The Costs of Free Healthcare

At 4/14/2012 8:50:09 PM, Contra wrote:

At 4/14/2012 8:49:14 PM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/14/2012 8:46:00 PM, Contra wrote:

At 4/14/2012 8:44:25 PM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/14/2012 4:59:20 PM, Contra wrote:

At 4/14/2012 2:43:12 PM, DanT wrote:

At 4/14/2012 1:08:32 PM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/14/2012 12:34:55 PM, DanT wrote:

At 4/14/2012 12:56:49 AM, Yarely wrote:
What would you prefer, free healthcare in Canada that you would have to wait months for access, or extremely expensive US healthcare that you wouldn't have to wait so long for?

There is no such thing as free healthcare

I am perfectly aware of that
It is just what you call it when you pay for it through taxes

I know "free" healthcare is not exactly "free"

No it's called nationalized healthcare. The term "free healthcare" is only used when someone wishes to intentionally mislead people.

Yes. Call it Single-Payer, Socialized Medicine, whatever it is please. The way you frame is intentionally misleads.

I didn't "intentionally" mislead anyone
It wasn't deliberate

Do you support Single-Payer?

I am undecided
That is why I made this forum

Okay, I'll enlighten you and others to the beauty of a Single-Payer health care system, I'll expand in a minute

*Puts on anti-trolling helmet*

Universal, Single-Payer healthcare:

Is a national health care system administered primarily by the national government. Financing for health care is publicly paid through taxes, while delivery of care remains private.

Costs are much lower, converting to a Single-Payer (SP) system would save an estimated $200-300 billion dollars.

http://www.pnhp.org...
http://www.pnhp.org...
http://www.nytimes.com...
http://library.thinkquest.org...

The reasons for all of the savings are because of the streamlined, electronic administration, the elimination of marketing, profit, and other associated costs, and with a brilliantly simple, yet efficient framework.

Plus, with a Health Security Card, all patients could have their health info. stored in an electronic, yet confidential way.

http://www.google.com...
http://www.google.com...

Plus, since SP covers all medically necessary health care costs, preventive care would be accessible to all citizens. Co-pays would be adjusted so that they are based on according to pay ability, so we get the best of both systems. Preventive care would save much money this way.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

All citizens would be covered with quality health care. Since all are in one system, the political pressure would make sure that the system is maintained and of good quality.

All citizens get to choose their own doctor.

Plus, since all citizens get to choose their own doctor, and also because American healthcare is an unsaturated demand market, we would NOT have rationing of care that is depicted by many. Taiwan has a weaker medical infrastructure, and with a similar system that I have described, they do not need rationing. We wouldn't need to ration care either.

Since HC would no longer be delayed or denied due to insurance coverage, we would truly have the best quality care in the world. Right now, we ration care in the US heavily on the basis on your wealth.

http://www.latimes.com...

A clinical excellence system would be established preferably, in which drugs and treatments are compared for doctors so that patients get the most effective treatments that reduces waste and ineffective treatments. The Britons have this in a system called NICE. A study by the CBO showed the creating such a system would significantly reduce HC costs.

Sasha Bartolf, "Orszag Discusses New Ways of Alleviating Soaring Health Care Costs," CQ Health Beat, May 22, 2007

http://www.pnhp.org...

The per capita increase in taxes would be a 2% income tax increase, and a 7% payroll tax, or about $850 in new taxes, however private business would have a reduction in HC costs with about $910 per capita.

http://www.cbo.gov...

So, the net cost of achieving universal insurance coverage under this single payer system would be negative.

http://www.pnhp.org...

Summary:

-Universal, comprehensive coverage for all American citizens.
-A Single insurance plan in each region, administered at the federal level
-Global Operating budgets, competition between medical professionals
-Free Choice of Providers
-Public accountability, Federal Health Board used to oversee HC system
-Clinical System of Excellence
-Protection of Right to Health Care
-High quality and availability of HC for all
-Efficient system
-Affordable drug prices (negotiated down)
-Liberal benefits, conservative spending

So, we could cover all Americans with the benefits I just summarized and proved. And, we would have a net savings of cash. Pretty common sense I think right?

At 4/14/2012 9:32:10 PM, Contra wrote:
Universal, Single-Payer healthcare:

Is a national health care system administered primarily by the national government. Financing for health care is publicly paid through taxes, while delivery of care remains private.


Costs are much lower, converting to a Single-Payer (SP) system would save an estimated $200-300 billion dollars.


http://www.pnhp.org...
http://www.pnhp.org...
http://www.nytimes.com...
http://library.thinkquest.org...

The reasons for all of the savings are because of the streamlined, electronic administration, the elimination of marketing, profit, and other associated costs, and with a brilliantly simple, yet efficient framework.

Plus, with a Health Security Card, all patients could have their health info. stored in an electronic, yet confidential way.

http://www.google.com...
http://www.google.com...

