The "Shut 'er downers"

This may be slightly off-topic, but let's remind ourselves that all the fuss is about Obamacare. The President and the other Democrat leaders have often said they want Obamacare to be a transition to single-payer systems such as those of Canada and the UK.

Here's the hidden story of Canada's fiscal crisis re health care.

Here's the story of the UK's fiscal crisis re health care.

P.S. Canada plans to eliminate its budget deficit by 2015! Compare this to our government's approach.

 

Are you making that up, or can you actually back up your claim with links to such statements?

Personally, I recognize the empirical data that identifies the superior, effective, inclusive national systems of advanced nations at half the cost of the US's plight, and have consistently advocated pragmatism over ideological dogma, but I am unaware of the "President and the other Democrat leaders [often saying that] they want Obamacare to be a transition to single-payer systems."

I'd appreciate your sustaining your assertion if you are able to do so.

 

Happy to oblige.

President Obama
Harry Reid
Democrat controlled House in 2009 included single payer, later struck by the Senate
Bernie Sanders
Barney Frank
Arlen Specter
Dennis Kucinich
Keith Ellison
Rep. Jan Schatowsky
Michael Moore
Hillary Clinton

Now if you'll comment on these reports about health care in Canada and the UK, I'd love to hear about "the superior, effective, inclusive national systems of advanced nations at half the cost of the US's plight."

 

Please address the question. You claimed that, "The President and the other Democrat leaders have often said they want Obamacare to be a transition to single-payer systems," and have provided no evidence of any of them saying that the Affordable Care Act is such a transition.

I had not cited either as my ideals, but you may first want to familiarize yourself with Canada's before you malign it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-know-about-canadian-health-care-in-one-post/

"Canada's system looks to be relatively well liked. A 2011 Gallup Poll found that 57 percent of Canadians felt "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with their access to health care services (in the United States, that number stood at just 25 percent)."

 

The Canadians that like it have not had to use if for anything serious.

 

Natty,
As much as I regret coming to justify anything of Bobov, he is correct.
I have heard several major Democratic ObamaCare apologist state ObamaCare was a step to a single payer system when addressing ObamaCare's faults.
And there are many faults.
Such as forced contribution to private profits of a business sector controlled by old money.
If ObamaCare was not to be an expense on the tax payer, how is it it holds up budget approval ?


Yes indeed. In the spirit of compromise or duplicity, we have a National Health Care Mandate all can despise.


Moi

Got Convictions?
You are so old fashion.​

 

Your point being that merely saying they want single-payer is no evidence that they would try to move to it from Obamacare? That's rather thin reasoning. When people say they want something, it means they'll try for it as soon as they think they can get it.

Listen to this all the way through and you'll have the evidence you want about what Obama and other Democrats are thinking.

If you listened to Harry Reid, he's clear about Obamacare being transitional.

 

You made that up.

I can document mine.

The Americans who like theirs as much live in Massachusetts:

... or receive a huge $250 billion annual taxpayer subsidy that allows them to afford group coverage whilst 48 million Americans have gone uninsured.


I win!

 

People still go medically bankrupt in Mass.

 

I'd like everybody to be happy, but that doesn't mean I think its possible. Pretending that, because the President had long ago recognized the superiority of a single-payer system - long before Romney's individual mandate was proven to be a workable reform model - means that the Affordable Care Act is intended to be a transitional stage is nutty. It sounds like more poopdoodle the media wacko birds put in the mouths of dittogoons.

In February 2004, about a month before the primary election in the U.S. Senate race, the Associated Press reported the stance of all the candidates on universal health care. "Obama says he supports the idea of universal health care but does not think a single-payer government system is feasible. He says the government should be the health care provider of last resort for the uninsured."​

I certainly hope we get there some day, and some feel the economics make it inevitable but a far more viable transitional approach would be gradually lowering the Medicare eligibility age.

 

So, in your mind, only a perfect system is superior to what is by far the most expensive health care system on earth that fails to cover 48 million of its citizens?


You must be one of the privileged folks on an employer group plan that benefit from that $250 billion annual taxpayer subsidy.

 

A system that obviously has it faults but already is 50% government controlled and one of the major reasons for it's skewed costs. It amazes me that people would like to increase that to 100%.

 

It only sounds "nutty" if you'd prefer other people not catch on to what's going on.

Before there can be single payer the government has to get involved in running our health care...what a great first step this is and
the modern elephant did not magically appear without many transitional models to make the switch from Phosphatherium to Wooly Mammoth to Jumbo.

