Tell me why Single-Payer/Medicare For All would be a bad thing....

[Postman]

If everyone is paying into the system it seems to me that costs would be spread out over a vast pool resulting in lower costs...

[wyldwolf]

1. it USED to be a good thing on DU

[goodhue]

2. It would not be a bad thing.

eom

[The Magistrate]

3. No One Will Be Able To, Sir: It Would Be A Good Thing, And Cannot Sensibly Be Presented As A Bad One

[treestar]

4. It would not be a bad thing

Right wingers make up all kinds of crap - claiming that there would be long lines and wait times and claiming that is what happens in the UK and Canada. If that's so, why have those systems lasted and why haven't the British or Canadians repealed them?

[morillon]

54. Yes, they do.

You'd think nobody in Canada had a tooth left in their heads and that people were routinely left to die. It's simply not true. We started researching moving to Canada back in 2000. I've talked to people who live in Canada as well as medical professionals who've practiced there, and although the system isn't PERFECT, it's got a lot to recommend it.

I honestly believe Obama will win, but we've already decided to move. BC is just too pretty. :-)

[dchill]

5. Sorry - can't tell you why it would be a BAD THING...

but then, I'm not an insurance executive.

[SmileyRose]

66. Insurance executives will make more money, not less.

there will be a healthy market for supplemental coverage just like their is will senior citizens and medicare now. My mother assigns her medicare benefits over to a medicare HMO, she's paying about $120 a month for all parts of medicare and gets full prescription coverage with her HMO. She can easily switch to traditional HMO with the copays and deductables and carry a private supplemental that offers more choices than her HMO if she wishes.

IMHO the insurance companies will probably come out ahead because with the tax base buying health care coverage as a mass, our employers can now afford to help us by disability income insurance, life insurance etc and MORE people will buy into those things.

[dkofos]

6. I wouldn't be a bad thing. Unless your'e a RW idiot.

[stevebreeze]

7. I had a relative, who could not wait to get on medicare

tell me socialized insurance was a bad thing.

[jwirr]

13. LOL

[Fovea]

8. It would be a great thing

that made America healthier and our economy more competitive by reducing the non-productive profit of insurance companies.

[Wapsie B]

15. I agree. And I think hospitals are scared of that too.

Their non-productive ranks will have to be cut. For years administrative costs have ballooned in U.S. hospitals. With single-payer that would have to change.

[dflprincess]

24. It's not the hospitals' admin costs - it's the insurance companies' costs that are out of control

I used to work for a large for profit insurer (who would be surprised how many of its employees came to support single payer). I'm sure there's plenty of money hospitals could save but the big problem now is for profit insurance.

Among other things, there's an insurance broker getting paid a percentage or a per subscriber (occasionally per member) amount every month for every policy s/he sells - that's a cost that will be gone immediately. The company I worked for paid out millions every month in broker commissions. And, having before that worked for a small company, I can say that the broker we used didn't do much to earn that money - just stopped in once a year - and was not very helpful when we needed some help with the insurance. Of course, part of the problem was, we were a small group so he was only making about 10% off our premium each month.

(Before I get slammed, I know not all brokers are like that - the outfit I have my car and renters' through is always available for questions and is helpful.)

[Robbien]

9. Socialism is evil doncha know?

It there right next to communism.

Communities caring for each other just doesn't work into the greedy individualism ideal GOPers promote.

[FLAprogressive]

10. Because hate talk radio says so. nt

[Waiting For Everyman]

11. This should be good. I want to hear this too.

:popcorn:

To my simple mind, cutting out the private profit in the middle of anything is cheaper. And one system instead of many? Bulk negotiations for drugs? It should save a few pennies here and there.

[boobooday]

12. No more profits from disease?

I believe that only Insurance and Pharmaceutical companies will see a downside here.

[sweetpotato]

14. Free clinics for all

My mom, an avid Rush listener, is convinced that if we move away from for profit health insurance, then we will all be reduced to waiting all day at the free clinic for a check up or whatever.

She is afraid she won't be able to call her doctor to get an appointment, she believes that all doctors would be government employees (and you know what they think about government employees - lazy and incompetent) and she would die waiting in line.

Apparently, its OK for the poorest people to die in line at the emergency room, but its not OK for the government to be the single payer.

How can we correct this incorrect belief?

It doesn't help that she has heard horror stories from countries with socialized medicine.

[Postman]

17. Does Medicare currently dictate who your doctor is? No.

The gov't (aka we the people) would simply be cutting the checks for the medical care, not hiring and firing doctors and hospitals...

