I’m sure you have statistics for what percentage of insured people noticed any negative impact to their coverage due to Obamacare.
I do not. The election will tell us about that one.
As Scott Rasmussen pointed out, the administration’s numbers don’t tell us much either. It’s like saying the score of the baseball game is eight.
I’d believe him if I were you, Fear. adaher has a well-established record of performance on poll interpretation.
Yet another thing that’s been explained to you, with more patience than warranted, enough times for you to get it. We already have a single-payer system. It’s called Medicare. It works extremely efficiently. The path to making it available to everyone is to make it available to everyone.
You still have never answered, btw, the question about why you’d want to repeal and *then immediately reinstate *the bulk of Obamacare, instead of simply repealing the parts you say most Americans are opposed to (you haven’t said what they are, either). So what’s the reason for your hammering on “repeal”? Is the thing you really want to repeal simply Obama’s getting credit for it? All you have to do about that is discuss how it’s a Heritage Foundation proposal that Governor Romney had the courage to implement and show the rest of the country. Why not just do that?
So all you want is a public option? That’s not quite the same thing.
The Heritage Foundation plan is not exactly the same as ACA. And Democrats will howl if the Republicans try to pass it. Which will of course prove them to be liars, but we already knew that.
That’s a constantly repeated falsehood. In “admin dollars spent per patient” it is less efficient (not by a lot, but still) than private insurance. It only comes out ahead as a percentage because Medicare spends so much more per patient than private insurance.
See http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f259/bigbadterr/admincosts1.gif
Yeah, Medicare is only efficient if you don’t count fraud.
Three percent overhead, including fraud.
When did you stop even trying?
Terr, did you know Medicare right now covers *only *the elderly and disabled? People who, before Obamacare, could be routinely stiffed by private insurance?
Well, now that you know, how about reconsidering your statement?
You claim that Medicare is much more efficient. It isn’t. Its administrative costs, per patient, are higher than private insurances’.
False.
It’s 3-10%, depending on the estimates. It’s telling that Medicare neither knows for sure nor seems interested in finding out. Makes it easy to claim you’re more efficient when you don’t spend money finding out how much money you’re losing.
Really, Elvis, the trash talk is so unnecessary and it just makes you look doubly foolish. You didn’t even try, or spend a second to think about how stupid the idea that Medicare fraud could be only 3% WITH administrative costs. Such a figure could only come from a single-payer advocacy site.
It would keep the partisan hyenas from howling about socialism. But yes, if you like private insurance, you could keep it. Except you probably wouldn’t want to.
I’m trying to offer you a way out of the political well you’ve dived into. If you’d rather stay down there, you certainly can.
Gonna answer the why-repeal question or not, hombre?
You’re seriously offering that bunch of partisan talking points as an objective cite? 
The devil is in the details. If you are paying for it anyway, you probably would just take the Medicare. But if you’re talking about people buying in and paying full freight, then some would choose Medicare, but those with access to the better plans would stick with those. YOu won’t see unions flocking to give up their gold plated plans.
There is not a single cite you can provide that would show Medicare fraud at 2% or less. It’s a laughable assertion.
The OMB says nearly 10%:
Find me a source better than that and we’ll talk.
Care to provide any numbers from anywhere about fraud and inefficiency in the private sector? Your claim is that it’s less; so show us how you know.
Here’s a cite with some very different numbers than yours about Medicare costs.
Anyway, if private industry can operate more effectively and efficiently than that on a level playing field, let 'em try, obviously. Meanwhile, I’ll keep on being amused by your contortions - a few posts ago, you were denying that a single-payer system is even possible.
Oh, and you can expect to keep getting asked about why you want to repeal and reinstate so much of ACA, what you wouldn’t reinstate and why, and what you’d replace it with. Take some time to think about it, all you need. Your party’s leaders still haven’t even started on that, so I do take some pity on you for that, but only some.
Hard to compare, because part of what you call “overhead” is private insurance companies aggressively detecting fraud. Whereas Medicare relies more on the honor system.
If you’re referring to something like NHS or Canada’s Medicare, where government is the sole payer for basic health insurance, then yes, it’s impossible. If you’re referring merely to a public option, where every citizen can choose to pay in or not pay in, then that’s not single payer. There’s a difference between having self-contained single payer systems and UHC single payer. The US has the VA, Medicare, and Medicaid. Three single payer systems=multipayer. If private insurance is permitted to compete with Medicare, then it’s as multi-payer as it gets.
And again, the devil is in the details. Democrats are quite capable of installing single payer through deception: allow people to keep their insurance, but they’ll be paying for Medicare whether they take it or not. That’s not a level playing field.
They do have to coalesce around an alternative. IMO, the Coburn-Hatch-Burr plan is just fine.
IOW, your claim is based on nothing factual at all.
IOW, so you’ll make something up instead. Don’t you ever get tired of that game?
Only because of the Children’s Party’s reflexive opposition, born of their sponsorship in the insurance industry and others. Please.
Not at first, but eventually, when the private companies’ profit motive and executive-bonuses motive and advertising and schmoozing and Senator-buying motives drive them into uncompetitiveness and irrelevance. You do see that happening, don’t you?
Take a good look at your next paystub (if you get one). Tell us what you see under the Deductions column. 
IOW, you’ll be in favor of anything the Republicans ever come up with (and it’s not a good bet that they will, btw), even though you have no clue what it is! Just the name Republican on it is all you need to be happy. Well, maybe you’ll find out what’s in it after it passes, right?
Let’s take that as the answer to why you want to repeal the Democratic law and immediately reinstate pretty much all of it with a Republican name on it. Maybe someday you’ll realize how pathetic a proposal that is. Or maybe not.
Hasn’t happened in any other multi-payer system.