Plus, since SP covers all medically necessary health care costs, preventive care would be accessible to all citizens. Co-pays would be adjusted so that they are based on according to pay ability, so we get the best of both systems. Preventive care would save much money this way.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

All citizens would be covered with quality health care. Since all are in one system, the political pressure would make sure that the system is maintained and of good quality.

All citizens get to choose their own doctor.

Plus, since all citizens get to choose their own doctor, and also because American healthcare is an unsaturated demand market, we would NOT have rationing of care that is depicted by many. Taiwan has a weaker medical infrastructure, and with a similar system that I have described, they do not need rationing. We wouldn't need to ration care either.

Since HC would no longer be delayed or denied due to insurance coverage, we would truly have the best quality care in the world. Right now, we ration care in the US heavily on the basis on your wealth.

http://www.latimes.com...

A clinical excellence system would be established preferably, in which drugs and treatments are compared for doctors so that patients get the most effective treatments that reduces waste and ineffective treatments. The Britons have this in a system called NICE. A study by the CBO showed the creating such a system would significantly reduce HC costs.

Sasha Bartolf, "Orszag Discusses New Ways of Alleviating Soaring Health Care Costs," CQ Health Beat, May 22, 2007

http://www.pnhp.org...

The per capita increase in taxes would be a 2% income tax increase, and a 7% payroll tax, or about $850 in new taxes, however private business would have a reduction in HC costs with about $910 per capita.

http://www.cbo.gov...

So, the net cost of achieving universal insurance coverage under this single payer system would be negative.

http://www.pnhp.org...

Summary:

-Universal, comprehensive coverage for all American citizens.
-A Single insurance plan in each region, administered at the federal level
-Global Operating budgets, competition between medical professionals
-Free Choice of Providers
-Public accountability, Federal Health Board used to oversee HC system
-Clinical System of Excellence
-Protection of Right to Health Care
-High quality and availability of HC for all
-Efficient system
-Affordable drug prices (negotiated down)
-Liberal benefits, conservative spending

So, we could cover all Americans with the benefits I just summarized and proved. And, we would have a net savings of cash. Pretty common sense I think right?

What about the wait? Would Americans have to wait extremely long to get access to single payer healthcare like in Canada where the hospitals are always crowded and people have to wait a couple of months to get good healthcare?
Or does single-payer healthcare work in a way that prevents that problem?

What about the wait? Would Americans have to wait extremely long to get access to single payer healthcare like in Canada where the hospitals are always crowded and people have to wait a couple of months to get good healthcare?

With SP, citizens have free range to choose hospitals and physicians without using a gatekeeper and do not have to worry about waiting lists.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Dr. Ronald Glasser pointed out:

"An axiom of economics holds that nothing can be rationed that is itself not scarce, and, absent evidence of infinite demand and infinite cost, you can't ration healthcare when there are more than enough doctors, hospitals, and high-tech equipment distributed throughout the country to do everything and anything that needs to be done. American healthcare is an unsaturated demand market, and in such markets "rationing" is simply a code word for not spending the money to take care of the poor, uninsured, the underinsured, and the high-risk patient."

Even in the worst case scenario, rationing would be very limited, and the rationing of care wouldn't be based on your wealth, and would be concerned with your medical need, not corporate profits.

There may be rationing in a SP but also, it wouldn't be not nearly as severe as the U.S. style of rationing which causes massive suffering and death simply because we ration based on ability to pay. In fact, since all systems ration, selecting rationing that improves value in our health care purchasing might be better labeled as "beneficial rationing."'

http://pnhp.org...

Another statistic is that each year 45,000 Americans die to a lack of healthcare. In Canada and other SP nations, the number is 0.

http://www.reuters.com...

Businesses would get a competitive edge with less HC costs.

We could best attack rationing and costs with a health care spending cap that is flexible, to improve infrastructure. Many waiting lists in Canada are actually very close to what the specialists believe are reasonable (besides joint replacements).

At 4/14/2012 10:33:07 PM, Contra wrote:
What about the wait? Would Americans have to wait extremely long to get access to single payer healthcare like in Canada where the hospitals are always crowded and people have to wait a couple of months to get good healthcare?

With SP, citizens have free range to choose hospitals and physicians without using a gatekeeper and do not have to worry about waiting lists.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Dr. Ronald Glasser pointed out:

"An axiom of economics holds that nothing can be rationed that is itself not scarce, and, absent evidence of infinite demand and infinite cost, you can't ration healthcare when there are more than enough doctors, hospitals, and high-tech equipment distributed throughout the country to do everything and anything that needs to be done. American healthcare is an unsaturated demand market, and in such markets "rationing" is simply a code word for not spending the money to take care of the poor, uninsured, the underinsured, and the high-risk patient."

Even in the worst case scenario, rationing would be very limited, and the rationing of care wouldn't be based on your wealth, and would be concerned with your medical need, not corporate profits.

There may be rationing in a SP but also, it wouldn't be not nearly as severe as the U.S. style of rationing which causes massive suffering and death simply because we ration based on ability to pay. In fact, since all systems ration, selecting rationing that improves value in our health care purchasing might be better labeled as "beneficial rationing."'

http://pnhp.org...