[Thothmes]

79. No they dont

but many phyicians will not accept medicare patients because the reimbursment rate is to low. That does limit your options as far as physicians are concerned.

[lligrd]

37. I Remember When There Were Free Clinics

In fact, I remember getting childhood vaccinations there. I don't recall them being bad places but alas, they are no more. The free clinic is now the local hospital emergency ward.

[Canuckistanian]

47. Tell your mother that none of that happens.

I'm Canadian. And almost ALL of us thank our lucky stars that we have a true single payer system.

Here are some points to directly address your mother's concerns:

1. Doctors here are not- I repeat are not Government employees. Most Doctors here are self-employed or work for hospitals. the Government only pays them.

2. The waiting times for appointments are not long and are dependent on your medical needs. In fact, if you take away all the negotiating and clearances from insurance companies, our system is probably faster.

3. Availability of doctors are a minor problem here, especially for specialists. But NOBODY "waits for years" to see a specialist. And it may be difficult getting a GP in a rural area. These problems are the result of Conservatives doing price slashing back in the 80s, but are now being addressed.

4. Even if you don't have a GP, ALL of our hospitals have walk-in Emergency rooms. There are no "public" or "private" hospitals. And I've never waited more than an hour whenever I've had to go to one. nobody EVER "dies in line". And of course, it's all without charge. I'm never handed a bill when I leave.

5. Some things are charged to a patient. Specialized hospital rooms such as Delivery rooms, Ambulance service and prescription drugs outside the hospital cost some money, but even they're subsidized.

Back in the early 60s when we got our health care system, some doctors and healthcare business people SCREAMED LIKE HELL and fought it at every step. Now, doctors are fighting FOR the system to stay and remain vital.

Doctors, nurses, health care workers and the public are all happy with our system. It works.

Don't fall for the propaganda.

[nichomachus]

48. Instead of waiting all day at a place where we have to pay through the nose

I fail to see why it's a bad thing. Last time at the doctor, I waited nearly three hours -- and I had to pay.

[Uncle Joe]

16. Because the American People don't deserve good health care,

only members of Congress who have served a few years and to a lesser extent the military.

Also the insurance corporations would loose out on some money, and their CEOs couldn't get all the bonuses they so richly deserve.

Finally who better to make the choice of whether you should have life saving surgery or not, an HMO in a far off place looking over your file or some doctor having actually examined your body?

[fascisthunter]

18. Get Yur Popcorn!!!!!!

:popcorn:

[kirby]

19. Because...

Insurance companies skim 10-20% of all the money that goes to health care. In a $2 trillion dollar per year industry, that is huge money. Imagine the forces fighting against change!

From a citizen point of view, we know how there is hardly any accountability in our government. The concern is that if you have a single payer, what happens if they do a lousy job--you are stuck with them. Of course this is a false choice because we know the private sector has no accountability either.

[Postman]

23. If a corporation is running your healthcare you have no say. With a gov't, you can vote them out....

and replace them with people who ARE accountable.

With a corporation (private kingdoms) their focus is with the stockholder looking for ways to deny care. With the gov't there isn't a focus to deny care.....unless you're deliberately trying to crash the system.

[kirby]

31. Vote them out?

We can't wait 8 years to 'vote out' someone to fix a health care issue. Someone might be dead by then.

I'm not against single payer, but this accountability issue is the biggest issue against it. Maybe a public oversight board rather than political appointees or something.

As far as stockholders looking for ways to deny care, what about the government looking to cut spending and taking a 'hatchet' to health care spending?

[Postman]

33. Good points. However we are the gov't and those points could be addressed...

just as you pointed out - Oversight Boards, periodic reviews, etc., etc..

It comes down to the question of what do we value in this country? We shouldn't create something as important as this and then turn away and expect it to work in an efficient manner...

[Greyhound]

42. Funny you mention that. Single payer national health care (not insurance)

would result in an dramatic increase in quality as well. With total freedom of choice, the shitty providers would soon find no patients since there would no longer be any reason to go to them.

Why would anyone go to the bad provider when they can just as easily go to a good one?

[lostnotforgotten]

20. Because Big Republican Business Will Not Make As Much Profit

eom

[dchill]

22. Oh, the inhumanity!

[liberal N proud]

21. The M$M, GOP and insurance company lobby made it sound bad

It is all propaganda

[dflprincess]

28. Obama is running an ad (at least in Minnesota)

that says single payer is one extreme and unregulated insurance companies is the other extreme and that we need a solution in the middle. Disappoints me everytime I see it.

