healthcare reform???

[Zach]

Under a single-payer system that wouldn't be a problem.

Each hospital would receive a set amount for service.

Also wouldn't switching to the government plan be "the free market" working? They don't like the price and service offered by a private company so they go with the government's offering.

That would be like arguing that people who can afford UPS and Fedex shouldn't use the USPS.

I suppose I've misunderstood some of the proposed plan, so I guess that I can sort of get on board with single-payer provided that private insurance is still a valid option (that is, not getting fined for staying with private coverage).

[Daddy]

Yeah, Obama never said anything about fining people for not having insurance. I'd say the system would be comparable with taxing for schools.


You pay taxes to pay for public schools whether or not your family uses them. You can pay for a private school,but you still have a civil obligation to pay the school tax(though I'm sure some people are against paying taxes to support public schools so that argument doesn't work for you)


It Massachusetts we have a vaguely similar system, though it's not as good what is proposed.  Everyone is required to carry health insurance. Those who can't afford private insurance are eligible to receive MassHealth (Massachusetts branded Medicaid). It is fully subsidized for those within 100% of the poverty line and partially subsidized for those who make up to 300% of the poverty level's income.  It works though I do have some issues with requiring the person to carry private insurance rather than letting them carry masshealth, even if they aren't getting a subsidy(maybe they can, I'm not 100% on this).


oh I forgot: people who aren't carrying insurance are subject to fines/fees when taxes are filed.

[Zach]

So you are required to buy insurance if you can afford it in Massachusetts? That's pretty lame.

What about the concerns over quality of care in a government-run plan? Canada and Britain's systems seem to always be in the news for all the wrong reasons. How realistic is the talk about rationing of care for older Americans?

[Daddy]

So you are required to buy insurance if you can afford it in Massachusetts? That's pretty lame.

You're required to carry insurance no matter what.


I support a single-payer system since that would be the best option but republicans had a priapistic convulsion over that so a public option will have to do for now.

What about the concerns over quality of care in a government-run plan? Canada and Britain's systems seem to always be in the news for all the wrong reasons. How realistic is the talk about rationing of care for older Americans?

Do you watch Fox?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6017878/Stephen-Hawking-I-would-not-be-alive-without-the-NHS.html

Fox and other conservative networks seem to skew and misrepresent figures.  I was talking to Guff about this earlier when Conservapedia claimed the average time in the ER in Canada was 20+ hours.  However, Guff pointed out:

Guff: okay now, the issue is that while at that time the average wait time to see a doctor after visiting the er in the us was 38 minutes, then they mention 20 hours and 42 minutes IN SOCIALIST CANADA
9:26:08 PM Guff: problem: that figure is for being discharged or admitted to another ward @_@
9:26:16 PM Guff: not for seeing a doctor @_@
9:26:28 PM Guff: which sounds uh perfectly reasonable to me @_@
9:30:05 PM Guff: oh and lol yeah as one of the commenters points out because a lot of people without insurance wind up in the er out of not being able to pay for normal treatment the numbers get skewed anyways @_@


As for health care rationing: that's just another conservative scare tactic in the same vein as "Death Panels" and "forced abortions".