Another statistic is that each year 45,000 Americans die to a lack of healthcare. In Canada and other SP nations, the number is 0.

http://www.reuters.com...

Businesses would get a competitive edge with less HC costs.

We could best attack rationing and costs with a health care spending cap that is flexible, to improve infrastructure. Many waiting lists in Canada are actually very close to what the specialists believe are reasonable (besides joint replacements).

It sounds kind of like a dream come true

At 4/14/2012 10:51:39 PM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/14/2012 10:33:07 PM, Contra wrote:
What about the wait? Would Americans have to wait extremely long to get access to single payer healthcare like in Canada where the hospitals are always crowded and people have to wait a couple of months to get good healthcare?

With SP, citizens have free range to choose hospitals and physicians without using a gatekeeper and do not have to worry about waiting lists.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Dr. Ronald Glasser pointed out:

"An axiom of economics holds that nothing can be rationed that is itself not scarce, and, absent evidence of infinite demand and infinite cost, you can't ration healthcare when there are more than enough doctors, hospitals, and high-tech equipment distributed throughout the country to do everything and anything that needs to be done. American healthcare is an unsaturated demand market, and in such markets "rationing" is simply a code word for not spending the money to take care of the poor, uninsured, the underinsured, and the high-risk patient."

Even in the worst case scenario, rationing would be very limited, and the rationing of care wouldn't be based on your wealth, and would be concerned with your medical need, not corporate profits.

There may be rationing in a SP but also, it wouldn't be not nearly as severe as the U.S. style of rationing which causes massive suffering and death simply because we ration based on ability to pay. In fact, since all systems ration, selecting rationing that improves value in our health care purchasing might be better labeled as "beneficial rationing."'

http://pnhp.org...

Another statistic is that each year 45,000 Americans die to a lack of healthcare. In Canada and other SP nations, the number is 0.

http://www.reuters.com...

Businesses would get a competitive edge with less HC costs.

We could best attack rationing and costs with a health care spending cap that is flexible, to improve infrastructure. Many waiting lists in Canada are actually very close to what the specialists believe are reasonable (besides joint replacements).

It sounds kind of like a dream come true

IKR?!?

So do you support Single-Payer HC now?

At 4/14/2012 11:18:48 AM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/14/2012 1:53:48 AM, darkkermit wrote:
There ain't no such thing as free healthcare. It's either paid directly or through taxes.

I'm aware that it isn't exactly "free."
It's just what you call it when you pay through taxes

No it isn't. Debate.org is free to use, as I am not expected to pay for it directly or indirectly. Calling healthcare "free" while paying for it in taxes is just intellectually dishonest. You don't call something free if you pay for it.

Your question would be better worde:d "would you rather pay for healthcare directly and have less waiting times or would you rather pay healthcare through taxes and have a larger waiting time"

hmmm.....that's a tough choice!!!

At 4/14/2012 10:51:39 PM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/14/2012 10:33:07 PM, Contra wrote:
What about the wait? Would Americans have to wait extremely long to get access to single payer healthcare like in Canada where the hospitals are always crowded and people have to wait a couple of months to get good healthcare?

With SP, citizens have free range to choose hospitals and physicians without using a gatekeeper and do not have to worry about waiting lists.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Dr. Ronald Glasser pointed out:

"An axiom of economics holds that nothing can be rationed that is itself not scarce, and, absent evidence of infinite demand and infinite cost, you can't ration healthcare when there are more than enough doctors, hospitals, and high-tech equipment distributed throughout the country to do everything and anything that needs to be done. American healthcare is an unsaturated demand market, and in such markets "rationing" is simply a code word for not spending the money to take care of the poor, uninsured, the underinsured, and the high-risk patient."

Even in the worst case scenario, rationing would be very limited, and the rationing of care wouldn't be based on your wealth, and would be concerned with your medical need, not corporate profits.

There may be rationing in a SP but also, it wouldn't be not nearly as severe as the U.S. style of rationing which causes massive suffering and death simply because we ration based on ability to pay. In fact, since all systems ration, selecting rationing that improves value in our health care purchasing might be better labeled as "beneficial rationing."'

http://pnhp.org...

Another statistic is that each year 45,000 Americans die to a lack of healthcare. In Canada and other SP nations, the number is 0.

http://www.reuters.com...

Businesses would get a competitive edge with less HC costs.

We could best attack rationing and costs with a health care spending cap that is flexible, to improve infrastructure. Many waiting lists in Canada are actually very close to what the specialists believe are reasonable (besides joint replacements).

It sounds kind of like a dream come true

That's because it's all fiction.

Take for example the first peice of BS he spewed. National healthcare is not cheapper. The administrative costs of Medicare cost more per benificiary than private insurances.
The only way it would be cheapper is if they rationed care to cut costs.

At 4/14/2012 9:32:10 PM, Contra wrote:
Universal, Single-Payer healthcare:

Is a national health care system administered primarily by the national government. Financing for health care is publicly paid through taxes, while delivery of care remains private.


