2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumAP Poll: Americans Don't Know What ‘Single Payer’ Means. And when they find out, they don’t like it
When asked their view of single-payer health carewhat such a system is often calledthe respondents seemed to like it. A slim plurality of 39 percent supports replacing the private health insurance system with a single government-run, taxpayer-funded plan that would cover medical, dental, vision and long-term care, with 33 percent opposed, the APs Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Emily Swanson write. Just 26 percent, meanwhile, support the existing Obamacare law.
But when asked whether theyd be willing to either pay higher taxes for such a plan or give up their own, employer-sponsored plans for a government-run insurance plan, they were decidedly less bullish. Thirty-nine percent said they would oppose a plan that meant either of those steps. Support thinned further as the pollsters brought up the other potential pitfalls of single-payer systems.
A Kaiser Family Foundation poll, also from Thursday, found that people feel similarly thrown by the phrase Medicare for All. Thirty-six percent of respondents viewed that very positively, but only 15 percent felt that way about single payer.
Overall it sounds terrific, she said. Yeah! Let's go for it! But Europe and Canada have their problems with the single-payer system ... its subpar.
There are two common points of confusion about single payer. The first is about the definition of single, which, as you might know, is one. And the one in this case almost always means the government. It means everyone gives up their Platinum Elite Status Cigna Extra Miles plan that they get at a steep discount from their work. Instead, they go on the same plan everyone else has. This is a key element of Sanderss proposal, as described on his site: Under Bernies plan, Americans will benefit from the freedom and security that comes with finally separating health insurance from employment.
The thing is, half of Americans get their insurance through work, and they don't all hate it. A government plan might not be any worse, but it will require a leap into the unknown.
The AP says that higher taxes are also a given under single-payer, and thats probably true, but its hard to tell how much people will spend on taxes versus how much they spend now on insurance premiums and surprise ER bills. And its worth noting that the AP didnt bring up any of the positives typically associated with single-payer, like the potential for significant administrative cost savings.
The other point of confusion is that Europe has single-payer health care, and America should be more like Europe. European countries medical systems are all pretty different. Some of them, like the U.K., have single-payer health care. Germany has a system much like ours, except the insurers arent for-profit companies and its cheaper for the patients. Other countries have mixed public-private systems that guarantee a basic level of health care but allow the rich to buy supplemental private insurance.
It sounds like Sanderss idea could resemble any one of these. In his description, he says, all you need to do is go to the doctor and show your insurance card. If everyone were covered by the same plan, its not clear why youd need an insurance card. If there is a card, its not clear whether it would be issued by a German-style sickness fund or function more like an NHS medical card.
Its true, however, that Europe has its own problems, some of them related to single-payer health-care systems. Americas existing medical system is no picnic either. But when theyre shown the downsides of single-payer, Americans seem to prefer the devil they know.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/02/people-have-no-idea-what-single-payer-means/471045/
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #1)
Post removed
CountAllVotes
(20,854 posts)Medicare is not free. If you think it is free, well you've got a lot to learn. You get zero if you don't pay into it for five (5) years.
Free riders = Sanders voters you state.
I state that you should find another place to troll about.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)The really big thing they are hiding is the fact that they signed away our right to decide our own health care policy two decades ago and they have been hiding that- maintaining the current dysfunctional health care system in order to create the mistaken impression that our system is the only possible future so they could both export it, and also use the "crisis" as a means of opening up the country to very low wage foreign workers, basically throwing our doctors and nurses (and teachers and IT workers) under the bus in separate fake "crises".
Read the links in my sig for the first half of it. The second part is a little more difficult to lay out but one can find it by searching on "labour mobility" and "movement of natural persons" and phrases like that.
Please read the three papers in my sig, the situation will blow your mind.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)I pay more in health insurance than most here make, in all likelihood.
So let me tell you to stuff that free rider or free stuff nonsense.
The ONLY reason we are not a single payer society is Nixon saw an opportunity for his buddies to profit off of us and the rest is history.
There is no reason, none, at all, for the words health and insurance to ever be in the same sentence.
CountAllVotes
(20,854 posts)She pays over $200+ a month for Medicare (with Part B included) and another who knows how much for a supplemental policy as she won't tell.
