LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Single payer means one entity pays for your health care - if you want them too. It need not restrict patients looking around for doctors or paying for their own care. The patient has more options, not less.
- Status
V
Vonsalza
Guest
As we’ve covered before, SCOTUS doesn’t agree with you. Respectfully, theirs is the only opinion on this issue that really matters.Vonsalza:
Only in a perversion of the original intent of the commerce clause…
V
Vonsalza
Guest
This is where you’re repeatedly (and seemingly irreparably) wrong. Your privately employed doctor tells you what healthcare you are prescribed; just like they do now.Vonsalza:
Just plane false. Single payer is authoritarian government control over healthcare. If you take my money and tell me what healthcare I am permitted and prohibited access to, when I may access it, that is government control.
You’re just wrong here, Jon. And because you are emotionally attached to this fallacious argument, you will not correct toward the truth of the matter.
Again; wrong, wrong, wrong.
You’re absolutely the doctor’s customer. And you can swap for another, (supposedly) better doctor at any time.
Your just no longer Humana’s or Cigna’s customer. That’s it.
As we can see, you’re committed to this argument and have employed a slough of logical fallacies to defend it - facts be darned!
Oh, I’m not arguing the point that anti-constitution progressives have been on the court. They have, and have done great damage to the republic
V
Vonsalza
Guest
“Anyone who doesn’t hold my view is wrong!”Vonsalza:
Oh, I’m not arguing the point that anti-constitution progressives have been on the court. They have, and have done great damage to the republic
-Got it.
Not if the entity that is paying the bill says it won’t. There are things my doctor won’t do under my insurance plan because he is not contractually required to do so. He can’t file the bill to my insurance. But I have a choice to find a job elsewhere that has a plan that better suits my needs.
Authoritarian single payer does not afford me that right. I cannot take my earnings elsewhere because government confiscates it and then decides for me what my doctor can and can’t do.
You bet I’m emotionally attached, and intellectually attached to my right to pursue my own healthcare without socialist progressive busybodies telling me what’s best for me. I’m attached to individual rights and limited government, no matter how much some think it is a paradigm of the past, and not necessary today.
You’re darn right I’m attached to the idea of passing on individual rights and limited government on to my posterity.
You’re right. I am so emotionally and intellectually attached to freedom that no argument from those who favor greater government control and power over individual lives is convincing. And single payer is, despite any deceptive presentation from statists, an increase of government control and power at the sacrifice of individual rights.
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
What are you scared of? Getting cancer and then the government denying payment for chemo?Vonsalza:
Not if the entity that is paying the bill says it won’t.
Look around, Jon. That’s just. not. happening. Your argument here, like most I’ve seen, are predicated on fictitious boogey-men that exist nowhere else outside of your mind.
If there’s a problem with the system, it’s that these public insurance programs are generally too quick to authorize care.
Oh, make no mistake Jon; if you want to pursue some unproven, experimental and highly expensive “treatment” option for your condition, the single-payer system won’t stop you! Nossir, not at all.
It’s just not going to PAY for it. Just like virtually every current insurance provider won’t pay for that kind of stuff. But you’re still free to seek that treatment.
Your inability to distinguish between the two here is why your argument doesn’t work.
For the umpteen-millionth time, Jon, your doctor will be telling you what’s best for you. That’s how it works everywhere this system exists.Vonsalza:
You bet I’m emotionally attached, and intellectually attached to my right to pursue my own healthcare without socialist progressive busybodies telling me what’s best for me.
Sorry Jon. Back then, if you got really fed up with your immediate company, you could pack up and move a little further west. Now that we’ve hit the Pacific, we have to deal with our problems now.
The only “rights” you’re fighting for are the “right to poor-to-no healthcare because you’re broke” and the “right to stay in the cycle of poverty because you can’t afford your medical bills”.
That’s all you’re fighting for here. Stop it. We need to help these people. Some of which may even be your eventual “posterity”.
Stop right there. The intellectual cannot be beholden to the emotional. Not if it’s meant to be used synonymous to “rational”.
You are emotionally attached. Your intellect is employed only insofar as to craft an apologetic for what you’ve already emotionally decided.
Here’s an example, Von.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.tele...nts-and-smokers-face-6-month-surgery-ban/amp/
Boogeymen are fictional. Government tyrants are not.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
There wasn’t even a federal tax when that was written…
I didn’t say beholden. That’s a progressive mindset. I said BOTH!
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
Incorrect. The government cost control mechanism limits choices, and because there is no competition in the free market the quality of care suffers greatly.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
NHS is state-owned and run.Vonsalza:
Here’s an example, Von.
Redirect Notice
Boogeymen are fictional. Government tyrants are not.
Single-payer systems are often not - like the Swiss (in part) or Canadian system.
Your continued inability to see the difference is why your argument is poor.
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Separating concepts is progressive?Vonsalza:
I didn’t say beholden. That’s a progressive mindset. I said BOTH!
What???
V
Vonsalza
Guest
In a single-payer system, the only competition that gets eliminated is the insurance market, and even then we don’t see it totally disappear in countries where this is a reality.
Doctors and hospitals still “compete” among each other.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
ROTFL!
Don’t tell me…they’ll just wake up every morning and do it for the good of the world because elements of the Catholic Church and the left really want them to, like really oh-so bad.
There’s no incentive to compete! Without profit motive, they don’t have to run an efficient operation. We see this all over Europe and Canada–well, prior to the Quebec Supreme Court getting involved anyways.
Don’t tell me…they’ll just wake up every morning and do it for the good of the world because elements of the Catholic Church and the left really want them to, like really oh-so bad.
There’s no incentive to compete! Without profit motive, they don’t have to run an efficient operation. We see this all over Europe and Canada–well, prior to the Quebec Supreme Court getting involved anyways.
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Lou?
You know that in virtually every public health metric (not all, but most), these people you laugh at are beating us both in quality and cost, right? Often, quite handily…
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
This refers to a specific implementation of single-payer. I was commenting on the potential for single-payer in general. There is nothing inherent in the concept of single payer that requires that choices be limited.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
Just the cost controls implemented by government to deny things like breast cancer screenings and DNA testing of rape victims.
But hey, we’ve all got to make our sacrifices for the utopia.
But hey, we’ve all got to make our sacrifices for the utopia.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Which seems to be exactly what you do, by your own admission (the policy and emotion part).
Concerning healthcare, I want to emulate the systems out there that are the best by the overwhelming majority of metrics.
They’re all some form of single-payer. And they trounce us handily is most categories AND at lower per capita costs.
Just seems to be a better value…
Last edited:
- Status