ADVERTISEMENT

Poll: People like single payer, until they hear more details....

The Tradition

HB King
Apr 23, 2002
128,687
103,412
113
WASHINGTON (AP) -- At first, many Americans like the idea of "Medicare for all," a cradle-to-grave government-run health system that's a rallying cry for Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.

But bring up the trade-offs — from higher taxes to giving up employer coverage — and support starts to shrivel.

That's the key insight from an Associated Press-GfK poll released Thursday. The survey also found that people's initial impressions of Sanders' single-payer plan are more favorable than their views of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.

A slim plurality of 39 percent supports replacing the private health insurance system with a single government-run, taxpayer-funded plan that would cover medical, dental, vision and long-term care, with 33 percent opposed. Only 26 percent say they support Obama's hard-won health care law.

Yet it's only like an air kiss for "Berniecare."

Asked whether they would continue to support Sanders' plan if their own taxes went up, under a third of initial supporters of the plan would keep backing it. About 4 out of 10 flipped to opposition.

About the same share of initial backers would ditch single-payer if it meant that people had to give up employer coverage. Twenty-eight percent would continue to support it.

Higher taxes and an end to employer coverage are both a given under the Sanders plan, which would replace private coverage with a taxpayer-funded program, while also offering more generous benefits such as no deductibles and no copayments, not to mention coverage for long-term care.

"That's pie in the sky," said Patricia Combs, a retired junior-high math teacher from Springboro, Ohio. "It sounds really good, but I don't think it's attainable ... people would complain about their taxes being raised."

http://news.yahoo.com/ap-gfk-poll-support-shaky-sanders-medicare-084358357--finance.html
 
"Medicare for all," a cradle-to-grave government-run health system ....
This could be what I hate most about the right wing distortion machine. Even reasonable people accept this characterization without question.

HOW is a single payer system a "government-run health system"?

The main thing being "socialized" here is the payment part.

I'm on medicare.

I go to private doctors of my choosing. I use private labs of my choosing. I get my prescriptions from the drug store of my choosing.

How is that government run?

To me, there's virtually no difference between getting and paying for medical services on Medicare than when I had a company-provided group health plan.

Why are people so STUPID about this really easy-to-grasp point?

OK, OK, I KNOW why they are so stupid. They listen to GOP politicians, and Cato Institute propagandists, and FOX so-called-News. And nobody bothers to straighten them out.

If my Medicare is expanded to be Medicare for all, there will be some differences. But if you are like me, you have probably been through changes in you employer-provided health plan. Sometimes hardly noticeable, sometimes significant. So this will be like an insurance plan change.

Yes you will pay more taxes. BUT you won't pay for the private insurance.

As our cons like to point out, "free" isn't really free. If your employer plan was free or cheap, you were still paying for it. You were getting less in wages. If we switch to Medicare for All, your employer will pay more tax, but should give you the difference (if any) in more pay. If he doesn't, that's between you and him.
 
No kidding. But why?

I'm going to give you a new fridge.

Wonderful!

But take away your old fridge.

No way!

You'll pay $10 a month to operate your new fridge.

Outrageous!

And save the $12 a month you now pay.

I'm sorry, did you say something? I just got the funniest email....

Exactly.
 
If you don't think the federal government isn't micromanaging everything that medicare providers do, then I don't know what to tell you. The government is absolutely "running" the healthcare system and want to be even more in-charge of everything than they already are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lawsonhawk
What's the difference in paying taxes and paying health insurance premiums?

I think the bigger question is if your taxes are going to go up higher then your health insurance premiums are.
 
What's the difference in paying taxes and paying health insurance premiums?

I think the bigger question is if your taxes are going to go up higher then your health insurance premiums are.

The government can't beat the premiums I pay.
 
The government can't beat the premiums I pay.

In other words I managed to get with an employer who pays all my health insurance so I don't care about all the people who have to pay large percentages of their income for health insurance or just straight up can't afford it?

I get to choose what health insurance company I choose to pay premiums to. If I don't like my insurer, I can shop around for another one.

I don't have any choice with single payer.

And on what basis do you determine which health insurer you like?
 
I get to choose what health insurance company I choose to pay premiums to. If I don't like my insurer, I can shop around for another one.

I don't have any choice with single payer.
That's not the reality for most. Most get who their employer shopped around for.
 
In other words I managed to get with an employer who pays all my health insurance so I don't care about all the people who have to pay large percentages of their income for health insurance or just straight up can't afford it?

Something like that.

Besides, the ACA is supposed to take care of all those other folks. Right?
 
I get to choose what health insurance company I choose to pay premiums to. If I don't like my insurer, I can shop around for another one.