Obama hopes so too and realizes it will take many years before a switch to single payer is possible. If this isn't a baby step in that direction I don't know what is.

 

a fine bunch of.....

​

 

"It sounds like more poopdoodle the media wacko birds put in the mouths of dittogoons." You may be mistaken, but I enjoy your style.

Obama has vacillated about health care. Go to YouTube and you'll find him on both sides of the question, sometimes in the same statement. But then he's vacillated about most things.

Re Medicare - my mother is on Medicare, and like most seniors she has to buy supplemental insurance because Medicare coverage is limited. Were she to have a serious illness without supplemental insurance, what Medicare doesn't cover could bankrupt her. While Medicare beats nothing, it's insufficient. Because Medicare pays health care providers so little, many now refuse to accept it. What's more, Obamacare's fragile finances will be shored up by looting Medicare, not only paying still less to providers (driving still more out of the system), but slashing funds for Medicare's Advantage program, which pays HMO premiums for seniors who choose it. So you suggest expanding Medicare just as Democrats are contracting it.

The economics makes the demise of single-payer systems inevitable. Sadly, the sort of "progressive" politics that looks on economics as an immoral concern makes single-payer systems inevitable. I know it's liberal writ that single-payer systems give people more for less and that people are delighted with them. If only it were so. Look here for a hundred or so newspaper articles about health care in the UK. A very different picture than the one painted by US liberals. Insist that the many journalists, most of them British, who wrote these articles are all "media wacko birds," but the evidence seems overwhelming that their system provides less for more.

 

Do you regard the $250 billion annual taxpayer subsidy that sustains your group health insurance as an entitlement?

 

Like most successful politicians he has expressed the ideal, but embraced the practical, of necessity. As he has repeatedly noted, he recognizes the superiority of a single-payer system, but achieving that, given the unfortunate, taxpayer-subsidized employer-based coverage many Americans have, would be far too disruptive to the economy. You can't just eliminate the astronomical salaries of the insurance cartel's ceo's without throwing a huge number of Americans out of work.

Republicans have been demanding that Medicare funding be slashed for years, and radicals would repeal it entirely. If you are interested in ways Medicare is actually impacted by the current law rather than partisan distortions, this is a useful article. Of course, my suggesting that the eligibility age be gradually lowered would infuse less-costly demographics (presently limited to only what is, by far, the highest that the profiteers regard as unprofitable) distribute risk, eliminate all administrative duplication, as well as lobbying, advertising, and marketing, and reduce overall cost. That's just actuarial reality.

A pragmatic approach necessitates abandoning the ideological dogma and emulating what demonstrably works better. Since the US rates poorly amongst advanced nations (#46 in Bloomberg's recent comparative assessment), a variety of better approaches is readily available. Again, transitioning to it from the inherently-inefficient, heavily-subsidized employer-administered basis is one of the major challenges that RomneyCare did not address.

More ideological claptrap. Healthcare worldwide is experiencing economic stress, and the most effective cost reduction measure would be to radically reduce coverage for sick people, of course, but if your goal is to cover them all at far lower cost than the US spends in not doing so, a single, inclusive plan that eliminates the huge chunk of every health care dollar extracted by the superfluous middle man is a sensible approach.

Rather than my pointing to extant, far more effective national systems - Japan, Israel, Spain, Australia, Switzerland - why don't you just cite your real-world ideals.

Or are they all imaginary?



.

 

You are just proving my point.

 

Your refusing to answer a simple question honestly is noted.

 

Because they require government imposed reduced services, stifles innovation, and kills competition.

 

Pretty please, with sugar on top, nominate a real fire breathing right winger this time.

Let me know if I can help.

Since Hillary will be a slam dunk for the nomination on our side I might be willing to change my registration to Republican on a temporary basis so that I can vote in your primary.

Are you thinking Ted Cruz?

Or Rand Paul?

 

Yes, it would be a surprise to actually have a candidate willing to stand for their convictions.

 

Given your evasiveness, it would appear that you do regard your federal subsidy for group insurance as an entitlement.

$250 billion annually is an enormous price that you expect the American taxpayer to pay so that you can have affordable coverage whilst 48 million Americans have none.

 

... and there is no shortage of fanatics in the world who do so with passionate intensity - although one fewer since Obama took out bin Laden.

 

Now it is up to around 2 trillion with Obamacare.