[Glorfindel]

25. Not a bad thing - it's a great idea, and long overdue

n/t

[One_Life_To_Give]

26. Depends what goes with single payer

If nothing were to change but who gets the bill, then nothing. But that is a Big IF.

Any change to healthcare gets people nervous. Will they still be able to see their regular doctor? Can they get in to see them in a hurry when needed? How much time will they miss from work to go see their Dr? etc.

[Postman]

32. Current Medicare patients see the doctor of their choice...

and can get an appointment just as timely as anyone else...why would that change just because the insurance paradigm has changed?

Maybe an argument could be made that because everyone is covered that would mean more people are going to see a doctor.....that's a bad thing? Is there a shortage of doctors?

Would that also mean that hospital ER's would not be crammed with people waiting to get care for something that could be taken care of in a doctor's office?

[One_Life_To_Give]

39. Perceptions

There is likely to be a shortage of doctors if all of the currently uninsured start seeking services. However the bigger issue is peoples perceptions.

The fears and preconceptions of people are far worse and more difficult to deal with than any actuallity that may come up. For all the faults with the current system people who have insurance are certain they can get their kids/loved ones in to see a competent doctor fast enough as the situation warrants. With any change they are not certain and that uncertainty drives fear of any change.

[TZ]

27. Because then little minded bean counting health insurance companies...

Couldn't jerk people around like so:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x8170790

Right now I really want to tell McCain and his stupid tax credit plan to go fuck themselves.
:nuke:

[1awake]

29. ummm well..

ok.. to many people would get better quality health care. This would lead to a reduction in the death rate in our country.. ie.. people living longer. This in turn would put a horrible strain on the economy and the social security system as a whole leading.. to umm.. sorry.. tried to think right wing wack-job there for a few.. couldnt do it. I say lets do it and find out.

[Imperialism Inc.]

30. It wouldn't be a bad thing. Frankly I don't care much for Obama's plan.

Though I was an Obama supporter in the primaries I felt Clinton had the better plan. Though she didn't have a single payer plan it put all the pieces in place to have one. Still, his plan is much much better than McCain's

[LWolf]

34. universal, single-payer, NOT-FOR-PROFIT

health care would be a great thing.

[On the Road]

35. There May be a Negative Side

but nothing that would come anywhere near outweighing the benefits.

[Yavin4]

36. The Main Downside To It Is That There Will Be Some Rationing

For example, you may not get experimental procedures covered or you may not get an expensive procedure that has little chance of working covered.

There will also be penalties for over-use. You cannot go the doctor every time you get a headache.

Understand, this style of rationing also occurs with for-profit health insurance as well.

[Greyhound]

44. One of the issues that I have not heard anyone mention in this ongoing debate

is the fact that since we had our health care deliver system stolen from us, the corporations have actually reduced the capacity to provide health care. We simply don't have the capacity to deal with any large scale disasters any more.

There are places all across the country that literally have no health care available because there are not enough people to justify the expense in the corporate model. Like everything else they touch, the insurance industry has turned our health care delivery system to shit. We will have to rebuild it, but that is a short-term problem and can be addressed.

[Egalitariat]

38. How would you get everyone to pay into the system?

[verges]

40. deducted from pay. like Social Security. nt

[Thothmes]

80. And those folks that do not draw W-2s will be taxed how?

[bobbolink]

41. You'll get it when you DEMAND it!

And not a second sooner!

[hunter]

43. Because God wants poor people to suffer and die.

Otherwise He wouldn't let them get sick.

If you are poor and can't afford medical care it is your RESPONSIBILITY not to require medical care. If you are sick or injured maybe you should have prayed some more for good health. Go suffer and die someplace the rest of us don't have to look at you.

:sarcasm:
    :eyes:

[DangerDave921]

45. Look at costs

Look at what medicare costs now covering the people that it covers. Then calculate what it will be when you add another 100 million people to it (I'm just picking a number). The cost would escalate incredibly, thereby leading to two options: much higher taxes to pay for it, or restrictions on benefits/treatment. I don't think it is economically sustainable for the government to run it, at least not with the level of care that everyone will of course want.

[Postman]

46. Looking at my latest paystub....

taxes taken out for Medicare this pay period were $28.53...

If that were doubled to say $60.00, I wouldn't have a problem with it because it is a tax I would paying that would actually benefit me someday - as opposed to the egregious taxes I'm paying for the Military Welfare State...

