Nationalized Single-Payer Health Systems

Nationalized Single-Payer Health Systems

J ScottPro Member
Moderator
Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 18k+ posts · 17k+ votes

First, this thread is NOT about the current legislation to create a national healthcare program. There are plenty of threads on here arguing the benefits and drawbacks of that specific bill, and I don't want this to turn into another one.

I'd honestly love to have a constructive discussion about this, and hopefully I can better understand views counter to my own...

Here's my premise:

Let's pretend there was a national healthcare bill that provided medical benefits to everyone, exactly like Medicare currently does for those over 65, but ALSO allowed those wanted to get privatized healthcare (at the current quality and costs) to continue to do so. In other words, if you didn't want to use the national healthcare system, you'd still pay for it through your taxes, but you could go about paying separately for your own healthcare (just like now) with absolutely no loss of quality or service, and at the exact same prices.

Please don't argue that this isn't possible...it's my premise, and I'd like to stick with it for this thread.

Given that, what are your specific issues with this idea?

I suspect two of the issues that will come up are "It's socialized medicine and we don't want that," and "It's going to be expensive."

For those who feel this is the reason not to implement this system, my follow-up question would be:

How is this system any different than any of the current single-payer nationalized (socialized) systems of health protection we have in this country today? And should we get rid of those?

What I meant there is that we already have single-payer nationalized health protection in this country.

From the Centers for Disease Control (which does health research on behalf of the whole country, health research on behalf of specific parts of the country, and medical treatment for individuals who require it); to the FDA (which provides generalized health oversight of our foods and medicines); to the police and fire departments (which protect our individual health and well being everyday), we already have extensive socialized health protection in this country.

Some might argue that those services are for the good of the whole, as opposed to healthcare which is targeted to individuals. But, that's not truly the case.

For example, MikeOH has stated many times (sorry, not trying to pick on you Mike!) that he's had the police come out to his properties many times; I, on the other hand, have never had to call the police or have them come to one of my properties. Yet we both pay the same amount in taxes to provide this service. He's benefiting more from my tax dollars than I am.

Likewise, my cousin only eats organic food and doesn't shop in grocery stores, so he gets less use out of the FDA than I do. Yet, just as much of his taxes going towards protecting my health as mine do. I'm benefiting more from his tax dollars than I am.

These are all single-payer nationalized (socialized, if you will) health protection systems created for our citizens. They exist today, and for the most part, I don't hear anyone complaining that they're too expensive or too socialized.

And, of course, there is one more BIG ONE -- Medicare. It's exactly what I'm proposing above, but instead of just for people 65 and over, it would be for everyone. Just like Medicare now, it's not mandatory; if you want to use your own private health insurance, go for it.

Not a single congressman or senator has stood up and said, "let's get rid of Medicare." And politicians on both sides have said, "If I were around in 1965, I would have voted for the Medicare bill."

So, clearly there is support for Medicare, which is also tremendously expensive and tremendously socialized.

For those who argue that the government can't effectively run a healthcare system, consider this:

Feedback from Medicare users is consistently very positive. People who use Medicare tend to be very happy with it. Additionally, the government runs VA healthcare programs which also tend to get very high marks from participants. So, clearly, given the priority, the government can manage a healthcare program.

All that said, I'd love to hear from those who are opposed to nationalized healthcare...what is your opposition?

Again, let's keep Obama out of this, let's keep the current bill out of this, let's keep all the specific idiots on capital hill out of this discussion. Let's stick to the idea, not the current implementation being discussed.

Thanks for the feedback...I'm honestly very curious!

1Reply
35 views

Most Popular Reply

Investor · Mableton, GA · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 465 votes
17y
Originally posted by Mike M:

I pay Federal Taxes, thus I have military protection from foreign and domestic invaders. I pay state taxes and have police, fire and other state provided services. I pay Property Tax and have municipal services such as water, sewer, trash, snow plowing, etc...


Lets take it one step further. What you are saying is that you are paying taxes to get certain service. Why not privatize it! If those are "services" provided for "money" (Taxes) then let privatize it all. You want protection? you pay a company to provide it You want snow plowing and garbage removal? Lets get a company to do it, and so on and so forth. The reason it is not privatized is because those services are considered basic and society agreed that they should be provided to those who can afford them as well as to those who cannot. Why do I have to pay taxes for educating someone's children when I don't have any? Because society decided that education is important for the common cause. Do I like it? Heck no!! But I still pay.
The logic of pure capitalism go so far and then... there are humans...
See this reply in the discussion

22 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    OP
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 18k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    17y

    It's funny how when I take the bashing of individual politicians out of the equation, nobody can provide me with an argument against health care reform...