Costs are much lower, converting to a Single-Payer (SP) system would save an estimated $200-300 billion dollars.


http://www.pnhp.org...
http://www.pnhp.org...
http://www.nytimes.com...
http://library.thinkquest.org...

Well obviously it does, at our expense.

The reasons for all of the savings are because of the streamlined, electronic administration, the elimination of marketing, profit, and other associated costs, and with a brilliantly simple, yet efficient framework.

Plus, with a Health Security Card, all patients could have their health info. stored in an electronic, yet confidential way.

http://www.google.com...
http://www.google.com...

I dont see how government intervention has any correlation with this.

Plus, since SP covers all medically necessary health care costs, preventive care would be accessible to all citizens. Co-pays would be adjusted so that they are based on according to pay ability, so we get the best of both systems. Preventive care would save much money this way.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Also, if you research, you get less preventative care, worse preventative care, and less screening machines per group of people.
http://www.ncpa.org...

All citizens would be covered with quality health care. Since all are in one system, the political pressure would make sure that the system is maintained and of good quality.

All citizens get to choose their own doctor.

Plus, since all citizens get to choose their own doctor, and also because American healthcare is an unsaturated demand market, we would NOT have rationing of care that is depicted by many. Taiwan has a weaker medical infrastructure, and with a similar system that I have described, they do not need rationing. We wouldn't need to ration care either.

Since HC would no longer be delayed or denied due to insurance coverage, we would truly have the best quality care in the world. Right now, we ration care in the US heavily on the basis on your wealth.

http://www.latimes.com...

No denial can be fixed by other free market solutions, and you said no delays, which is false. Long delays.
http://the-dp-is-good-always.blogspot.com...
http://freemarketcure.com...
http://www.biggovhealth.org...

A clinical excellence system would be established preferably, in which drugs and treatments are compared for doctors so that patients get the most effective treatments that reduces waste and ineffective treatments. The Britons have this in a system called NICE. A study by the CBO showed the creating such a system would significantly reduce HC costs.

Sasha Bartolf, "Orszag Discusses New Ways of Alleviating Soaring Health Care Costs," CQ Health Beat, May 22, 2007

http://www.pnhp.org...

I see no way putting people on the government turf will reduce costs, unless they ration care to a large percent.

The per capita increase in taxes would be a 2% income tax increase, and a 7% payroll tax, or about $850 in new taxes, however private business would have a reduction in HC costs with about $910 per capita.

http://www.cbo.gov...

The reason HC is rising is because of premiums, and premiums dont effect business much. You also forget that more people dying due to delays would hurt the economy, etc.
http://www.biggovhealth.org...

So, the net cost of achieving universal insurance coverage under this single payer system would be negative.

http://www.pnhp.org...

That would only worked if we rationed like hell.

Summary:

-Universal, comprehensive coverage for all American citizens.
-A Single insurance plan in each region, administered at the federal level
-Global Operating budgets, competition between medical professionals
-Free Choice of Providers
-Public accountability, Federal Health Board used to oversee HC system
-Clinical System of Excellence
-Protection of Right to Health Care
-High quality and availability of HC for all
-Efficient system
-Affordable drug prices (negotiated down)
-Liberal benefits, conservative spending

So, we could cover all Americans with the benefits I just summarized and proved. And, we would have a net savings of cash. Pretty common sense I think right?

Just read this: http://the-dp-is-good-always.blogspot.com...

At 4/15/2012 12:15:34 AM, darkkermit wrote:

At 4/14/2012 11:18:48 AM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/14/2012 1:53:48 AM, darkkermit wrote:
There ain't no such thing as free healthcare. It's either paid directly or through taxes.

I'm aware that it isn't exactly "free."
It's just what you call it when you pay through taxes

No it isn't. Debate.org is free to use, as I am not expected to pay for it directly or indirectly. Calling healthcare "free" while paying for it in taxes is just intellectually dishonest. You don't call something free if you pay for it.

Your question would be better worde:d "would you rather pay for healthcare directly and have less waiting times or would you rather pay healthcare through taxes and have a larger waiting time"

hmmm.....that's a tough choice!!!

That's a little too simplified
With tax paid healthcare, everyone would be covered and nobody would have to worry about being uninsured which is a huge problem in the US healthcare system

At 4/15/2012 10:29:35 AM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/15/2012 12:15:34 AM, darkkermit wrote:

At 4/14/2012 11:18:48 AM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/14/2012 1:53:48 AM, darkkermit wrote:
There ain't no such thing as free healthcare. It's either paid directly or through taxes.

I'm aware that it isn't exactly "free."
It's just what you call it when you pay through taxes

No it isn't. Debate.org is free to use, as I am not expected to pay for it directly or indirectly. Calling healthcare "free" while paying for it in taxes is just intellectually dishonest. You don't call something free if you pay for it.

Your question would be better worde:d "would you rather pay for healthcare directly and have less waiting times or would you rather pay healthcare through taxes and have a larger waiting time"

hmmm.....that's a tough choice!!!

