Paul Waldman: "Single Payer" is Becoming a Democratic Concensus

In the link below, it is argued that single payer healthcare (albeit while misusing the term) is becoming a Democratic party consensus.

I'm curious if you agree that is the case and if you think it's a positive thing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/08/31/single-payer-is-becoming-democratic-party-consensus-heres-the-danger-to-avoid/

100% support single payer. We already do it for the elderly and it's extremely popular and cost efficient when compared to the alternatives.

Single payer is not a entirely bad idea , tho it need a bit of reworking as to poor vs Rich.

But it´s a pipe dream and you are up against a huge medical lobby org and most republicans.

Its the only solution to the health care issues we face. 70% of the nation knows this, the entire world knows this, the only people who argue otherwise are either exploiting others or are stupid.

@Jacanuk: "tho it need a bit of reworking as to poor vs Rich."

In what way?

I was trying to figure out wtf he even said there and what that means.

Is there any chance you could translate this for me or are you just as confused as to what this sentence is actually saying?

@kod: No idea. Nothing to do but ask.

Single-payer could definitely become a Democratic plank, but it is going to take more than Bernie Sanders and one co-sponsor to make that change.

@R3FURBISHED:

"but it is going to take more than Bernie Sanders and one co-sponsor to make that change."

Definitely. I don't think the author of the article disagrees either.

your link pulls up a blank page for me

@R3FURBISHED: I just tried it successfully.

This is awesome

I think it will take years before that happens.

It baffles me that a so called developed country doesn't have it.

Its cheaper and more effective, what exactly is the argument against it? Do Americans enjoy paying more for less?

It means less money for the industry that sells it. Oh and government run I guess.

The argument against it and the reason we do not have it, is we do not have a democratic republic anymore. We have an oligarchy, 2 parties that are really 1 and they both serve corporations. Not the people. While it costs more, that money (our tax dollars, plus money spent on the insanely priced private industry that will charge you 42 dollars for a tooth brush if you're in the hospital) goes to private insurance companies and private medical, in return they give our politicians money. The vast majority of Americans want single payer, but because single payer would severely damage the exploitative and evil industry of private health insurance, it wont pass.

You forgot that they also go to pay the wages to few people at the top in these corporations.

In the way that the rich has to pay where as the poor does not.

Ahh poor KOD trying with the subtle insults again.

Your ego must really have been hurt.

I don't understand. Is it an objection to the fact that such a system is typically funded via taxation?

If you take it as an insult than you know there is nothing subtle about what i said.

You simply posted an incoherent sentence that no one understood.

Single payer ends up as a tax. The "poor" pay for it in the same way the "rich" do, with their tax dollars and since you always know next to nothing on these subjects i will add that its less than what we are currently paying in medical costs taken from our taxes.

As usual Jacaunk knows absolutely nothing on the subjects he wants to speak on.

As i said that is where it have to be reworked since it makes no sense to provide healthcare for people who can afford it.

You really think Gates should be entitled to the same as Joe Miner?

And my sentence was fine, you just wanted to throw a cheap insult out there. You know holding grudges is not good for you.

No, but as i wrote to KOD , it makes no sense for a Gates to be entitled to the same as Joe Miner since it would also cost a lot more.

Providing a single payer system for people below a certain income makes sense,

But then you lose out on all the efficiencies and savings single payer would provide.

I'm perfectly fine with offering coverage to everyone regardless of wealth. It's not like Bill Gates's healthcare will cost a lot more than Joe Miner's (probably less, statistically speaking, given miner occupational health hazards).

Bill Gates would end up funding more as a totality than Joe based on his income while Joe would provide less based on his income. Each would get roughly the same benefits (again, as a statistical representation over a large population) both in terms of coverage and in societal benefits as a whole.

Not really, everyone still pays their tax. or well mostly. Those who can´t use tax loopholes.

The system i suggest is just to avoid it costing a arm and a leg needs to be balanced.

Do you understand taxes and how social services like that would be applied?

Yes, just like social security, Joe Miner and Bill Gates would end up with the same ability to get health care.

As for your sentence, again, no one was able to determine what it meant. So maybe you should accept that you wrote an incoherent sentence.

I feel like your quote would best fit with a simple jack gif.

And cut into the profit of the health industry and insurance providers? Utter madness.

Do you even understand my point?

The point is not equality but proper healthcare for those who can´t afford it.

You hit the nail right on the head, the healthcare industry has a strong lobby org.

Yes, i understood your very basic statement.

The point of Captain Picard's sarcastic clap was to emote my feelings for you reaching the entry position of the conversation with the very generalized and basic comment.

No reason to write a 50 page essay like you normally do to end up at the same place.

Every first-world industrialized country has universal healthcare, and it works.

At no point ever have we seen people in the U.K., France, Germany, Australia, Japan, or South Korea protesting and demanding that their healthcare be privatized, and or declaring that universal healthcare is a "government takeover." Why? Because it never fucking happened, and that stupid notion is why America will never follow the model.

Plus, even if America adopted universal healthcare, I guarantee you there would be a good percentage of Americans that would take it as "selling out" or being "un-American." Because every country in the world is small, weak, wimpy, and stupid and America is #1 in everything and we have to keep believing in that stance because we helped win a war over 70 years ago.

Well, if you follow the news, you would have heard that the NHS is heavily criticized and underfunded. particularly not forgetting the NHS pretty much doomed a little baby to die because of their ignorance.

You can say many things about the US healthcare, but you get a higher level of care in the us then most of the European universal healthcare systems. (if you can afford it of course)

You could begin with altering corruption laws. Or lobbying laws. Presenting lies to the politicians could be a crime, like lying to investors are.

Charlie Gard was terminally ill and was going to die anyway. The NHS is not underfunded either, it has a budget of over £120 billion.

NHS Budget and Future Projection

You may want to follow British politics a bit more

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nhs-humanitarian-crisis-red-cross-labour-jeremy-hunt-underfunding-spending-cuts-a7514626.html

http://news.sky.com/story/nhs-will-be-under-funded-whoever-wins-election-10888263

Not to mention the promises during the recent election

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tony-blair-theresa-may-win-general-election-jeremy-corbyn-labour-leader-uk-prime-minister-a7705026.html

And Gard was indeed terminally ill but there was a chance with the treatment option in the US, The NHS acted like gods and said no and of course the courts are not going to "object to the government"

That will never happen.

No politician will saw over the branch they are sitting on.

But a good idea, just to bad that modern day politicians are shit beyond shit no matter what side of the fence they are on. They are just there for one reason and that is to line their own pockets.

@Jacanuk:

When you're terminally ill, that means there is no treatment of any kind that can cure you. Saying that someone is terminally ill while saying that they still "have a chance" is a complete contradiction.

The problems the NHS is facing is the result of conservative policies in the U.K., who have cut funding and have privatized some parts of it.

@mattbbpl: thought the pharma/health insurance lobby spent nearly $5 BILLION in the past decade to bribe politicians?? Yeah, nobody is getting single payer in the US, not anytime soon.

And this is why the people consider the Democrat party so unAmerican they want to give the government control over everything and turn the land of opportunity and freedom to the land of big government and socialism. I should not have to pay for other people's healthcare coverage especially when 60% of this country is obese, addicted to drugs and psychologically unsound mostly due to their own making from bad judgement in their life. Why should I a person who has been to the doctor 3 or 4 times my whole life pay the same as somebody who uses 100k+ worth of healthcare resources? If you want healthcare then get a job and buy it because I already pay more than enough in taxes to support BS social welfare programs in this country that is mostly just abused by ungrateful low-lives, the government is not your sugar daddy. Americans don't want the sort of centralized government and high taxes that Europe has we are people who like to control our own life not rely on the government for everything that is what made America great.

Don´t be a muppet. Saying someone is terminally ill does not mean they should stop trying to find something that may be that one in a trillion shot.

The NHS did what did, gave up all hope and just went on with their lives. Where as to the us doctors well they never gave up hope, and that is one of the worst things about a single payer system, the doctors have no drive.

And who cares why the NHS is underfunded, it´s underfunded is the main problem.

@Renegade_Garrus: Americans pay more in taxes towards healthcare than most other people in the world. A single payer healthcare system would result in lower taxes and a higher quality of care for everyone.

That is actually not true.

A single payer system will result in a amble care for everyone but will decrease the quality.

Perhaps a third party will?

One can only hope , because all politicians today are only in it for one reason and that is power and money. No one are in it because they want to make lives better for anyone.

I laugh endlessly at the notion that people would prefer major corporations being the gatekeeper to one's healthcare and medical needs under the auspice of avoiding the "Death Panel" boogeyman. The notion is preposterous and prohibitively expensive. The privatized healthcare industry is an anchor on a healthy economy on its best days.

It's telling that the arguments against it in this thread are the same ones argued during the Obamacare debate.

Most other people in the world don't have a good healthcare system in their country but it's true that this country spends more than Western Europe, Australia and some Asian countries that is far from "most of the world" however that is more due to how grossly unhealthy our population is compared to the population in those countries, it's because our population uses more healthcare that spending is so high not the free market. That is is hard truth nobody in the US wants to face up to and that is why single payer system would just drive the already astronomically high healthcare cost through the roof, best way to lower healthcare cost IMO would be to stop encouraging people to live unhealthy lifestyles by making them pay for their own healthcare cost including mandatory dietary restrictions, psychical fitness education and drug testing for any medicaid recipients. The best way to lower healthcare cost is prevention.

Every system has its flaw. At least I won't go bankrupt if I visit the hospital without insurance.

Except that's what being terminally ill means, there's no cure or treatment of any kind to prevent you from dying. Just because you let someone go due to them having an incurable disease or condition doesn't make you a quitter.

The reasons to why the NHS is underfunded is a big deal. You brought it up after all.

Your complaint that the U.K. healthcare is inadequate and falling short is due to U.K. conservative policies. The U.K.'s healthcare system wouldn't be facing these problems if it weren't for spending cuts made by conservative policies.