Will not vote for Trump, but no pro-life Democrats?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RealisticCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If we changed our system so that health was non-profit, the numbers of people wanting to become doctors would plummet and we would end up with a shortage just like almost everywhere else that has a single payer system. Not only that but with little money to be made, the number of medical innovations being developed would also fall off of a cliff. So yeah “free” through paying high premiums to the government instead of through an employer etc, but also sub-par. No thank you!
 
Let me restate this for you, JimG.
As long as health care is a for-profit institution in this country, Americans will pay more and get less for health care.
Whether it be services, procedures, or medication, we pay more here than people do in any other country.
 
You may want to check out the rest of the world.
Most of the democratic countries, including Germany, England, France, Switzerland, etc. have a single-payer system.
Their health care is first class. They have no shortages of doctors and nurses.
 
In the U.S., I think that medical school tuition averages around $90,000 per year. Who pays for tuition is those other countries? Do those nations develop new drugs which require years of testing and trials, or do they just use U.S. drugs?
 
I have voted third party for years. I don’t consider it a wasted vote. I always vote my conscience and refuse to cast my vote on attempting to determine between the lesser of two evils. To me, a wasted vote is to throw it away on candidates that don’t represent me or my beliefs. If enough people were to follow suit, we’d eventually overturn this two party stranglehold that has been ineffective and made a mockery of our government.
 
Last edited:
The reason why health insurance costs more in the US is because insurance companies have to negotiate directly with hospitals and pharmaceutical companies (something that doesn’t occur in other countries) and the government doesn’t set/control the prices (and the market doesn’t set them either because insurance companies in the US are in a weak negotiating position).

A single payer system just sets rates and pays for everything, it doesn’t guarantee good delivery of care. So, simply having a single payer system is not going to magically solve health care problems. Don’t get me wrong, I would prefer universal health care (two tier- not single payer), but too many people that want it don’t seem to understand that in and of itself it will not solve everything.

I like the idea of the two-tier model and think it will work better in the US, as we already have the framework for it. We already have government provided healthcare here, all we need to do is expand it to make it available to everyone with a public option for insurance. I think that a two-tier system would be more accepted by more people here in the US. A mixed delivery system would provide more patient choice, and Americans like to have choices.

Actually, quite a few countries that have universal health care don’t just have a single payer system.
  1. Single Payer: UK, Canada, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Italy, Sweden, UAE; 2) Two Tier: New Zealand, Australia, France, Denmark, Netherlands, Hong Kong; 3) Insurance Mandate: Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, Greece, Belgium, Luxembourg.
The confusion with health care models is that there is overlap between them, so many countries have some aspects of various models. Europe varies greatly.

France is considered to have a two-tier system, as well as the Netherlands. I think they are both good examples of two-tier systems that work well. With a two-tier system, the government provides a basic minimum level of insurance care for everyone, but supplemental health insurance can be bought, or even fees for extra services. There are public and private hospitals and physicians. It’s a true mixed delivery model (which I think fosters more competition for providing better care). Depending on the country- the public health care in this model can be equal to the private health care in quality and access- however- variance in one direction or the other can also occur (it can be worse in poorer countries).

While, technically the UK can also be considered a two-tier system, the private options are not nearly as utilized by the public, so it actually is more indicative of a single payer system than other countries, in practice. The UK is considered single payer because the government provides all insurance and pays all expenses. When the government pays for absolutely everything, fewer people will seek to take advantage of private hospitals and physicians.

TL;DR version: Single payer = government pays for everything and you can also buy supplemental; Two-tier = government pays for basic minimum care/coverage and you can buy supplemental or pay extra fees; both = have public and private hospitals and doctors available
 
Sorry, you are completely wrong about the healthcare being first class. That’s laughable actually. I have family that live in the UK.
 
YourNameHere said:
You may want to check out the rest of the world.
Most of the democratic countries, including Germany, England, France, Switzerland, etc. have a single-payer system.
Their health care is first class. They have no shortages of doctors and nurses.
Click to expand...
Let’s take your first example

Germany:

All German workers pay about 8 percent of their gross income to a nonprofit insurance company called a sickness fund. Their employers pay about the same amount.

So IOW, that’s 16% for medical insurance based on one’s pay… 1/2 paid by the insured, and 1/2 paid by the employer

In the U.S, Employers Pay 82 Percent of Health Insurance for Single Coverage. In 2018, the average company-provided health insurance policy totaled $6,896 a year for single coverage. On average, employers paid 82 percent of the premium, or $5,655 a year. Employees paid the remaining 18 percent , or $1,241 a year. (Nov 8, 2018)

My question, what happens to the cost, when competition for insurance is eliminated and one payer replaces it?
 
Last edited:
Yes but as mentioned by Pope Francis and several others, being prolife does not stop after birth. Separating families at the border who were seeking a better life is not prolife.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top