That's a little too simplified
With tax paid healthcare, everyone would be covered and nobody would have to worry about being uninsured which is a huge problem in the US healthcare system

Why should everyone be covered?
Also; Royal's penis.

At 4/15/2012 10:38:14 AM, Thaddeus wrote:

At 4/15/2012 10:29:35 AM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/15/2012 12:15:34 AM, darkkermit wrote:

At 4/14/2012 11:18:48 AM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/14/2012 1:53:48 AM, darkkermit wrote:
There ain't no such thing as free healthcare. It's either paid directly or through taxes.

I'm aware that it isn't exactly "free."
It's just what you call it when you pay through taxes

No it isn't. Debate.org is free to use, as I am not expected to pay for it directly or indirectly. Calling healthcare "free" while paying for it in taxes is just intellectually dishonest. You don't call something free if you pay for it.

Your question would be better worde:d "would you rather pay for healthcare directly and have less waiting times or would you rather pay healthcare through taxes and have a larger waiting time"

hmmm.....that's a tough choice!!!

That's a little too simplified
With tax paid healthcare, everyone would be covered and nobody would have to worry about being uninsured which is a huge problem in the US healthcare system

Why should everyone be covered?
Also; Royal's penis.

Whaddya mean why should everyone be covered?
45,000 Americans die annually due to lack of health insurance
http://news.harvard.edu...

At 4/14/2012 8:49:14 PM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/14/2012 8:46:00 PM, Contra wrote:

At 4/14/2012 8:44:25 PM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/14/2012 4:59:20 PM, Contra wrote:

At 4/14/2012 2:43:12 PM, DanT wrote:

At 4/14/2012 1:08:32 PM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/14/2012 12:34:55 PM, DanT wrote:

At 4/14/2012 12:56:49 AM, Yarely wrote:
What would you prefer, free healthcare in Canada that you would have to wait months for access, or extremely expensive US healthcare that you wouldn't have to wait so long for?

There is no such thing as free healthcare

I am perfectly aware of that
It is just what you call it when you pay for it through taxes

I know "free" healthcare is not exactly "free"

No it's called nationalized healthcare. The term "free healthcare" is only used when someone wishes to intentionally mislead people.

Yes. Call it Single-Payer, Socialized Medicine, whatever it is please. The way you frame is intentionally misleads.

I didn't "intentionally" mislead anyone
It wasn't deliberate

Do you support Single-Payer?

I am undecided
That is why I made this forum

No-one believes you

At 4/15/2012 11:25:24 AM, DanT wrote:

At 4/14/2012 8:49:14 PM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/14/2012 8:46:00 PM, Contra wrote:

At 4/14/2012 8:44:25 PM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/14/2012 4:59:20 PM, Contra wrote:

At 4/14/2012 2:43:12 PM, DanT wrote:

At 4/14/2012 1:08:32 PM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/14/2012 12:34:55 PM, DanT wrote:

At 4/14/2012 12:56:49 AM, Yarely wrote:
What would you prefer, free healthcare in Canada that you would have to wait months for access, or extremely expensive US healthcare that you wouldn't have to wait so long for?

There is no such thing as free healthcare

I am perfectly aware of that
It is just what you call it when you pay for it through taxes

I know "free" healthcare is not exactly "free"

No it's called nationalized healthcare. The term "free healthcare" is only used when someone wishes to intentionally mislead people.

Yes. Call it Single-Payer, Socialized Medicine, whatever it is please. The way you frame is intentionally misleads.

I didn't "intentionally" mislead anyone
It wasn't deliberate

Do you support Single-Payer?

I am undecided
That is why I made this forum

No-one believes you

No one believes me on what?
That I was undecided or whaat...?

At 4/15/2012 11:29:55 AM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/15/2012 11:25:24 AM, DanT wrote:

At 4/14/2012 8:49:14 PM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/14/2012 8:46:00 PM, Contra wrote:

At 4/14/2012 8:44:25 PM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/14/2012 4:59:20 PM, Contra wrote:

At 4/14/2012 2:43:12 PM, DanT wrote:

At 4/14/2012 1:08:32 PM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/14/2012 12:34:55 PM, DanT wrote:

At 4/14/2012 12:56:49 AM, Yarely wrote:
What would you prefer, free healthcare in Canada that you would have to wait months for access, or extremely expensive US healthcare that you wouldn't have to wait so long for?

There is no such thing as free healthcare

I am perfectly aware of that
It is just what you call it when you pay for it through taxes

I know "free" healthcare is not exactly "free"

No it's called nationalized healthcare. The term "free healthcare" is only used when someone wishes to intentionally mislead people.

Yes. Call it Single-Payer, Socialized Medicine, whatever it is please. The way you frame is intentionally misleads.

I didn't "intentionally" mislead anyone
It wasn't deliberate

Do you support Single-Payer?