She's a member of the upper crust in our society (aka rich) and has many serious health problems.
She complains about having to pay $200+ a month for Medicare. I think she's damn lucky to have insurance!
>>above $107,000 up to $160,000 $243.60
I get sick and tired of these people running around saying it is free because it is not free and they cry when they have to pay! In the case of this old woman, she is hauling in a load of money of STOCK MARKET dividends, that is where the income is from as she never worked a job and is living off of her late husband's investments. She's a tightwad, this much I know. People like this sicken me.
https://www.medicare.gov/your-medicare-costs/costs-at-a-glance/costs-at-glance.html#collapse-4809
Does not appear to be free according to medicare.gov does it?
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)Even if you never pay a dime in taxes, in any form, EVER, if you work at all you are paying.
Yes, I would love to have to only pay that, but in reality there should be NO cost, AT ALL, to any health care or RX.
We can do it that way, and yes we still pay, via taxes but we can do it, everybody else does.
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)Have my taxes go to pay so no one has to suffer or die because of a lack of or an inadequate health insurance than to socialize multinational corporations via tax cuts/loop holes and pay for never ending war.
I am by no means rich, but I would happily take a tax increase of if it meant it saved lives.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Not obvious for the free riders
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1972240
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Divisive, broad-brush attack, and a right wing one at that.
JURY RESULTS
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon May 16, 2016, 11:23 AM, and the Jury voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I agree, this poster has a habit of doing that
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Here's a fact the OP will find interesting: There's no place for this kind of insult here. We're all on one team and we're going to need each other in November and going forward.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: You know what, I'm going to be an ass and vote to hide this crappy post just because it's crappy. It's not a TOS violation, it's intellectually offensive and it should be nuked on those grounds. Have a nice day.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: It's not a right-wing attack, "divisive" is par for the course. But it is uncivil, and civility is a good thing.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Okay, it's childish, stupid, wrong, and kind of "Trump-ish". But there's nothing to hide here. Better to reply and debate the merits of the argument with the commenter rather than alert on it. Move along.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
kaleckim
(651 posts)The freaking article says this:
"And its worth noting that the AP didnt bring up any of the positives typically associated with single-payer, like the potential for significant administrative cost savings...But when theyre shown the downsides of single-payer, Americans seem to prefer the devil they know."
How do people like yourself miss that? The person/firm polling them gives them all the negatives of such a system, none of the positives, then asks them if they prefer the present system to that. How is the clear, bias not obvious? The sad thing is, with many posters like yourself, it is, you just hope no one else notices.
For example, they asked about taxes going up. What if they, instead, asked if they'd be okay if their taxes went up but they'd more than make up the difference through a reduction in private expenditures? Cause that would actually be ACCURATE.
What does your party stand for exactly? Insurance industry propaganda? Wall Street propaganda? No thanks.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Getting a single payer system OF COURSE means your employer-based insurance goes away. How fucking stupid does one have to be to think that's a BAD thing?
Education is non-existent in this television-addicted idiocracy.
factfinder_77
(841 posts)A socialist, government run single payer system will be attacked day out, day in.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Yet here you are red-baiting, and supporting misleading, lying questions in polls.
For someone here to "correct the record", you're sucking at it.
And speaking of "freeloaders," why can't Brock purchase donor stars for his employees?
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)of campaign finance laws if his PAC paid Skinner for his employees to be star members of this site.
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)I am a Bernie supporter and a recent member, but it is his site, he can do whatever he wants with it.
I messaged Skinner one time and he got right back to me and was very friendly. There is no need to attack him.
ETA: I reread what you wrote, sorry. But, I will leave what I wrote just to leave it out there.
ThePhilosopher04
(1,732 posts)They want to take America down the dark road of oligarchy and privatization. Either that or they're sheep. We are all fucked.
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)Some of us who actually know what socialism and communism does are actually deeply against them as economic models.
I'm against any pure economic "ism", but especially communism and socialism.
Yurovsky
(2,064 posts)and that is what Bernie will put a stop to. Democratic Socialism is where modern, humane economies are headed.
Or we can revert back to Clinton's vision of America wherein the 1% owns EVERYTHING...
Response to Yurovsky (Reply #62)
Post removed
Yurovsky
(2,064 posts)I count myself among the growing progressive ranks of the party. I believe that the GOP & 3rd Way Democrats' corporate-centric Wild West capitalism is hurting Americans. There will be a reckoning within the party, and I don't think that "GOP-Lite" is a winning long term position for Democrats.
Response to Yurovsky (Reply #86)
Post removed
kaleckim
(651 posts)most every other developed country, since that is basically all that Sanders is asking. Most of those countries are multi-party democracies and are led by socialist or social democratic parties.
Socialism has a broad back, and you're obviously older. Your post is evidence of decades of propaganda. the most well known market-socialist model is by someone named Oskar Lange. If you read his model, it sounds right wing in many ways. You have stuff like that all the way to Mao and left wing anarchism. You focus on the ladder and ignore the former, and the rest of the developed world. Not for logical reasons, because you're a victim of decades long, one-sided propaganda and your mind has been warped as a result.
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)You have no idea what socialism is, do you? It's where the government tells people what to produce. And the word you are searching for is "later", not "ladder".
Literacy, both linguistically and politically is appreciated when trying to have an adult conversation.
kaleckim
(651 posts)Says the person talking nonsense. As I said, the most well known market socialist model was from Oskar Lange, and if you look into it, it sounds in some ways like free market capitalism. The socialism comes in the preference for worker cooperatives and socializing the capital goods sector. There is also a role for the state with basic services, like our country. The rest of the economy was to be governed by competition and pretty free markets. Some of the founders of modern, neo-classical economics were socialists, although their socialism was for socializing things like land rent. There were Ricardian socialists in the 19th century that supported free trade. Some socialists in the 20th century, like Abba Lerner (a friend of Milton Friedman), were pretty suspicious of government regulations. Then there are libertarian socialists that don't believe in the state what so ever. You have that, all the way to Marx theoretically. So, you might want to actually know what you're talking about before you yammer on about "adult conversations".
I also didn't say that all countries were socialist. Not showing yourself to have a high level of reading comprehension. Every western government has at one time been led by socialist and/or democratic socialist parties, all of them have socialist and/or social democratic parties which play a major role. That is a fact. In fact, in France, the Communist Party got a fifth to a quarter of the vote for decades. These governments DO have larger parts of their life run by non-market institutions and have socialized larger parts of their economy and society. I didn't say they were all socialist, but they do essentially what Sanders is offering. This is also a fact.
You're welcome to actually address anything that I've said, if you want to back up your arrogance.
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)Modern Dems do not fight for their causes and just fold and compromise instead of fighting for what is right.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)With a small percentage of the population and has screwed it up. Can you imagine 330 million on that type of program. I think it's a good idea but the government needs to get a handle on the program before adding everyone.
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)The VA would be run perfectly. But, let's blame it on Bernie....
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)And I am for Bernie voted for him in Florida but my previous point is valid.
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)I didn't mean to come off as an asshole, sorry! But it still holds true that Dems fold way to quickly. See, e.g., the Grand bargain!
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)I am more pissed off with the murders within the VA that Repugs allowed. Arizona is quite GOP. The federal government would have to have major oversight on the program to ensure murders don't occur. With a democratic president, we will have that for sure, but those whole Repugs, they welcome murders because it saves money. I wish I were kidding.
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)Love our troops when they are fighting for oil/killing poor brown people, but once they get home, they aren't contributing to the military industrial complex so they can die and/or suffer since the lobbyists don't care about them. But, unlike medicare, the VA can at least negotiate for their RX prices.
The whole VA situation makes me sick. Anyone that served should have perfect health care for life -- I have no problem with my taxes going to pay for that.
ETA: Thank you!
kaleckim
(651 posts)Read the article again. It admits that it didn't talk about, address, analyze or ask about any of the positives of a single payer system. The article admitted that no positives were mentioned, only negatives, and then asked Americans to compare that system to the present system, and even with that one sided analysis a plurality of voters still wanted to replace the current system with single payer. THAT speaks to the power of the idea.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)As always. People love our programs. Until they're proposed. Then they elect Republicans. We aren't just making this shit up, people.
ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)So expect them to use the single payer language!
Blaukraut
(5,689 posts)This makes it sound like Europeans sit huddled in their homes, hopped up on pain medication, until they can finally have that gallbladder surgery after being on an eight month waiting list.
I grew up in Europe and that could not be further from reality. I've had 'care' both over there, and here in the US. Guess where I found it to be sub-par?
When I have to confer with my insurance company as to where I can go for treatment so I won't get a bill because the facility or doctor were out of network, and my choices are so limited because only about 1/3 of the area hospitals and physicians take our insurance, THAT is worse than waiting. When I get shuffled from one doctor to the next, because my PCPs keep going for greener pastures - i.e. getting the hell out of the clinics that take low reimbursement insurance, THAT is sub-par.
FWIW - we have TRICARE Prime, being retired military. Only a step above medicaid and medicare.
On edit: meant to reply to OP
until you turn 65 and go on Medicare backed by Tricare For Life. The only thing you pay for is Medicare Part B and small co-pays on medication.
Blaukraut
(5,689 posts)Until every hospital and physician has to take every insurance, those of us with Tricare, Medicare, and Medicaid will receive sub-par treatment and be given the runaround.
1939
(1,683 posts)I have run into one doctor in all that time who didn't take Medicare. They don't even have a choice on Tricare For Life. Medicare just tosses the bill over the fence to Tricare who picks up all the deductibles and co-pays on the Medicare payment and sends the doc a separate check. The doc doesn't even have to file with Tricare.
Only thing missing is dental and vision.
snort
(2,334 posts)I've a bunch of old socks I'd like to donate to the cause.
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)What a bunch of BS! Hillary is NOT progressive!
arcane1
(38,613 posts)factfinder_77
(841 posts)We're going to have to reach out to voters to keep them from voting for Trump," Jeff Weaver said in an interview with CNN, after it was pointed out that an exit poll of West Virginia Democrats voting for Sanders showed that 43 percent would support Trump against Clinton, while 27 percent would vote for the former secretary of state and 28 percent said neither.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Don't quit your day job
Response to arcane1 (Reply #16)
Post removed
arcane1
(38,613 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Must be some sort of record
arcane1
(38,613 posts)factfinder_77
(841 posts)?
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)That has voted and been a registered Democrat since I was 18.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)factfinder_77
(841 posts)because of conspiracy theories ?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Go back and read your own words
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)I am fully on board with Bernie's ideas, all of them.
Having said that, nobody should have to "win" you over to vote against drumpf having access to this
http://www.icanw.org/the-facts/nuclear-arsenals/
factfinder_77
(841 posts)CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)His plans are paid for with federal taxes.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)Here's the relevant parts:
To help bolster Social Security funding, Sanders would apply the 6.2% payroll tax to income over $250,000. Currently it only applies to the first $118,500 in wages.
In addition, he'd finance a paid family leave program by requiring all employees and their employers to pay an additional 0.2% payroll tax on the first $118,500 in wages.
Lastly, he's proposing a new 6.2% payroll tax that employers would pay on all of an employees' wages to help fund Medicare for All.
Still want to say he's not raising taxes on the working poor and the middle class?
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)Pollsters can show more support for the death penalty by saying, "Would you support it more if you knew murdererers sometimes escape prison"?
And they can show less support for the death penalty by saying, "Would you support it less if you knew innocent people are sometimes executed?"
Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)1) Some people have to switch doctors - that happens NOW, whenever your employer decides to change up your insurance package, or whenever you doctor decides s/he's no longer interested in being part of the network. I've experienced both recently.
2) Your own taxes would increase - that's a half-truth. A more honest poll would ask: "how would you feel knowing that your own taxes would increase, but you premiums would drop dramatically AND the overall price of health care would drop dramatically?" (both of which are certainly true). Ask that and then get back to me about how people feel.
3) People needed to give up other coverage - More deck-stacking in the form of bad phrasing. Phrase this as "you would have a choice between your employers insurance and the cheaper government option; you can only choose one, but the choice is yours," and then get back to me about how people feel.
4) Longer wait times for non-emergency medical services - Longer than what? I have fantastic private insurance and still have to wait weeks to get medical appointments. Quantify and explain, or the question is just scare-mongering.
5) It took longer for new drugs and treatments to become available - see #4.
Seriously, there's nothing to learn here except that polling obscures more than it reveals.
factfinder_77
(841 posts)n/a
Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)Single-payer healthcare, as an idea and an ideal of the Democratic Party, has been around for my entire lifetime -- and I was born during the Kennedy administration.
Reading is fundamental.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)What happens, under Bernie's plan, to the millions of Americans who are either on Medicaid, or have plans they don't contribute to?
They will see large tax increases, while possibly not saving a dime in premiums and other costs. Do those millions of poor people on Medicaid have to subsidize the rest of us? That hardly seems fair, or 'progressive'.
Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)We raise taxes on some brackets but not others all the time; hell, it's something Hillary is vowing to do right now. Given that people poor enough to qualify for Medicaid contribute less that 2% of the government's income tax revenue, additional taxes from them would be largely unnecessary and leaving their taxes alone should be simple.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)That doesn't mean single-payer healthcare is.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)isn't equated with criticizing single-payer. If we were to tone down the rhetoric a bit, I'm sure we would say that quite a few Hillary supporters are perfectly fine with the idea of single-payer, but merely think that 1) it won't pass, and 2) there's a better plan than what he has proposed.
Often, it gets boiled down to 'Bernie's plan is the only one', and 'anything less liberal is Republican!'.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)The bottom line is that we are being propagandized to cling to a health care system that is twice as expensive as that of any other developed country and less effective in the results it provides. (And that is especially true for lower income people.)
US Spends More on Health Care Than Other High-Income Nations But Has Lower Life Expectancy, Worse Health
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/press-releases/2015/oct/us-spends-more-on-health-care-than-other-nations
The Costs of Inequality: More Money Equals Better Health Care and Longer Life
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-02-23/the-costs-of-inequality-more-money-equals-better-health-care-and-longer-life
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)The level of support goes to ZERO! And there you have it. Capitalist America will not be duped by your pie in the sky commie rhetoric.
factfinder_77
(841 posts)and then the WH goes GOP.
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)You seem to have totally missed the point.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Vinca
(50,168 posts)should we or should we not eliminate Medicare? Finding anyone on Medicare who isn't glad they have it is as scarce as a truthful statement coming out of Trump's mouth. Re the qualifiers like "if your taxes are increased" - how about "would you rather pay $1,000 more in taxes or continue paying $12,000 in insurance premiums?" And why is it assumed anyone would have to switch doctors? If we had single-payer and everyone was automatically in it, a doctor would go bankrupt real fast for not taking patients enrolled. "Longer wait times for non-emergency medical services." People who can't imagine such a situation are self-centered and would demand an elective procedure before a life-saving procedure for someone else. That illustrates the very worst characteristic of many Americans - me, me, me, me, me.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Be vewwy quiet, or Americans may find out that they're being screwed over by a rigged and greedy system.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)beedle
(1,235 posts)or have a gig giving 1 hour speechs to them.
No one is claiming that single payer is a 'free lunch', except Republicans and Hillary supporters.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)care plan changes, usually wind up having to change doctors. Under a true single payer system that simply wouldn't happen, so the suggestion that they'd be changing doctors is bullshit.
TheKentuckian
(24,934 posts)What is the cure for having to switch doctors on that note, bring back slavery?
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)quite different from a single payer system, where all doctors would be included.
Oh, there might be a small number who will go it alone, who will set up a boutique practice that people pay out of pocket for, but that will be a tiny percent of all doctors.
And in any case, people frequently need to change doctors under the current system. There would be much less of that under a single payer.
TheKentuckian
(24,934 posts)premiums and small copays lose their ever living minds.
The main people that swear by what we have are fortunate enough to have very little usage above copays for trips to the doctor and haven't a clue what actual care costs.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)We'll defeat your corporate gods one day.
brooklynite
(93,842 posts)subterranean
(3,427 posts)In a single payer system, virtually all doctors participate in the system, so you are free to choose any doctor you want, unlike our private insurance model with its limited networks.
Also, I don't get why it would take longer for new drugs and treatments to become available in a single payer system.
Of course, many people's taxes would go up, but they would no longer have to pay insurance premiums.
It almost make you wonder whether this poll was deliberately designed to mislead! But pollsters would never do anything like that, would they?
northernsouthern
(1,511 posts)Love how they have poorly worded questions to skew the responses. Oh no my employer based insurance would be gone! WTF would that matter? You will have actual insurance that covers your issues. Lines are longer? Why? Oh because more people can afford? Is it based on facts? Oh just they are assuming it? New drugs take longer? Oh wait we can afford them? Oh wait the older ones get purchased and knocked up in price by people that are not looking to ever release a new one anyways? This is the type of deceitful poll that we will see more of when the insurance companies get more worried. It also has big pharma written all over it. But congrats on the find it is good to see the propaganda the attack dogs use.
elljay
(1,178 posts)costs more each year, so my company has decided to keep the costs to employees down by decreasing the benefits and increasing the copays and deductibles. I'm now at the point at which I will not go to the doctor unless I really need to because as long as I stay relatively healthy for the entire year, I will come nowhere near my deductible. I'd give that up in a heartbeat!
jman0war
(35 posts)Interesting that the article mentioned Germany.
Afer all, there are dozens upon dozens of countries that have Universal Health Care in one from or another.
It's because Germany is somewhat similar to USA, in that it's mandatory to have your own health insurance.
Though there are huge differences as those health insurers are strictly non-profits.
Pretty good wikipedia article on Germany's healh care.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Germany
By far most people go with the public option opposed to private health insurance.
For persons who have opted out of the public health insurance system to get private health insurance, it can prove difficult to subsequently go back to the public system, since this is only possible under certain circumstances, for example if they are not yet 55 years of age and their income drops below the level required for private selection. Since private health insurance is usually more expensive than public health insurance, the higher premiums must then be paid out of a lower income. During the last twenty years private health insurance became more and more expensive and less efficient compared with the public insurance
CountAllVotes
(20,854 posts)You got your Angela Merkel running the show over there and as for health care, it isn't free there either despite what you may have been told.
The EU et al. is now begnning to charge health care premiums to all members of the EU and it isn't cheap either. Let me know when you wake up and smell the coffee.
Well being that I lived in 2 EU countries for the last 12 years and used the health care, i DO know what i'm talking about.
What they have generally speaking: IS A BETTER SYSTEM.
CountAllVotes
(20,854 posts)and I'm talking 2500 EU for healthcare? They are members of the EU.
This is due to Merkel's austerity.
EU's austerity = welfare for the rich!
Maybe you aren't aware of this very recent development. No more free health care and low cost anything for anyone. People being left unattended on cots or receiving no care at all. Great system the EU is.
Sickens me.
jman0war
(35 posts)People in Ireland could be hit with a medical bill only if they choose to go Private.
Everyone can choose to have medical procedure done using the public system, for free.
If you don't want to wait, you can chose to pay for it yourself, privately.
BTW, subsribers to private health insurance in Ireland has been shrinking massively since 2007.
The few private insurers still operating have hiked premiums majorly since the recession.
Perhaps you could cite your sources?
However i would not cite Ireland as a particularly good example of a Health Care system.
They bought into the "private competition is good" argument back in the 90's but it has been a disaster for Ireland since.
And now they don't know how to put the genie back in the bottle.
edit:
I have authority on this since Ireland happens to be 1 of the EU countries i've lived in.
I've had 2 surgeries on the public system there and numerous doctor visits.
Double hernia surgery for a token fee of $150 for the overnight?
I'll take that over the $30,000k they want in USA any day!
CountAllVotes
(20,854 posts)Is that good enough for you?
Throw in charging for everything but the kitchen sink, yep, the EU is just grand. What? You don't like paying for water even though you have a well?
Ireland would have been better off on their own but the likes of a bunch of fat cats from the continent have ruined it grabbing all they can get. FUCK THEM.
jman0war
(35 posts)You are not citing facts.