[eridani]

59. You are forgetting that we'd be taking money away from insurers

The money we now pay would all go to the government instead, with no chance for the execs to steal it.

[Princess Turandot]

61. While I've not seen a detailed analysis of what a single payor system ..

would cost - that obviously needs to be done - you cannot extrapolate Medicare's cost to the entire population. For one thing, people over 65 have, on average, far more health care needs than people in their 20's and 30's. If they live in an area where there is adequate availability of health care services, they will most likely get them. Each year, Medicare pays for a large number of coronary procedures, as one example. Your average 30 year old does not normally need coronary bypass surgery or valve replacement. Another example is the common flu. During flu season, many hospitals experience unusually high emergency and inpatient admissions from Medicare patients who have developed serious respiratory problems. There are numerous examples like that.

[SmileyRose]

65. Oh stop it. Just damn stop it.

Medicare covers the elderly and the severely disabled. Of course they are expensive. As soon as you put all the healthy 20 somethings in there the costs per person will drop like a rock.

Private insurance could still make a tidy profit on supplemental insurance policies to cover treatments Medicare does not cover just like they do now. Medicare can cover the most basic of care for the masses and those with means could buy more coverage with private supplemental. They could drop kick the VA hospitals and transition them into Medicare too, meaning there would be much more public pressure to provide adequate access to care all over the country. It works perfectly - the perfect blend of single payer and private business solutions.

Even if fully funded it would still be a drop in the bucket of what the government spends at the Pentagon.

[Cassandra]

83. In addition, many people qualify for Medicare...

who have put off seeing a doctor because of the expense. Then they finally qualify in much worse shape than they would have been had they been able to be treated sooner.

[Two Americas]

68. there is no "cost"

That is absurd. Human beings are not a cost or a liability or a commodity, and in any case the wealth goes into someone's pocket. Why is taking care of the general public a "cost," while taking care of the wealthy and powerful few not a "cost?"

Does investment in public education cost, or does it pay? Roads and highways?

The question is do the resources go to the many, the producers, or the few, the speculators and investors? A system that moves wealth and resources into the hands of the few will always pay back far less than a system that takes care of the workers. Always.

[DangerDave921]

77. of course there is cost

To say otherwise is to live in la la land. Even if an expense is for something entirely necessary and worthwhile it is a cost. My mortgage is a cost. Buying food is a cost. Clothing my kids is a cost. EVERYTHING we spend is a cost. We have to take into account the cost of everything in order to prioritize spending.

[Two Americas]

78. very limited view

There is a system of exchange, yes.

How we measure "costs" is the point. we can measure the cost as somewhat reduced profits for the money changers, or we can measure the cost in human suffering, lack of productivity, and social dissolution that comes from the wealth being concentrated in the hands of the few.

Since investments in human beings always pay back immensely - since people are the source of all wealth to begin with through their labor - it is misleading and reactionary to see UHC and other social programs as "costing" us anything.

Much of this will depend upon whether you identify with the average person, the workers, or with the wealthy and powerful few and their sycophants and agents. Those two different views lead to two different political philosophies. One sees money as important and the source of human happiness, the other sees human happiness as the source of money. One sees people as costing money, as extracting a cost on those who control the money, the other sees money as a game that can extract a cost from the people.

[DangerDave921]

82. I have a limited view?

Sorry, I call it a realistic view. Keep in mind that the government, in order to do all these great things for the public, has to get the money from somewhere. That's called the power of taxation. And the government can only get a fixed amount of money in taxes. So yes, in the real world (as opposed to philosophy class), there does have to be a cold calculated view of costs. We cannot spend unlimited amount of money on unlimited amount of social projects. The money simply is not unlimited. So there has to be prioritization and specific amounts designated for each expenditure.

I'm not sure how else it would work. You talk a good game about fairness and happiness, etc. but the real world of government needs concrete dollars, not just a dreamy philosophy.

[Spike89]

49. Conceptually bullet proof...implementation potentially iffy

I am deeply pissed that we don't have it already! However, as the truism goes, the devil is in the details. A crappy or heavily compromised single-payer system could ensure that we stay on this immoral and ruinous for-profit path for decades. Even implementing a solid plan is not without some serious side issues. For instance, despite the fact that it's easy and almost universal to revile insurance companies, making them disappear tomorrow would throw a boatload of people out of work. Worse, the medical for-profit system is entwined throughout the entire economy. Dismantling it, done poorly or recklessly, could result in lots of unintended consequences. Finally, nationalized healthcare does carry a risk of stunting innovation and exploration of new drugs and devices. I've heard the argument that the current US corporate medical industry indirectly subsidizes the socialized programs around the world (gets developed and marketed here for great profit, then once prices have dropped, gets exported to the price-controlled systems).