    Perhaps people don't really care about the issues after all...perhaps they just use the issues as a pulpit to spew their personal opinions about those they dislike...

  • Investor · Westminster, CO · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    17y

    Medicare SUCKS, and big time. So does VA Health Benefits. They are run at about the same level as "Public Housing." If you saw "American Gangster", you saw that over half the police were on the take for drug money. IF you could keep everyone in power HONEST and TRUSTWORTHY, then I might reconsider.

    Here is an article about the efficiency of National Health Care,

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,539943,00.html

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    OP
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 18k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    17y

    Mike -

    Why do you say Medicare sucks?

    It gets very high customer satisfaction scores from those who use it...so they apparently don't think it sucks. Additionally, since Medicare was implemented in 1965, the life expectancy and overall health of senior citizens has improved dramatically (proportionately more than the general population at large). This also indicates that Medicare has been affective for its users.

    I don't have any data for VA, so I can't comment on it. But would love to see your data that supports VA not being any good.

  • Investor · Westminster, CO · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    17y

    I am in California right now, taking care of my parents, dad has advanced Alzheimers and mom has Lung Cancer. Medicare is like that miniature spare tire that most cars carry now. Sure, the car can keep going, but at a much lowered performance. My mother's next prescription 'co-pay' is going to be $5,235 FOR ONE BOTTLE OF PILLS. She has reached something called "the doughnut hole." We are going to have to put dad in some kind of "assisted living" and Medicare is going to pay ZERO of it.

    Luckily, my parents real estate investments are going to be able to pay for all this, but my experience with Medicare is HANDS ON, DAILY right now, and it SUCKS.

    Thus my belief, both of my parents, who were born into very, VERY poor families, can earn, save and invest for their own Health Insurance and Health Care and not look to the government to do it for them. Everyone else should too. I can give example after example of people who had ordinary jobs yet retired very wealthy. One of my uncles was a cop his entire life, when he died, he owned 16 rental properties, free and clear.

    Everyone, no matter what job they have, should take care of their own business and not expect the government to provide health services.

    I also have other, much deeper, inside information about Medicare which I am not allowed to disclose. Let's just say that Enron looked good to a lot of people, for a long time!!! So did Bernie Madoff!!! You can fool some of the people all of the time or all of the people some of the time! But some of us look deeper at a situation!

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    OP
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 18k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    17y
    Originally posted by Mike M:
    My mother's next prescription 'co-pay' is going to be $5,235 FOR ONE BOTTLE OF PILLS. She has reached something called "the doughnut hole." We are going to have to put dad in some kind of "assisted living" and Medicare is going to pay ZERO of it.


    How the hell can you write something like THAT, and then in the next breath say that we don't need health care reform???

    It just makes no sense to me.

    If anything, your story above proves my point that health care in this country sucks and needs to be fixed. We're apparently wasting tax payer money and getting few benefits out of it. How is that a good thing?

    I just don't understand you line of reasoning, Mike...

  • Investor · Westminster, CO · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    17y

    Slow Down there J Scott. I never said that we don't need health care reform. I said we don't need socialized medicine. To me, the Health Care industry is a MONOPOLY and gouges people when they are at their most vulnerable.

    You asked me why I felt Medicare sucked so I gave an example. Just another example of how the government will RUN things. The government should MONITOR things, but not RUN them.

    The Health Care Industry has a myriad of players in it, and a lot of unregulated sections. It needs to be fixed, and I believe our debate is over HOW.

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    OP
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 18k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    17y
    Originally posted by Mike M:
    I never said that we don't need health care reform .... To me, the Health Care industry is a MONOPOLY and gouges people when they are at their most vulnerable. ....

    The Health Care Industry has a myriad of players in it, and a lot of unregulated sections. It needs to be fixed, and I believe our debate is over HOW.


    In that case, it sounds like we completely agree...

    You probably haven't noticed -- most people don't really read what I write, as they're too busy arguing with me -- but I've never espoused a personal belief on how healthcare should be reformed and whether it should be nationalized or not...

    In fact, I haven't completely figured out what I think the best reform plan is...