I am undecided
That is why I made this forum

No-one believes you

No one believes me on what?
That I was undecided or whaat...?

that you are undecided

At 4/15/2012 10:59:50 AM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/15/2012 10:38:14 AM, Thaddeus wrote:

At 4/15/2012 10:29:35 AM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/15/2012 12:15:34 AM, darkkermit wrote:

At 4/14/2012 11:18:48 AM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/14/2012 1:53:48 AM, darkkermit wrote:
There ain't no such thing as free healthcare. It's either paid directly or through taxes.

I'm aware that it isn't exactly "free."
It's just what you call it when you pay through taxes

No it isn't. Debate.org is free to use, as I am not expected to pay for it directly or indirectly. Calling healthcare "free" while paying for it in taxes is just intellectually dishonest. You don't call something free if you pay for it.

Your question would be better worde:d "would you rather pay for healthcare directly and have less waiting times or would you rather pay healthcare through taxes and have a larger waiting time"

hmmm.....that's a tough choice!!!

That's a little too simplified
With tax paid healthcare, everyone would be covered and nobody would have to worry about being uninsured which is a huge problem in the US healthcare system

Why should everyone be covered?
Also; Royal's penis.

Whaddya mean why should everyone be covered?
45,000 Americans die annually due to lack of health insurance
http://news.harvard.edu...

Now only if they can conduct a study on how many die from over-coverage.

The reason healthcare cost so much is because the demand is high, and the supply is low.
Before adding to the demand, we must increase the supply of medical staff, medicine and equipment.

At 4/14/2012 9:32:10 PM, Contra wrote:
An axiom of economics holds that nothing can be rationed that is itself not scarce, and, absent evidence of infinite demand and infinite cost, you can't ration healthcare when there are more than enough doctors, hospitals, and high-tech equipment distributed throughout the country to do everything and anything that needs to be done.

What a ridiculous baloney claim.

We don't have enough doctors today for unfettered hospital access. Do you think all the doctors we have available are simply waiting around on the golf courses clocking in 4 hours of work a day and just praying for a single payer system that could finally put them back to work? What a joke.

At 4/15/2012 12:32:51 PM, DanT wrote:
The reason healthcare cost so much is because the demand is high, and the supply is low.
Before adding to the demand, we must increase the supply of medical staff, medicine and equipment.

Yea I figured that lack of supply is also an issue that needs fixing

At 4/15/2012 10:29:35 AM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/15/2012 12:15:34 AM, darkkermit wrote:

At 4/14/2012 11:18:48 AM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/14/2012 1:53:48 AM, darkkermit wrote:
There ain't no such thing as free healthcare. It's either paid directly or through taxes.

I'm aware that it isn't exactly "free."
It's just what you call it when you pay through taxes

No it isn't. Debate.org is free to use, as I am not expected to pay for it directly or indirectly. Calling healthcare "free" while paying for it in taxes is just intellectually dishonest. You don't call something free if you pay for it.

Your question would be better worde:d "would you rather pay for healthcare directly and have less waiting times or would you rather pay healthcare through taxes and have a larger waiting time"

hmmm.....that's a tough choice!!!

That's a little too simplified
With tax paid healthcare, everyone would be covered and nobody would have to worry about being uninsured which is a huge problem in the US healthcare system

You do realize that the obamacare act will allow everyone to be covered, right? One doesn't have to have a "single-paying act".

Also, the amount of people uninsured is not really represented:

At 4/15/2012 12:28:23 PM, DanT wrote:

At 4/15/2012 11:29:55 AM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/15/2012 11:25:24 AM, DanT wrote:

At 4/14/2012 8:49:14 PM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/14/2012 8:46:00 PM, Contra wrote:

At 4/14/2012 8:44:25 PM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/14/2012 4:59:20 PM, Contra wrote:

At 4/14/2012 2:43:12 PM, DanT wrote:

At 4/14/2012 1:08:32 PM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/14/2012 12:34:55 PM, DanT wrote:

At 4/14/2012 12:56:49 AM, Yarely wrote:
What would you prefer, free healthcare in Canada that you would have to wait months for access, or extremely expensive US healthcare that you wouldn't have to wait so long for?

There is no such thing as free healthcare

I am perfectly aware of that
It is just what you call it when you pay for it through taxes

I know "free" healthcare is not exactly "free"

No it's called nationalized healthcare. The term "free healthcare" is only used when someone wishes to intentionally mislead people.

Yes. Call it Single-Payer, Socialized Medicine, whatever it is please. The way you frame is intentionally misleads.

I didn't "intentionally" mislead anyone
It wasn't deliberate

Do you support Single-Payer?

I am undecided
That is why I made this forum

No-one believes you

No one believes me on what?
That I was undecided or whaat...?

that you are undecided

Lool believe it or not I am mostly undecided

At 4/15/2012 1:06:08 PM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/15/2012 12:28:23 PM, DanT wrote:

At 4/15/2012 11:29:55 AM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/15/2012 11:25:24 AM, DanT wrote:

At 4/14/2012 8:49:14 PM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/14/2012 8:46:00 PM, Contra wrote:

At 4/14/2012 8:44:25 PM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/14/2012 4:59:20 PM, Contra wrote:

At 4/14/2012 2:43:12 PM, DanT wrote:

At 4/14/2012 1:08:32 PM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/14/2012 12:34:55 PM, DanT wrote:

At 4/14/2012 12:56:49 AM, Yarely wrote:
What would you prefer, free healthcare in Canada that you would have to wait months for access, or extremely expensive US healthcare that you wouldn't have to wait so long for?