I don't think any of these are justification for not socializing medicine in the US, but they are concerns that must be accounted for if any moves that way are going to be sustainable.

[Lugnut]

50. Nope. Sorry. Can't do it.

You will get no arguments from me.

[KG]

51. Because Certain Mouth Breathers Think 'Socialism Is Dumb.'

and if you don't agree, you're ignorant and they feel for you.

[azul]

52. We'll wait till health care is in crises like the financial mess,

and then, when the whole thing is bankrupt and rotten to the core, the companies will be nationalized and the crooks will scatter with the ill-got gaines.

It will be an enormous expense to taxpayers to have to bailout the health care companies to get to the Medicare phase. Single payer would be great, by most accounts, it's just getting out the entrenched interests that is holding it back. Payout.

[mwooldri]

53. The worst thing about a universal healthcare system is...

.... that it needs to be properly funded, pure and simple.

I grew up under the Britains' NHS system. Brilliant it is, but it isn't flawless. The major shortcoming is rationing of healthcare. My grandmother had cateracts in both eyes. She had to wait months for one eye and then a few months for the other. Her wait time was cut short because of a cancellation. Though cateracts aren't a life threatening condition it did worsen her quality of life until the operation.

But I can't sing the praises of the NHS enough. My grandfather had two heart attacks, had his pacemaker replaced twice, and taken care of to cope with his emphysema (spelling?) with initially inhalers, to nebulizers and ultimately oxygen. Towards the end of his life he had a cocktail of so manu drugs that were he living in the US he would be completely destitute. True, he never owned his house - he lived in social housing in a rural part of southern England - very nice place - but also given that my aunt also pretty much gave up a lot of her life in the care of my grandparents I have a debt to owe her and the NHS for keeping my grandfather around for as long as they did because seriously, I think in the US medical system, he would have passed away in the mid 1980s instead of 2003 because I don't think that they could have afforded to have bought the many myriad of medicines needed to keep him alive (a monthly run to the drug store came home with about two grocery bags full of drugs, all paid for under the NHS). My grandfather was self-employed at the time of his first heart attack - and he surely wasn't making enough money to buy health insurance.

My own parents have their own health battles too - my dad had a triple heart bypass, and my mother battles with high blood pressure, killer migranes and now arthritis. They have never had a letter from a bill collector asking for payment of a medical bill, neither has my grandad, aunt, gran, me (whilst in the UK) or my sister.

A further testament is my sister. She presently works as a nurse in an intensive care ward. I have offered for her to come over here and she has had job offers to move to the States. She will not work here because she won't work in a country where healthcare is dictated by the size of your wallet. She concedes that no-one dies right away and is treated and stabilized in the emergency room but does counter with case after case of people who died much too early because they simply couldn't afford even basic healthcare.

I agree healthcare costs need to come down appropriately. Why prescribe Nexium when Prilosec (or better yet the generic) will do just fine? You really don't need that x-ray? Sure, we don't need to give it to you if it is obvious what the problem is. Private room? Not really necessary - 6-8-12 people to a room might work just as well. Sometimes certain tests and diagnostics are done over-the-top here.

In any case, I am a strong believer of universal health care because I experienced it, grew up under it and approve of it. I would support a system where there was a default health care insurance plan for everyone but people could opt out to a different plan that offered at least the same benefits as the default health care plan and hopefully more, or if someone really wanted to risk it a plan that offers lower benefits at lower cost but with some suitable safeguards in place. SOME market competition is good but in healthcare there definitely needs to be some restraint.

This is a topic I could write and debate on all night, but I don't have all night so I'm ending it here.

Mark.

[SmileyRose]

67. Just wanted to thank you for your post

I live in a very small world and the only access I have to actual information about anyone else's way of life is over the internet. Your long post has enriched me and I thank you wholeheartedly.

:)

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

55. I think it would be a phenomenal thing.

[Juche]

56. Because Americans are dumb enough to vote for right wingers

HR676 (medicare for all) is a good idea, and would save about $400 billion a year in lower overhead and savings from bulk, negotiated purchases of medications and medical equipment.

