have been changing and Europe is still providing reasonably good healthcare - with good outcomes - for their citizens. At the same time, the European model is not the only model. We could adopt a model that provides a single-payer safety net for persons who are critically ill/injured (for instance, for health expenses more than $100,000 for a person per incident) while retaining private insurance for all expenses below $100,000. That will allow a certain level of freedom to choose the level of care you need for normal issues and average surgeries and incidents under a reasonable private insurance payment without bankrupting everyone and their children in the event of a major health crisis. The risk of private insurers would go down tremendously, and so would the cost of the policies under a free market system.


Not if things are implemented properly.


Why do you think non-"progressives" will not have any political status or be able to convince anyone else to vote with them if any form of single-payer insurance is implemented? Don't you have faith in the veracity of your own beliefs?


Hardly. People are talking about considering single-payer and you are strangely talking about bondage.

There is no constititional basis for a Federal government provided single payer health care system. None whatsoever! But hey, who really cares about that pesky constitution nowadays anyway.

 

[Adonia]

No, people understand that as a society, we have an obligation to take care of each other. We understand this in so many other parts of society...

We have fire departments, ready to serve the rich woman's mansion or the poor man's shack. We have law enforcement to help preserve order, seek justice, and serve the public regardless of social status, religion, ethnicity or politics. We have public utilities to provide potable water for individuals and enterprises, and remove solid and liquid wastes to create a sanitary environment. We also understand that the elderly, the young, the physically and mentally disabled, and certain other individuals who are not capable of providing for themselves need our assistance. Almost everyone chips in for at least some of these services according to ability and according to usage.

Seriously considering whether or not to have a single-payer system and figuring out the best way to balance mercy and justice is not "wanting a king" nor - going with the biblical allusion - rejecting God. Far from it!

Most of those things we have that you cited are provided by local governments, not the Federal entity. If you want a single payer heath system, petition your local or state government for it. Such a thing is simply not a Federal responsibility.

 

[Adonia]

I think the truth is that no one has a clue what it would cost. The numbers on paper could be constructed to mean anything. I personally think single payer would be cheaper than what we now have. Healthcare has now worked its way into my county property tax. We now have to pay 3mill levy to subsidize the local hospital, because so many patients are not paying.

And that free healthcare at local hospitals was forced on everyone by Federal law, a law.that the Feds had no business passing at all. As usual, the Federal goverent is the root cause of another expensive problem.

 

[Adonia]

No, they won't.

Yes they will. It's the middle class.that will have to fork over the extra money, just like we have to pay the freight on Obamacare. The rich can afford their own healthcare and the poor get subsidies provided by the middle class working fools like myself.

 

[Adonia]

Socialism must be faithfully implemented to placate the extreme left and Bernie Sanders, who is owed the White House because of the way that Hillary cheated him. Bernie is the Democrat Party now and it is now a socialist party. If America faithfully implements socialism, we will be the first country in the world to make it work but there has to be death panels for abortion and to stop squandering precious resources on old white people, as has been pointed out in the last post. We have too many deplorable cave dwellers, as Gov. Brown has noted, especially in flyover country, the embarrassing so-called heartland. It will be a revolution. It will turn out the lights all over the world (saving electricity and ending climate change).

SOCIALISM IS FOR THE PEOPLE, NOT THE SOCIALISTS. Bernie and the other elites will never stand in line for healthcare or have it rationed or any procedure denied them in any way, shape, manner, or form.

 

[InTheLight]

There is no constititional basis for a Federal government provided single payer health care system. None whatsoever! But hey, who really cares about that pesky constitution nowadays anyway.

Supposing there was a constitutional amendment passed guaranteeing universal health care?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[InTheLight]

Most of those things we have that you cited are provided by local governments, not the Federal entity. If you want a single payer heath system, petition your local or state government for it. Such a thing is simply not a Federal responsibility.

Supposing there was a constitutional amendment passed guaranteeing universal health care?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Adonia]

Supposing there was a constitutional amendment passed guaranteeing universal health care?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Yep, that would be the way to do it.

 

[Reynolds]

Yes they will. It's the middle class.that will have to fork over the extra money, just like we have to pay the freight on Obamacare. The rich can afford their own healthcare and the poor get subsidies provided by the middle class working fools like myself.

You are assuming you know exactly what firm of single payer will pass.

 

[church mouse guy]

You are assuming you know exactly what firm of single payer will pass.

Would you be willing to double your federal tax bill in order to help the needy?

 

[Adonia]

You are assuming you know exactly what firm of single payer will pass.

It does not matter what form of single payer would pass, it will cost a bunch which is why the states of Vermont and California recently shelved their plans for this.

The fact is, fraud and waste are part and parcel of any Federally run program. Medical care needs to be left to the experts, not amature government bureaucrats.

 

[InTheLight]

Would you be willing to double your federal tax bill in order to help the needy?

If my federal taxes doubled and I could get the same level of health insurance coverage I have now I would be saving thousands of dollars per year in insurance premiums.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[rsr]

If we did not pour money into the Pentagon, we would in short order cease to be a nation.

Ridiculous. It might cease to be a hegemon, but it would not destroy the nation to cut back on Trump's extravagant requests.