She seems to be the next token left wing moral activist "they" are going to try and shove down everyone's throat by hiding or downplaying the crazy and stupid crap.


Bigger, stronger government through policing morality going after utopian policies that emotionally seem rational but in practical reality just lead to government overreach and problems?


The expansion of California crazy? No, thank you.


I think the government had an opportunity to show how great a "single payer" medical service could be through the VA system.
I think they keep failing.

I think Kamala Harris is doing what a lot of politicians are doing; pandering to morons/low informed voters that support the left.

I'd like to see California enact a single payer state system, that is only funded by the state, to see what happens.


Neither? It's SOSDD from liberal democrats?


Only if you want a young Pelosi/Hillary hybrid, IMO.



Great. So illegals sneak in, get free prenatal care, drop an anchor baby, and through the magic of constitutional and statute wording the parents and family are now covered by free medical care?
I'm sure that will stop the trains with thousands of undocumented immigrants from Central and South America from pulling right up to the border.
And I'm sure that will have absolutely no impact whatsoever on the cost, access, or quality of care.


And I'm sure this will be determined solely by the doctor and patient and not defined by government, right?
It won't be the government telling doctors, limiting options that doctors can offer to patients, what they can say is "medically necessary..." right?


Hmmm...Let's see. Let's look at the VA, the department of education, college loan programs, college tuition costs, social security, medicare/medicaid, SNAP...out of all of those government or government funded programs have the administrative costs decreased due to new efficiencies implemented due to greater government centralization, so more money every year is going towards the services the people receive?
No. Administrative costs have done nothing but increase and bloat.


How's that working out for your water or electricity bill or cable bill?
Every year they keep going down, right? Cheaper electricity? Cleaner water? Fewer commercials, more quality program, cheaper cable bill?
All that happens is government creates government sponsored monopolies with less incentive to give you anything more than what the (state and/or federal) government mandates they give you according to the costs the government mandates.

You tell me which had a quicker response and resolution without a huge increase in costs:
- The E. Coli outbreak at Chipotle or Jack in the Box in 1993?
- The Flint/California Water crisis?

There's no incentive to give you anything better to keep you coming back, only how little they can give you to keep you from complaining too much, and more incentive for corruption like in Washington state where enough money as a campaign contribution will get you lost or reinterpreted water quality reports.

Not to mention, the U.S. government is not held to things like GAAP standards. If they spend 100 billion this year, want to budget 200 billion next year, but "only" manage to budget 180 billion, well that's touted on the front page as "saving" (cutting costs) for taxpayers by 20 billion.

Other than that, look at any "single payer" system in the world and you'll notice the amount spent on healthcare per GDP has only ever increased.
Costs are hidden. Kind of like food inflation. e.g. recently Pringles can size change but price remains the same.
Or what Wal Mart (whose profit comes mostly from SNAP. 17 billion profit, 14 billion in food stamps spent at Wal Mart) does routinely. Lower the price of one product that doesn't sell all that much, then very slightly raise the price of 30 well selling products.

Costs do not decrease in a centralized system of government created monopolies. Especially not with a fiat currency and built in inflation, but that's another thread.


Really?
"If you like the plan you have, you can keep it. If you like the doctor you have, you can keep your doctor, too"
How'd that work out?

Jesus.
"B...b..b.but this time it's different!"


Obama's solution was to keep the patchwork of private insurance companies, and insert a new patch of government bureaucracy into the mix, through the magic of a nearly 2 billion dollar website. But that was supposed to magically decrease administrative costs?

From the OP "a single public or quasi-public agency organizes healthcare financing."
So a monopoly, or a government sponsored enterprise like fanny mae and freddy mac and sallie mae.
Look into their finances and need for bailouts and please feel free to say how administrative costs have decreased.

And how have they worked in the real world?
You ever try to buy a house with a fanny/freddie mortgage in Phoenix?
Many to most homes (at least between 2012 and 2014) were bought with cash. People paid taxes that go to support fanny/freddie, even bail them out...but they have to use cash because they had to pay sometimes double the asking price to pick up a home since there was a period of high demand.

How have single payer systems fared in the rest of the world?
People taxed and offered free health services...has that decreased long term consumption (demand) of health services? Lead to far more healthy people needing less health care whatsoever? Also making everyone more productive, thereby working more, able to pay more in taxes, thereby creating an environment where spending on healthcare as a percentage of GDP has decreased?
Nope.


Only according to what the government defined as "patient care," or as you said in the OP "medically necessary," as it's defined by the government in what it is willing to pay for, according to what it can afford to pay, based on tax revenue and debt.

