Friday, February 27, 2009

Single Payer Healthcare

I may as well get this post out of the way.  I support single payer healthcare…as long as the single payer is the patient and the recipient of the pay is the doctor.

Socialized medicine is such an awful idea for this country and really represents a step backward for freedom in this country.  Like Social Security and so many other large programs meant to do good, it will bankrupt the country, become bloated and never deliver on the original promise made.  If we care at all about having a monetary system in this country that is built on wealth and capital we need to stop looking for holes to throw money down.

More government intervention is the not the solution for the problems caused by other attempts at intervention.  I hope and pray something reverses this love affair with socialism/fascism corporatism that this country seems to be having the last two decades.


robert the grump said...

Number one ranked healthcare system in the world (according to the World Health Org and others) is France.

You can't much more socialist than that. Just saying.

berburbaby said...

Someone send me a Facebook cause invitation for the Single Payer Healthcare, and I was thinking, "Oh, yeah, single that me paying for my own self?"

So I looked it up, and found out it was the government paying for everyone. Instead of One to One, it was One to Many...

I ignored that cause.

I should start my own Single Payer HealthCare cause with the single payer being the person getting the care.

Don said...

Ummm, single payer as a single person paying for all their health care ala carte? Few could afford it. Same reason Liability Insurance is mandatory for all drivers. No one driver can be trusted to pay for the healthcare bills of a person they hit. If all are required to pay liability, together the bills get paid. And, by the way, the tallest (And Insurance Company-Named) buildings in most cities get built. That is how "poorly" spreading the risk around works.

Don said...

BTW, Social Security did not bankrupt the country, bloat beyond what it initially said it would do (the baby boom was not it's fault) OR fail to deliver on it's initial promise, that old people in the United States would not live in hardcore abject poverty.

Tracy said...

Fee for service Medical care can't work in this country under the current system. Which would put my own resources against insurance're right...I could never afford it as I would be priced out by deeper pockets.

The majority of people in this country don't need Medical Insurance in the form of full coverage and catastrophic medical insurance is exceedingly affordable. Not free but say...everyone who can afford a cell phone and Cable TV and a laptop would find catostrophic coverage affordable. As someone who is constantly in touch with the impoverished and needy in our community...hardly any poor person doesn't have at least 2 of the 3 items I listed...NYC could be different...I dunno.

I have a full professional clinic down the street from my house that takes NO INSURANCE whatsoever. There is a waiting list to use their services as they have more patients than they can handle. Given the typical myth that fee for service won't work...logic would dictate that their business model will fail...though magically it doesn't.

Social Security is a failure in that the federal government never had an intention of protecting the money as there are no protected funds in DC. Federal Gas taxes are not protected for roads and FICA is not protected for the elderly and needy. I heard somewhere that there's no money anywhere and there hasn't been in a long time...

You're right that Social Security didn't cause our current bankruptcy and I probably am guilty of exaggerating...our last two financial crunches were caused by unecessary wars in my view.