I don't have any choice with single payer.

its interesting that you view health care through the lens of an insurer rather than a provider.
 
That's not the reality for most. Most get who their employer shopped around for.

There have always been private options. At least, until ObamaCare came along. Now everything has to have the official government stamp of approval and all the essential benefits whether you need them in your policy or not.
 
its interesting that you view health care through the lens of an insurer rather than a provider.

That was in response to a question about the difference between paying premiums and paying taxes. Of course the answer is going involve the insurer.
 
There have always been private options. At least, until ObamaCare came along. Now everything has to have the official government stamp of approval and all the essential benefits whether you need them in your policy or not.
And those options have not been the reality for most.
 
See....the thing is, the cost in the system is what it is. I understand the rationale in making preventative services free in the plans since it prevents bigger expenses down the road. Then hospitals and everybody else ends up eating that cost. The only way a private system like what some here want works is to literally deny service to people.
 
There have always been private options. At least, until ObamaCare came along. Now everything has to have the official government stamp of approval and all the essential benefits whether you need them in your policy or not.

Hey Trad, how's the birth control working for ya?;)
 
This could be what I hate most about the right wing distortion machine. Even reasonable people accept this characterization without question.

HOW is a single payer system a "government-run health system"?

The main thing being "socialized" here is the payment part.

I'm on medicare.

I go to private doctors of my choosing. I use private labs of my choosing. I get my prescriptions from the drug store of my choosing.

How is that government run?

To me, there's virtually no difference between getting and paying for medical services on Medicare than when I had a company-provided group health plan.

Why are people so STUPID about this really easy-to-grasp point?

OK, OK, I KNOW why they are so stupid. They listen to GOP politicians, and Cato Institute propagandists, and FOX so-called-News. And nobody bothers to straighten them out.

If my Medicare is expanded to be Medicare for all, there will be some differences. But if you are like me, you have probably been through changes in you employer-provided health plan. Sometimes hardly noticeable, sometimes significant. So this will be like an insurance plan change.

Yes you will pay more taxes. BUT you won't pay for the private insurance.

As our cons like to point out, "free" isn't really free. If your employer plan was free or cheap, you were still paying for it. You were getting less in wages. If we switch to Medicare for All, your employer will pay more tax, but should give you the difference (if any) in more pay. If he doesn't, that's between you and him.


I would assume you understand just how underfunded Medicare is?

The health insurance program for seniors is the nation's biggest financial challenge.

The first of 77 million Baby Boomers turn 65 this year and qualify for Medicare. Enrollment will grow from 48 million in 2010 to 64 million in 2020 and 81 million in 2030, according to Medicare actuaries. That 33-million increase in the next 20 years compares with 13 million in the last 20.

This demographic burst — combined with the addition of a prescription drug benefit in 2006 and rising health care costs generally — has created an unfunded liability of nearly $25 trillion over the lifetime of those now in the program as workers and retirees. That is the taxpayers' obligation, beyond what Medicare taxes will bring in or seniors will pay in premiums for Medicare Part B — also called supplemental coverage — that helps pay for doctor visits and other expenses outside the hospital.

So you are now collecting on a system that you were told you pre-paid into more or less. Well it turns out that it's less. Way less.
 
HRIS JOHNCOX

When leftists fantasize about Northern Europe, the first thing they think of is the region’s enormous public spending and its overly generous welfare state. However, as with all dreams, the time is coming to wake up. Along with several other social services, Sweden’s iconic “free” healthcare system’s days are numbered.



Sweden’s insurance trade industry organization, Svensk Försäkring reports:

The number of private health care insurance policies has increased in recent years. In 2011 about 440,000 people had private health care insurance. Most of these people have their policy paid by their employer.

SwedenPrivHealth.jpg




Additionally, The Local recently reported that nearly “One in ten Swedes now has private health insurance,” with rising policy demand extending to half a million Swedes and growing throughout the 9.5 million living in the country.

From The Local:

“It’s quicker to get a colleague back to work if you have an operation in two weeks’ time rather than having to wait for a year,” privately insured Anna Norlander told Sveriges Radio on Friday. “It’s terrible that I, as a young person, don’t feel I can trust the health care system to take care of me.”

The Local also reminds us that the Achilles heel of all socialist systems plagues the Swedish medical system, stating:

“Visitors are sometimes surprised to learn about year-long waiting times for cancer patients.”

This is an unfortunate reality in an industry where suppliers cannot predict market prices for a service and therefore must ration, causing poor service and over-inflated demand. The only logical conclusion that one could derive from this situation is that demand for supplemental private insurance skyrockets because of the inadequate government healthcare system.