Government intervention increased the size and power of the insurance companies that lead to less transparency in medical costs.
Government intervention lead to doctors and hospitals being unable to function as private businesses.
What is easier to figure out, how much a box of gauze costs, and why, between walmart, walgreens, and 7-11, or how much a box of gauze costs, and why, between your doctor and local hospital, or how much a colonoscopy costs, and why, between your local hospital and specialist?

What do you think will be easier to get: the insuring agreement of your health insurance policy from your insurance provider? Or a FOIA request regarding new changes to the insuring agreement or conditions between your doctor and the government "quasi-public agency" which determines actual costs of your healthcare and what the doctor is allowed to offer you in terms of healthcare?


All of which exist because of historical government (state and federal) intervention.


So you believe the solution to local bureaucracy, since insurance is mostly state controlled and there isn't interstate commerce of insurance, ("billing, marketing, underwriting & other actives") is to replace it with national bureaucracy...and that will lower costs?


I think a lot of people would see some good in this.
Unfortunately I think the vast majority that do/will are already in the hospital with massive head trauma or wearing helmets on the short bus on their way to school so can't chime in.

you dropped it, but it wasnt your only option for insurance, it just wasnt the price you wanted to pay

there are some who need care and cant afford the care they NEED, I would not mind seeing that change.

Change what? There are a lot health care programs for the poor.
Medicaid being the largest.

i guess free isn't good enough...

Eric22t.


Hey, welcome to my cyber mansion, well can it be a way to eliminate insurance companies?

you can throw a Feinstien in there too...

medicaid is an income based program, with premiums based on your inome, and it does not cover ALL types of care

yes it is, and there are more assistance programs available. I have never
heard or read of anyone not getting medical care when needed. Dial 911, they'll come pick you up. I'm sure there are some not being treated because they don't seek it. Very few.

corporations are about their bottom line, insurance companies are corporations

of course people dont get care they NEED if the companies bottom line doesnt feel they are worth it,,,

insurance has RESTRICTIONS on what it will cover, most of them will cover normal or less expensive common ailments, most do not cover more expensive ailments

most did not cover without a basically clean bill of health to start with

so those who NEEDED it couldnt get it, because of the fact that they NEEDED it...

just fund the hospitals and not the insurance companies ..all the insurance companies do is minimize or negate ones injuries in order to create a bigger profit for themselves..nothing but a middle man

They keep saying the system is broke yet they keep going back to the broke system .Its about time all those other countries who belong to the U.N to start chipping in to helping all these foreign countries instead of sitting back enjoying the perks,and leaving it up to us

funny how they dole out OUR money to everyone else and then comeback and say there's not enough for us.They robbed from Peter to pay Paul and now Peter is broke.

We have to close ranks in order to survive this .I keep thinking how it was that 911 was suppose to destroy the economy but the major destruction came from within in
the form of the real estate debacle ..freakin' morons

Oh, I thought we were talking about Government run healthcare.

If we could straighten out some of the things that take away the people's money it would be a lot easier to fund the government healthcare system. But as long as these azz clowns keep making mistakes the people will continue to lose .

Yes.. the magic word " universal heath care".

Well there is no such thing.. who the F is going to pay for it????????????

Get real.... taxpayers pay for it, while non tax payers enjoy it'

And what???.. gonna prove that wrong?

you the man.. do it.. please do

Way to uncork!

and what about Identification? Gonna need some type of ID cards.
Voter ID cards are called racist and discriminatory by the libs, so we can't have that.
I guess implant chips might work

yes, lets chip em... track them thru the system.. from every hand out to the next

Uncle Sammy will pick up the tab

Sorry folks.. someone has to pay for it.. let's call a " spade a spade".. ok.

I really don't think most people understand how and why insurance companies work, many of these companies are "nonprofit"and only a lot so much for procedures in order to keep doctors and hospitals in check. Its the hospitals,doctors, drug companies, and sue happy lawyers that are really to blame for the rising cost of medical care. Combine that with the hypochondriacs and everyone being brain washed of the drug and procedures they need along with the fact people want to live forever even if they are a vegetable or in great pain. If you never had insurance and you get cancer and decide to get insurance you should be paying a lot more. If you don't have car insurance and you total out your car and kill someone and then get insurance they won't buy you a new car and pay for your lawsuit. Its also all the free loaders that have never paid into the system using all kinds of services they don't need and have never put anything back into the system. Freeloaders need to be held accountable for their actions, its not that they can't work, they just prefer to freeload. Til we can get a handle on the waste in the medical field we will not be able to have a health care system that works.

Ok, a spade, is a spade