  • Investor · Mableton, GA · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 465 votes
    17y

    I don't think Obama is fully honest when he says that "If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan". The problem with this statement is that to finance any government-run health plan, everyone would have to pay some sort of tax which means that those who have their own health care will also have to pay for those who don't and that is like paying twice.
    There are many good government-run plans around the world and each system is different. In German for instance, the way it is done, and cost are controlled is by not paying doctors and other health worker a lot of money as they do here. Many German doctors moonlight in other EU countries for extra money. The good thing also, is that doctors are not paid by procedures as they do here. That keep cost down as well. I personally believe that there are things that needed to be kept out of the capitalistic system. Health care is one of them. This is the basic human services that society need to provide to its members. Imagine if we had one system health care? We could be the largest insurance group this country ever had... :lol:

  • Investor · Westminster, CO · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    17y
    Originally posted by Eddie:
    I personally believe that there are things that needed to be kept out of the capitalistic system. Health care is one of them. This is the basic human services that society need to provide to its members.

    And therein lies the crux of the entire issue. IS HEALTH CARE A BASIC HUMAN SERVICE? To expand the question, WHAT are basic human services?

    My opinion is that there are NO basic human services. There are basic human RIGHTS, such a Life, Liberty and the right to pursue my dreams. There are basic human RESPONSIBILITIES, ie. being a parent. There are ethics, morals and consequences. One way to measure it is if I don't want it done to me, then I should not do it to anyone else.

    I pay Federal Taxes, thus I have military protection from foreign and domestic invaders. I pay state taxes and have police, fire and other state provided services. I pay Property Tax and have municipal services such as water, sewer, trash, snow plowing, etc... But when my Federal dollar goes to someone who doesn't want to work, I have a problem with it. When my state dollar is used to provide medical services to an illegal alien, I have a problem with it. When my local dollar goes to provide public transportation to high income people, I have a problem with it.

    My basic philosophy is, "If you want it, pay for it."

    When people say things like, "Society should provide.......", what they are really saying is to take from those who work and give to those who don't want to work.

    I know and understand the arguments from the other side, such as, "You got rich because our capitalistic structure allowed you to become an entrepreuner, thus you OWE society." or "You got lucky, thus you need to help those who are unlucky" or "People can't help their downtrodden situation".

    An example from my grandparents. My mother's parents were Migrant Farm Workers who moved to California during the Dust Bowl to pick fruits and nuts around the Fresno Area. My mother's playground was the shade under an old, Conestoga Wagon. When my grandfather died, there were six Cadillacs behind the hearse, owned by each of the six children. All six made it six different ways. One started a Moving Company, one was a Realtor, one was a police officer, etc.... None of them, EVER, got any government assistance in the way of Welfare, Health Care, Food Stamps, FDIC, etc...

    Basic Human Services? IMHO, they do not exist!

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    OP
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 18k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    17y
    Originally posted by Mike M:

    My opinion is that there are NO basic human services.
    ....
    I pay Federal Taxes, thus I have military protection from foreign and domestic invaders. I pay state taxes and have police, fire and other state provided services. I pay Property Tax and have municipal services such as water, sewer, trash, snow plowing, etc... But when my Federal dollar goes to someone who doesn't want to work, I have a problem with it.


    Tour Federal and State dollars are going towards people who don't work every single day. People who don't work get the benefot of the military protection you pay for, they get the benefit of the police and fire services you pay for, they get the benefit of the municipal utilities, federal health protection (CDC, FDA), federal police (FBI)n etc!

    If none of these things are basic rights (as you've stated) and all of them are being provided for people who don't work and are illegal immigrants thanks to your tax dollars, then why aren't you demanding these things are gotten rid of?

    Many people believe health care is no different than police, fire, FDA, military and other protection provided my the government.

    How is it different? Your tax dollars go towards socialist activities all the time, but you don't complain until health care is the specific service. How is health care different than any of those other services?

  • Investor · Mableton, GA · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 465 votes
    17y
    Originally posted by Mike M:

    I pay Federal Taxes, thus I have military protection from foreign and domestic invaders. I pay state taxes and have police, fire and other state provided services. I pay Property Tax and have municipal services such as water, sewer, trash, snow plowing, etc...


    Lets take it one step further. What you are saying is that you are paying taxes to get certain service. Why not privatize it! If those are "services" provided for "money" (Taxes) then let privatize it all. You want protection? you pay a company to provide it You want snow plowing and garbage removal? Lets get a company to do it, and so on and so forth. The reason it is not privatized is because those services are considered basic and society agreed that they should be provided to those who can afford them as well as to those who cannot. Why do I have to pay taxes for educating someone's children when I don't have any? Because society decided that education is important for the common cause. Do I like it? Heck no!! But I still pay.
    The logic of pure capitalism go so far and then... there are humans...
  • Investor · Westminster, CO · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    17y

    Our constitution lays out a "Democratic Republic" and specifically states what services the Federal Government is to provide. Why do people want to keep ADDING to that?

