That is my issue. I also am in a retirement pension structure, which requires that I remain insured through the state system or another approved system, and the cheapest is through my employer, which is $380 a month… out of my pocket, they pay some too.
Compared with the $350 billion per year y’all would save with an efficient single-payer system… no, not really.
It might surprise you to learn that this board is isn’t particularly uber-left.
I’d be happy to debate causes. I’d be happy if there was an honest to god policy debate in this country. I’d be estatic if we took the UK’s version of health care and whited out “Kingdom” on all the statutes and subbed in “States” but that’s clearly not going to happen, so I’ll at least be content when we pass something, anything, and something positive happens.
I have every confidence that when universal health care of some kind works in Norway, New Zealand, Japan, Germany, Belgium, United Kingdom, Kuwait, Sweden, Bahrain, Brunei, Canada, Netherlands, Austria, United Arab Emirates, Finland, Slovenia, Denmark, Luxembourg, France, Australia, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Cyprus, Greece, Spain, South Korea, Iceland, Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland, Israel, China, Trinidad and Tobago we’re not talking about a fad or an unproven experiment. I’m fairly certain we can make it work in the United States too.
Since Obamacare is not an efficient single payer system, the comparison remains valid.
Not compared to the European Socialist Party, no. Compared with the rest of America, they are pretty reliably lockstep liberal, only more so.
81 percent of Dems want Lieberman punished for healthcare stance. On the SDMB, they want him to die for it.
Regards,
Shodan
You do realize, do you not, that health care costs are increasing faster in places like Australia, Korea and the UK than in the United States? (Cite).
Regards,
Shodan
Again, since Shodan apparently missed this the last time: 
If they included tort reform (which is a small but imho worthy addition to HCR) in the bill they would lose some number of Democratic votes and gain 0 Republican votes. It isn’t possible to get tort reform in this current bill because the Republicans don’t want to play ball.
There are many changes that could be made to the bill but they would alienate one or more Democrats and since Republicans are acting like five year olds those things are left out of the bill.
Interestingly, the UK and South Korea have the fastest-aging populations in the developed world. That surely couldn’t have anything to do with it.
Don’t you find it frustrating that the hyperbolic opposition to health care reform in the U.S. is such that the most sensible model is too “out there” to even float? This would depress the hell out of me if I lived just 30 miles SE of here.
That’s going to be skewed by the fact that we pay almost twice as much as the next highest country. It gets harder and harder to grow when you’re already nine feet tall.
Come on Shodan, you are smarter than this.
Right?
why is it, iyho, worthy? It benefits absolutely no one except for malpractice insurers and possibly doctors.
…and legitimate suffers who have been wronged to the extent of a complete life altering disability who are no longer able to be made whole because of a cap on damages.
But regardless of that debate, it’s entirely possible to be upset (and upset directly at Democrats) that more isn’t being done to change health care costs in this country, while simultaneously understanding that the political environment that makes it that way forces their hand.
sry, forgot the link:
Maybe they are just the most obnoxious ones, the name-callers.
I actually lurked here for more than a year before just recently registering so I have a good feel for its flavor.
PS I bought Cecil’s first book when it first came out oh so many years ago (before the web was invented, probably), and every one since. I love his writing style.
Pre-existing conditions are typically not an issue as long as you don’t have an extended gap (more than 90 days I think) of coverage. I have plenty of “existing” conditions and have switched jobs three times in the last 10 years with no problems.
How does this prevent you from switching jobs to another job that has insurance coverage?
Prove it.
Let see some cites from Republicans who say, specifically, that they will not support Obamacare even if tort reform is included.
If the US government could make sensible decisions about health care, it wouldn’t matter if we had single payer or the current mix or anything else. There are two principles that are repeatedly ignored in health care discussions - [ul][li]Increased demand results in increased costs, and [*]you can’t get something for nothing.[/ul]It isn’t the system that succeeds or fails - it is how it is administered. If Congress could cut Medicare payments to doctors, that would be an indication that they could make the other cuts that would keep Obamacare from spiralling out of control just like Medicare is doing. But they can’t. Therefore, Obamacare will turn into another bloated bureaucratic nightmare that costs ten times what it should. If they implemented single payer, it would be just the same. [/li]
Actually, they are just trying to see if you can be shouted down.
Regards,
Shodan
Ha, good luck with that
:dubious:
The tort reform the CBO looked at did actually save some money and still allowed for damages to be had. This is what they were looking at:
Looking at that specifically I find it worth the savings. But I could be wrong of course.