In the 1970s, Sweden began to replace its market economy with a socialist planned one. When that proved unaffordable in the 90s, Sweden then began to re-privatize industries and let economic laws of laissez faire capitalism begin to take root once more. Now, Sweden’s public spending has decreased nearly 20% in the last 20 years and its taxes are lower than France, Belgium, and Denmark.



Read more: http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/sweden-is-evolving-to-private-healthcare/#ixzz411IngfXQ
 
That's not the reality for most. Most get who their employer shopped around for.
Yep.

My insurance changed one year because one of the owners decided to have kids, so he shopped around for the plan that gave the best coverage for what he needed at the lowest cost. Naturally that was achieved by reducing other coverage.

Didn't bother me either way, but some employees found they were having to pay out more than before.

If this had been a government plan, all those who felt they didn't get to keep the plan they liked would be screaming about oppression, socialism, lies, and whatever. But since it was an employer plan, we were good little lemmings and you heard just a tiny bit of grumbling because, after all, the employer could just take it away.

Similarly, when insurance prices went up in the previous market environment, people grumbled. And paid. Or went without. But when prices go up since Obamacare, it's Obama's fault and it's due to government interference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
If you don't think the federal government isn't micromanaging everything that medicare providers do, then I don't know what to tell you. The government is absolutely "running" the healthcare system and want to be even more in-charge of everything than they already are.
I'll say it again:

I'm on medicare.

I go to private doctors of my choosing. I use private labs of my choosing. I get my prescriptions from the drug store of my choosing.

How is that government run?
 
I'll say it again:

I'm on medicare.

I go to private doctors of my choosing. I use private labs of my choosing. I get my prescriptions from the drug store of my choosing.

How is that government run?

I'll say it again.

The government dictates what sort of treatments your doctor can be paid to do, how it must be done and documented, and how much they'll pay for it. If you doctor does any of those things wrong, your doctor doesn't get paid.

How is that NOT government run?
 
I'll say it again.

The government dictates what sort of treatments your doctor can be paid to do, how it must be done and documented, and how much they'll pay for it. If you doctor does any of those things wrong, your doctor doesn't get paid.

How is that NOT government run?
How is that any different from private insurance?

Is the current health care system run by the insurance companies?

Sure, the decisions about what insurance companies will cover (or what Medicare will cover) influence choices. That's how markets work.

But that doesn't make the doctor an employee of the insurance company (or government), and it doesn't make CVS part of the insurance company (or government), and so on.

Medicare is basically an insurance policy. It covers what we (via our elected reps) tell it to cover and costs what we (via our elected reps) are willing to pay.

Not only do we have a say in what gets covered and how much we have to pay - as opposed to the take-it-or-leave-it choices in the private sector - but the government doesn't skim off profit and run up admin costs, thereby reducing the money available for care. In principle. In the absence of corruption. But that's a separate issue. (see my next post)
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rrupt-for-single-payer-health-care/?tid=a_inl

The key to a single-payer system is that the government sets prices. Usually, it empowers boards of independent experts who set those prices low. Reinhardt's argument is that in the United States, health industry interests have so much sway over Congress that the prices would end up being set by health-care interests.

"When you go to Taiwan or Canada," Reinhardt said, "the kind of lobbying we have here is illegal there. You can’t pay money to influence the party the same way. Therefore the bureaucrats who run these systems are pretty much insulated from these pressures. Here you have basically a board of directors in the House Ways and Means Committee that gets money from lobbyists both at the regulatory writing stage and during normal operations. And they can call an administrator and demand they stop something from happening."
 
How is that any different from private insurance?

Is the current health care system run by the insurance companies?

Sure, the decisions about what insurance companies will cover (or what Medicare will cover) influence choices. That's how markets work.

But that doesn't make the doctor an employee of the insurance company (or government), and it doesn't make CVS part of the insurance company (or government), and so on.

Medicare is basically an insurance policy. It covers what we (via our elected reps) tell it to cover and costs what we (via our elected reps) are willing to pay.

Not only do we have a say in what gets covered and how much we have to pay - as opposed to the take-it-or-leave-it choices in the private sector - but the government doesn't skim off profit and run up admin costs, thereby reducing the money available for care. In principle. In the absence of corruption. But that's a separate issue. (see my next post)

DUDE, YOU DON'T GET IT.

When we have single-payer cradle-to-grave Medicare, then that will be the only game in town.

That's the ultimate take-it-or-leave it.
 
Tell that to the BLM folks.

Oh, and the veterans who get crapped on by the VA as well.
Black people love Medicare just like white people do. Admit it, government is good at spending money on healthcare. Go fine some other reason to hate them but healthcare is all theirs.
 
It's Been awesome for decades? Then why did obama lie and say it was broken and he was here to swoop in and fix it? Which version is true?
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT