Is the solution to health care a single payer system? What are the pros and cons

1. 87

   tsmogposted 7 years ago

   Is the solution to health care a single payer system? What are the pros and cons?

   replyreport
2. 56

   The0NatureBoyposted 7 years ago

   Bernie Sanders proposed a "Single Pay System" during the establishing of Obama's ACA system which would have eliminated Medicare, Medicaid and all other medical paying systems and save the "Tax Payers" more than half of cost of the others that were in force before the ACA was implemented. [I had a link to it and sent it to Senior Citizens' program but some government entity entered my email account and removed the link information or I would post it.]
   
   Pros:
   1) The cost would be billions of $$$ less that the several place today.
   2) It would require AMA to began healing rather than treatment medical disorders.
   3) It would require each individual to take notice of what is happening to their bodies.
   4) It would require eliminating GMO's and other medical condition causing toxins out of the food we consume.
   
   1) It would improve man's health and put Pharmaceuticals out of business.
   2) it would clear our bodies of toxins Pharmaceuticals make treatments for instead of healing for them.
   3) It would reduce the need for most hospitals with few exceptions.
   4) It would eliminate the need for medical insurance.
   5) It would restore health to man-en-mass.
   
   In short, "The Pros" would produce healthier people because of eliminating the many cause of most of our ailments; "The Cons" would eliminate most of the services designed to make the people poor and build extensive revenues from man's poor health.

   replyreport
   1. 46

      Ericdierkerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Where does this come from? The gov has never operated this efficiently. They pay for gov employees and military and medicaid and none of the above has happened. VA is your example.

      replyreport
   2. 56

      The0NatureBoyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      That's what the Constitution demands. The Preamble shows Money is not the objective but the unification, justice, tranquility, defence, welfare and liberty of We The People & includes health. Money is only an instrument for achieving those 6 thin

      replyreport
3. 77

   alancaster149posted 7 years ago

   The system we've had here introduced by Aneurin ('Nye') Bevan in 1948 is strained these days, what with migrants coming here legally and illegally. The initial formula was - at a time after WWII when most women who had worked during the War suddenly became 'housewives' when their husbands came back -  that a married man with a family paid X amount into the 'kitty' towards medical and possibly hospital treatment. Single individuals - men and women then from the basic secondary school leaving age of 15, ex-Grammar pupils from 17, college graduates from 18 and university graduates from 21 - paid a share on entering the labour market.
   Later - from the 'Swinging Sixties' - the scheme was modified to include single non-working, alternatively working parents of either gender. There are also categories for full-time carers whose parents/spouses/offspring die when the carer is beyond official retirement age. EU nationals currently qualify in their first year. Whether others from Commonwealth or non-Commonwealth backgrounds receive the same care on qualifying for British nationality or not I don't know (not being personally affected).
   We've had our fair share of 'hiccups' with the system in respect of 'health tourists' who come for operations or care and bunk off back to their own countries without paying for treatment.. Promises have been made by the Government to close legal loopholes that Nye Bevan couldn't have foreseen in 1948, after Clement Attlee's Labour Party was voted in during 1945 by the general electorate on a ticket of social reform, but in general it's held up over the past 69 years even if the system's begun to show its age..

   replyreport
   1. 46

      Ericdierkerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Very interesting. Thank you. I had only been exposed to UK medicine through anecdotal recounts of huge delays and almost absent oral care. Are people pleased with it or do they just bitch and moan like we do without it? Quality assumed the same?

      replyreport
   2. 70

      ptosisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Hey Eric. Doea ypur medicare pay for dental? Mine don't unleas pay extra $50/month for it.

      replyreport
   3. 46

      Ericdierkerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Don't have medicare. But I seem to recall back about a decade ago it was $35 so I think yours is normal. And I think $600 a year is absurd. Through our private it is about that for 3 of us.

      replyreport
   4. 56

      The0NatureBoyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Interesting but the Preamble's intent. It show money is second to this nation being "United" in "Justice" with individual "Tranquility" providing a common "Defence" and general "Welfare" while securing our "Liberty" for ourselves and our Posterity.

      replyreport
4. 94

   jo millerposted 7 years ago

   I'm in favor of a single payer system.  Most other civilized countries have such a system and they work better than the system we have that leaves millions   uninsured.  We're the richest country in the world and should have a better health care system than we do.  It would, though, require some people to pay more taxes, and as long as we let money buy power it will be difficult to get there.

   replyreport
   1. 56

      The0NatureBoyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      This nation isn't rich, a hand full of people are while the rest are barely making it because of conditioned to "dream of wealth" and spend like they have it although we don't. The U.S. has the taxes but squander them overpaying corporations.

      replyreport