There is no such thing as free healthcare

I am perfectly aware of that
It is just what you call it when you pay for it through taxes

I know "free" healthcare is not exactly "free"

No it's called nationalized healthcare. The term "free healthcare" is only used when someone wishes to intentionally mislead people.

Yes. Call it Single-Payer, Socialized Medicine, whatever it is please. The way you frame is intentionally misleads.

I didn't "intentionally" mislead anyone
It wasn't deliberate

Do you support Single-Payer?

I am undecided
That is why I made this forum

No-one believes you

No one believes me on what?
That I was undecided or whaat...?

that you are undecided

Lool believe it or not I am mostly undecided

might want to change your profile than

At 4/15/2012 1:31:58 PM, DanT wrote:

At 4/15/2012 1:06:08 PM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/15/2012 12:28:23 PM, DanT wrote:

At 4/15/2012 11:29:55 AM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/15/2012 11:25:24 AM, DanT wrote:

At 4/14/2012 8:49:14 PM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/14/2012 8:46:00 PM, Contra wrote:

At 4/14/2012 8:44:25 PM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/14/2012 4:59:20 PM, Contra wrote:

At 4/14/2012 2:43:12 PM, DanT wrote:

At 4/14/2012 1:08:32 PM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/14/2012 12:34:55 PM, DanT wrote:

At 4/14/2012 12:56:49 AM, Yarely wrote:
What would you prefer, free healthcare in Canada that you would have to wait months for access, or extremely expensive US healthcare that you wouldn't have to wait so long for?

There is no such thing as free healthcare

I am perfectly aware of that
It is just what you call it when you pay for it through taxes

I know "free" healthcare is not exactly "free"

No it's called nationalized healthcare. The term "free healthcare" is only used when someone wishes to intentionally mislead people.

Yes. Call it Single-Payer, Socialized Medicine, whatever it is please. The way you frame is intentionally misleads.

I didn't "intentionally" mislead anyone
It wasn't deliberate

Do you support Single-Payer?

I am undecided
That is why I made this forum

No-one believes you

No one believes me on what?
That I was undecided or whaat...?

that you are undecided

Lool believe it or not I am mostly undecided

might want to change your profile than

Haha maybe but tonight I'll research a little more about it

At 4/15/2012 12:52:46 PM, darkkermit wrote:

At 4/15/2012 10:29:35 AM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/15/2012 12:15:34 AM, darkkermit wrote:

At 4/14/2012 11:18:48 AM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/14/2012 1:53:48 AM, darkkermit wrote:
There ain't no such thing as free healthcare. It's either paid directly or through taxes.

I'm aware that it isn't exactly "free."
It's just what you call it when you pay through taxes

No it isn't. Debate.org is free to use, as I am not expected to pay for it directly or indirectly. Calling healthcare "free" while paying for it in taxes is just intellectually dishonest. You don't call something free if you pay for it.

Your question would be better worde:d "would you rather pay for healthcare directly and have less waiting times or would you rather pay healthcare through taxes and have a larger waiting time"

hmmm.....that's a tough choice!!!

That's a little too simplified
With tax paid healthcare, everyone would be covered and nobody would have to worry about being uninsured which is a huge problem in the US healthcare system

You do realize that the obamacare act will allow everyone to be covered, right? One doesn't have to have a "single-paying act".

Also, the amount of people uninsured is not really represented:

No obamacare won't allow everyone to be covered
It only allows young people to use their parent's insurance plan and can not be denied till their 26

At 4/15/2012 2:24:23 PM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/15/2012 12:52:46 PM, darkkermit wrote:

At 4/15/2012 10:29:35 AM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/15/2012 12:15:34 AM, darkkermit wrote:

At 4/14/2012 11:18:48 AM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/14/2012 1:53:48 AM, darkkermit wrote:
There ain't no such thing as free healthcare. It's either paid directly or through taxes.

I'm aware that it isn't exactly "free."
It's just what you call it when you pay through taxes

No it isn't. Debate.org is free to use, as I am not expected to pay for it directly or indirectly. Calling healthcare "free" while paying for it in taxes is just intellectually dishonest. You don't call something free if you pay for it.

Your question would be better worde:d "would you rather pay for healthcare directly and have less waiting times or would you rather pay healthcare through taxes and have a larger waiting time"

hmmm.....that's a tough choice!!!

That's a little too simplified
With tax paid healthcare, everyone would be covered and nobody would have to worry about being uninsured which is a huge problem in the US healthcare system

You do realize that the obamacare act will allow everyone to be covered, right? One doesn't have to have a "single-paying act".