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    OP
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 18k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    17y
    Originally posted by Mike M:
    Our constitution lays out a "Democratic Republic" and specifically states what services the Federal Government is to provide. Why do people want to keep ADDING to that?


    In that case, can you please point out in the Constitution where the government is required to provide the following services:

    - Health protection: FDA, CDC, AHRQ
    - Transportation Services: FAA, DOT, Federal Highway Admin
    - Communications Services: FCC
    - Federal Police Force: FBI, ATF, DEA
    - House Administration: FHA, HUD

    I could go on for about 30 pages if you want...but we'll start with these...

    Indicate for me where the Constitution lays out these services?

    Or tell me that we should get rid of them all...
  • Investor · Westminster, CO · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    17y

    Transportation and Communication are part of "Interstate Commerce"

    Federal Police Force deals with protection from outside and inside the country.

    YES, YES, YES, get rid of FHA, PLEASE!

    FDA, what a freaking JOKE. Don't even get me started!

  • Investor · Westminster, CO · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    17y

    US Constitution
    Article 1
    Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

    To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

    To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

    To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

    To establish post offices and post roads;

    To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

    To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

    To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

    To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

    To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

    To provide and maintain a navy;

    To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

    To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

    To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    OP
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 18k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    17y
    Originally posted by Mike M:

    Federal Police Force deals with protection from outside and inside the country.


    Excellent...so it sounds like you agree that the protection of the well-being of our citizens is the responsility of the Federal government...

    Is that correct?

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    OP
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 18k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    17y
    Originally posted by Mike M:
    US Constitution
    Article 1
    Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    So, if you want to go by the letter of Constitution, I guess you're arguing that we need to get rid of:

    The CDC, the NIH, the FAA, the FCC, the AHRQ, HUD, NASA, NIST, the Bureau of Prisons, the USDA, the Department of Education, the DOE, the VA, the DEA, FEMA, the SBA, the Department of Labor, etc...

    All of those (and hundreds more) federal offices aren't specifically called out in Article 1 of the Constitution...

    If you're going to be a stickler and say that we shouldn't have any federally subsidized agencies or benefits outside of what is called for in the Constitution, then at least be consistent, and call for the eradication of every one of the agencies listed above (and all the others)...

  • Investor · Westminster, CO · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    17y

    Jason
    I am going to drop this one, we are never going to agree. The government is involved WAY TOO MUCH in our lives as it is.
    Mike

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    OP
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 18k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    17y
    Originally posted by Mike M:
    Jason
    I am going to drop this one, we are never going to agree. The government is involved WAY TOO MUCH in our lives as it is.


    Sorry Mike, but that's really pathetic...

    You make the statement that government shouldn't be subsidizing anything that isn't provided for in the Constitution...

    These are your words:

    "Our constitution lays out a "Democratic Republic" and specifically states what services the Federal Government is to provide. Why do people want to keep ADDING to that?"

    Then, when I specifically ask you if the government should be dropping a number of agencies and programs not called out in the Constitution, instead of answering yes (indicating that you really believed your statement above) or no (indicating that you didn't really believe your statement above), you decide to drop the conservation...

    Funny how you're willing to argue and fight until you back yourself in a corner, and then you won't even answer a simple yes or no question...

    Pathetic.

    At least you proved my point before I left for vacation...now I can enjoy my vacation without worrying that you might petition the Supreme Court to close down 90% of all government agencies...

  • Investor · Westminster, CO · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    17y

    Pathetic? Do you like to fish as a hobby? Because you sure like to bait people. You just do it poorly.

    I respect your viewpoints but I find debating you fills me with ennui. Enjoy your vacation, you need it.

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    OP
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 18k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    17y
    Originally posted by Mike M:
    Pathetic? Do you like to fish as a hobby? Because you sure like to bait people.


    No, I don't like to bait people...I just find it annoying when someone says, "I'm done arguing about this," when all they mean is, "I'm done arguing about this in this particular thread because my argument has be proven inconsistent."

    I apologize if this isn't your MO, but there are plenty of people here who will say ridiculous and inflammatory things, and then when questioned or called out on it, they say they're done, and just go post the same ridiculous and inflammatory thing in another thread.

    Again, if that's not your intent and you're really just done discussing this topic (in all of these threads)...then my apologies...
  • Real Estate Investor · Elkhorn, WI · Member since 2008 · 453 posts · 104 votes
    17y

    and this is how your beloved government agencies are run...funny how moveon.org isn't taking out tv ads against how the VA is run.

    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/52853

Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.