The EU cannot "charge" for medical procedures, they only provide a set of rules between countries.
That is all.
Insofar as your anti-EU rant, it's very revealing.
You really think companies want to setup in a little country like Ireland (pop 4 mil) due to their great market share?
It's EU membership (market of 400 million people) that attracts ANYBODY to do business there.
Without the EU Ireland would be totally impoverished.
At least the actual irish people understand that, and that's why they vote YES in national referenda on each treaty.
But no, your "Relatives" are totally misleading you.
And i suspect, they don't even acutally exist.
Insofar as your statement:
The EU et al. is now begnning to charge health care premiums to all members of the EU and it isn't cheap either
100% BS.
The EU does not operate some sort of EU-wide health insurance plan and impose premiums and costs.
Period.
Since as long as I can remember, which is probably since the very inception of the EU, a citizen of one member state, can receive free treatment from any of the other EU states.
As long as you present your EHIC card.
--------------
If you need medical treatment while you are in another EU country
, presenting your EHIC can simplify payment and reimbursement procedures.
With the European Health Insurance Card you can get healthcare - and claim reimbursement for the costs you incur - on the same terms as nationals of the country you are in. If the treatment you need is free for local residents, you won't have to pay. If the treatment requires payment, you can either ask for reimbursement from the national institution whilst still in the country and get reimbursement directly there, or ask for reimbursement from your health insurer when you get home. Your expenses will be reimbursed according to the rules and rates of the country where the treatment was received. So you will be reimbursed either for the full cost of the treatment, or you will have to bear the patient's fee according to the rules of the country where the treatment took place. Alternatively, your insurer may decide to reimburse the full cost according to its own rules.
-----------
http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/health/unplanned-healthcare/payments-reimbursements/index_en.htm
so that means that going to a doctor and getting a prescription carries a 20$ out of pocket fee, say in France.
Then that is what you would pay if you were a British citizen in France.
And where there is a fee, like maybe an overnight hospital fee of $100, then you can claim that back from your own country.
Which is what i've heard most people do.
kaleckim
(651 posts)"And its worth noting that the AP didnt bring up any of the positives typically associated with single-payer, like the potential for significant administrative cost savings...But when theyre shown the downsides of single-payer, Americans seem to prefer the devil they know."
How is this not telling? What rational person would chose a system if the person "polling" them tells them all the negatives and none of the positives? This is good propaganda for people whose brains no longer work.
On the other hand, many Democrats are working in Colorado to undermine the push for single payer, and many of them have connections to the industry.
So, when they ask those questions, do they ask people questions like:
You will pay less overall (yes, your taxes will go up a little, but your reduction in private spending will more than make up the difference), do you agree with that?
You will not go into bankruptcy and will not have to worry about health care if you lose your job or want to start a business. Is this okay?
You will pay into a system with far less waste? Is that okay?
You will not see your fell Americans die because they didn't see a doctor early enough to save their lives? Is that cool with you?
Do people not see the problem with the way the issue is framed in articles like that?
kaleckim
(651 posts)for coming her and pushing this one sided propaganda. See my other comment if you want to see why I say that. I have to conclude that you are connected to the insurance industry, cause this propaganda is too obvious.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)if you misrepresent and over generalize enough you too can get the poll results you need
the freaking article admits that it only focused on the negative stuff and didn't ask about or balance the negatives with the positives. This is propaganda any progressive Democrat should call this out for what it is.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)vintx
(1,748 posts)imagine2015
(2,054 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Like who would want a system that requires longer wait times? Nobody. Hardly anybody would answer yes to that.
Yavin4
(35,354 posts)There are millions of Americans who have good health care plans through their jobs (a lot of them are from collectively bargaining agreements).
This is where the opposition to Single Payer is coming from.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)Most Americans don't know many specifics about policy areas. How things poll depend on how they are described. If you say healthcare for everyone, it polls well. If you say healthcare for everyone with big tax hikes, not so much. If you say healthcare for everyone, big tax hikes, but no more premiums, it gets better again. If you also add on that you can't keep you're current coverage, it goes down again. And so on.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Appeal to Ignorance