Also, the amount of people uninsured is not really represented:

No obamacare won't allow everyone to be covered
It only allows young people to use their parent's insurance plan and can not be denied till their 26

Yes over 1000 pages of a healthcare bill only allows young people to use their parents insurance plan. I'm sure that's all it is. It just took 1000 pages for them to say it.

What do you think the individual mandate is?

At 4/15/2012 3:04:21 PM, darkkermit wrote:

At 4/15/2012 2:24:23 PM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/15/2012 12:52:46 PM, darkkermit wrote:

At 4/15/2012 10:29:35 AM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/15/2012 12:15:34 AM, darkkermit wrote:

At 4/14/2012 11:18:48 AM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/14/2012 1:53:48 AM, darkkermit wrote:
There ain't no such thing as free healthcare. It's either paid directly or through taxes.

I'm aware that it isn't exactly "free."
It's just what you call it when you pay through taxes

No it isn't. Debate.org is free to use, as I am not expected to pay for it directly or indirectly. Calling healthcare "free" while paying for it in taxes is just intellectually dishonest. You don't call something free if you pay for it.

Your question would be better worde:d "would you rather pay for healthcare directly and have less waiting times or would you rather pay healthcare through taxes and have a larger waiting time"

hmmm.....that's a tough choice!!!

That's a little too simplified
With tax paid healthcare, everyone would be covered and nobody would have to worry about being uninsured which is a huge problem in the US healthcare system

You do realize that the obamacare act will allow everyone to be covered, right? One doesn't have to have a "single-paying act".

Also, the amount of people uninsured is not really represented:

No obamacare won't allow everyone to be covered
It only allows young people to use their parent's insurance plan and can not be denied till their 26

Yes over 1000 pages of a healthcare bill only allows young people to use their parents insurance plan. I'm sure that's all it is. It just took 1000 pages for them to say it.

What do you think the individual mandate is?

Oh yeah that's right
My bad

At 4/15/2012 12:52:46 PM, darkkermit wrote:

At 4/15/2012 10:29:35 AM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/15/2012 12:15:34 AM, darkkermit wrote:

At 4/14/2012 11:18:48 AM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/14/2012 1:53:48 AM, darkkermit wrote:
There ain't no such thing as free healthcare. It's either paid directly or through taxes.

I'm aware that it isn't exactly "free."
It's just what you call it when you pay through taxes

No it isn't. Debate.org is free to use, as I am not expected to pay for it directly or indirectly. Calling healthcare "free" while paying for it in taxes is just intellectually dishonest. You don't call something free if you pay for it.

Your question would be better worde:d "would you rather pay for healthcare directly and have less waiting times or would you rather pay healthcare through taxes and have a larger waiting time"

hmmm.....that's a tough choice!!!

That's a little too simplified
With tax paid healthcare, everyone would be covered and nobody would have to worry about being uninsured which is a huge problem in the US healthcare system

You do realize that the obamacare act will allow everyone to be covered, right? One doesn't have to have a "single-paying act".

Single-Payer is pretty much the only way to make sure everybody is covered.

Also, the amount of people uninsured is not really represented:

might want to change your profile than

Don't worry, it is fine how it is.

Doctors will be able to handle more patients because with SP the system is much more efficient, and if it was electronic (like I suggested) the needs to do hours of paperwork would be eliminated.

With SP, doctor's incomes would be more equal, and we could train more doctors with more investment in primary care.

At 4/15/2012 10:59:50 AM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/15/2012 10:38:14 AM, Thaddeus wrote:

At 4/15/2012 10:29:35 AM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/15/2012 12:15:34 AM, darkkermit wrote:

At 4/14/2012 11:18:48 AM, Yarely wrote:

At 4/14/2012 1:53:48 AM, darkkermit wrote:
There ain't no such thing as free healthcare. It's either paid directly or through taxes.

I'm aware that it isn't exactly "free."
It's just what you call it when you pay through taxes

No it isn't. Debate.org is free to use, as I am not expected to pay for it directly or indirectly. Calling healthcare "free" while paying for it in taxes is just intellectually dishonest. You don't call something free if you pay for it.

Your question would be better worde:d "would you rather pay for healthcare directly and have less waiting times or would you rather pay healthcare through taxes and have a larger waiting time"

hmmm.....that's a tough choice!!!

That's a little too simplified
With tax paid healthcare, everyone would be covered and nobody would have to worry about being uninsured which is a huge problem in the US healthcare system

Why should everyone be covered?
Also; Royal's penis.

Whaddya mean why should everyone be covered?
45,000 Americans die annually due to lack of health insurance
http://news.harvard.edu...

So?

At 4/15/2012 4:03:35 PM, Contra wrote:
might want to change your profile than

Don't worry, it is fine how it is.

Doctors will be able to handle more patients because with SP the system is much more efficient, and if it was electronic (like I suggested) the needs to do hours of paperwork would be eliminated.

With SP, doctor's incomes would be more equal, and we could train more doctors with more investment in primary care.

Would Sp be more affordable than Obamacare? And if it is, how?