The downside to me is that we are a nation that is willing to put radical right wingers in charge of government and I would be uncomfortable if they had total say over my healthcare. I do not fear government, I fear government run by people who get Sean Hannity's seal of approval. Part of me worries that 10 years down the road they may cut services and funding and if there is truly a single payer (with no opt out) people will have nowhere to go. Of course an opt out clause would fix that. For example, medicare is a great system. But in between the medicare plus system (designed to bankrupt medicare by pulling all the healthy people out and leaving the sick to bankrupt the plan) and McCains proposed $882 billion in medicare cuts, I am wary about being dependent on a right wing government for healthcare.

Another underlooked benefit of single payer is it makes US companies far more competitive. A 5% payroll tax split between workers & employers would raise about $800 bilion/year to fund medicare for all which when combined with other healthcare taxes (2.9% for medicare, income taxes that pay for medicaid & SCHIP, etc) would fund a healthcare system fine. A $50k/yr employee would only need $2500/yr spending by him and 2500 by his employer to cover him and his families healthcare. Right now companies spend far more than that.

[Swede]

57. We sure like it here in Canada.

I hope you guys can implement it soon.

[elleng]

58. It WOULD/WILL BE a good thing;

people haven't thought it through. Of course, media hasn't helped.

People don't recognize that is medicare, and armed forces program.

Its nothing more than ignorance at the moment. AND of course, people don't know anything about the way health care is addressed by other countries.

U.S. is NOT READY for it yet; will likely take some time.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

60. Because it will lead to hospitals and doctors carrying out spurious operations.

The state paying for private health care for all would be an improvement on the current system, but a much better approach would be the establishment of a National Health Service, dedicated to providing the best service possible within the constraints of its budget rather than to making as much money as possible within the constraint of providing a service.

That said, it would be politically suicidal to attempt that in America at present, so single-payer is probably the best feasible option.

[machI]

62. Kick

[OneBlueSky]

63. if we removed HMO and insurance company advertising and profits . . .

from the healthcare total, we'd save one hell of a lot of money . . . far more than enough to fund heathcare for all . . .

[W_HAMILTON]

64. Yep.

Remove profits from the situation. There is no reason our health and well-being should be "for profit."

[kenny blankenship]

69. But what then happens to RUGGED INDIVIDUALISM ???

If there isn't some visible fraction of the population dying in the gutter alone and penniless, we can't be a nation of strong pioneering individuals who all clawed their way to the finish line of survival. In order for someone to win the race, some others have to lose. It's just logic! Or, I should say, it's just the Natural Law on which this country was founded. You want to alter the Rules of Life and the order of the Universe. What would John Wayne say?



Rugged Individuals don't ask for Government handouts!

[DailyGrind51]

70. It would not be a bad thing, healthcare funding should not be a profit-making business!

[NorthCarolina]

71. Even our family physician says it would be a good idea

Only RW idiots consider it creating an entitlement and giving something away for FREE to undesirables (ie middle class and poor). Of course, they also routinely refer to Social Security as an "entitlement" which is actually inaccurate because each of us "pays" for Social Security through mandatory payroll deductions throughout our working career. It is really only an "entitlement" if you do not contribute towards what you get in return. Therefore, SS is no "entitlement". The Conyers/Kucinich bill, HR 676, contains a detailed analysis of how a Medicare for all plan would be enacted, as well as how it would be paid for.

[Mesteryo]

72. the bad thing about single-payer is...

There are a lot of people out there who can afford health insurance, get it through their employer, or get it through union benefits. If certain people already get insurance benefits through private means then why create a trillion dollar program to cover them?

We need a public/private solution because the govt. shouldn't go into further debt paying for health care for people who can afford it or are already offered it by employers or unions.

[SmileyRose]

73. Ford and GM are going bankrupt partly due to medical costs.

employer based medical insurance is a HUGE competitive disadvantage to American companies.

[Hekate]

74. The need to give Christian charity to the destitute would go down, & Jebus would be sad at that

Jebus loves the poor, so we have to be sure to have lots of them. :sarcasm:

Jesus of Nazareth, on the other hand, would probably be pleased that we had collectively decided to ease the suffering of others.

Hekate

[Hekate]

75. Not so many bake sales to help pay for chemo and dialysis--that would be bad.

:sarcasm:

Hekate

[roamer65]

76. We already have socialized, single-payor healthcare in the US.

You just have to be 65 to get it. Might as well expand it to everyone.

[salguine]

81. it's only a bad thing if you're the CEO of an HMO, or someone who otherwise

makes money by withholding medical care from sick people.

[bullwinkle428]

84. Because Michelle Bachmann said it was anti-American!

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: