Hillary Clinton: Single-payer health care will "never, ever" happen

#21

Considering that the UK has had universal healthcare since the 1940s, it also seems incongruous to me that America would not even make inroads towards it until nearly the 2040s.

0 Likes

#22

I don’t want single payer health care. I’ve heard about waiting lists and such and medical tourism (which goes both ways). It’d be a way for progressives and pro aborts to sneak in things like paying for abortion and sterilization and assisted suicide. And forget getting 80 year old granny that pacemaker…she’s too old (that’s the mentality of our current society…remember the woman in oregon who was told to just take a pill instead of get treatment for cancer? wnd.com/2008/06/67565/ ) Our current Culture of Death would lead to more instances like that.

And don’t some Canadians come to the USA for certain treaments or sugeries like ones with super long waiting lists?

0 Likes

#23

Obama care isn’t working, and the single payer system? Sorry, but how long is it going to be until we realize we shouldn’t let the government “fix” the problems it causes?

If the government has the power to “give” something to you (remember where they get their money from), what stops them from taking it away? The government has NO BUSINESS in healthcare.

0 Likes

#24

Single payer is not the same thing as universal health care. There are many different health care systems in Europe. Single payer is just one. The differences between them and how they work is often very technical.
I doubt that when people are asked in a poll, do you support single payer health care, that they really understand the question.
Look at
pnhp.org/single_payer_resources/health_care_systems_four_basic_models.php

0 Likes

#25

I agree, I am more than content with our current death panels, I mean, for-profit health insurance providers. I find that their view that you are only worth living if you can afford to pay us is quite christtianlike. No sign of greed or avarice in those institutions /s

0 Likes

#26

Nobody is out to look out for you, it’s all about profits. That’s why it’s best to let several private companies compete for your business rather than rely on the single payer healthcare system the government wants. Sure, you don’t have to pay anything outside of the ridiculous taxes, but once you reach sixty five or are seemed to have “used up” your share, no more healthcare. And let’s not forget the months upon months of waiting for simple tests.

A tip? Ask for the credentials of everyone on the board that rejects you. Odds are they’re not exactly qualified to do much more than read off a list of disqualifying conditions. That might help.

0 Likes

#27

**
I’m one of the “58%” who supports medicare for all. **
Every American has a duty to thoroughly research the facts about health coverage, not just blindly read snippets from politicians and hysterical lies from biased sources.
Also, none of the Republican candidates has an alternative idea to the Affordable Care Act. Instead of spinning wheels this Act should be adjusted and improved, not thrown out altogether.

0 Likes

#28

Pot meet kettle…who is more partisan than Obama,NP HR,CS all the usual suspects on the left!:?:rolleyes:

0 Likes

#29

How is it accurate that “none” have alternative plans?

0 Likes

#30

Can anyone point out any alternative plans? The candidates continuously avoid the subject because they don’t have a concise answer.
huffingtonpost.com/entry/ted-cruz-obamacare-iowa_us_56ad66a1e4b077d4fe8e6396

0 Likes

#31

No.

That’s the answer to your question. No.

No one can explain it.

No one knows what it says.

it is a more than 2,000 page law that was forced through Congress 4 years ago. The US government still, to this day, does not actually know what the law says.

It is a law that makes no changes to anyone’s then-existing health insurance plans. Only it changed everyone’s health insurance plans. The promise was “Let me be clear, if you have health insurance, nothing will change. Period.” In American English, the word “Period” has now become another way of saying “everything I said before that was a lie.”

It is a law that was supposed to not take health insurance away from anyone. Only it took health insurance away from more than 5 million people. Those who lost their health insurance, despite the claim that no one would lose it, were then forced into government-run health insurance plans.

It is a law that was supposed to “not add one dime to the deficit” but which will add trillions (yes, trillions with a T) of dollars in national debt starting in a few more years. By the way, there are 10,000,000,000,000 dimes in every trillion dollars, so perhaps the promise of “not one dime” turned out to be true. Not one dime, but 10 trillion of them for every trillion dollars added to the national debt.

How can that be, one might ask? Well, the folks in favor of this new law had some nonpartisan experts evaluate the numbers before the law was passed. Only they told those nonpartisan experts to ignore the new spending that the law will bring about (after 5 years) and only look at the income side of things before the bulk of the spending begins. In other words, the easiest way to save money is to simply deny that you are spending money, while you keep on spending it. Only the government can do this. Everyone else is required to do math in the traditional way.

It is a law that says that the Little Sisters of the Poor (littlesistersofthepoor.org/) must pay to provide free birth control and abortifacients (drugs that cause a procured abortion) for the good sisters and their employees. When the good sisters complained to the government that they should not be forced to pay for birth control and abortifacient drugs, the government offered a compromise by saying “All right then, if you have some religious objection to paying, you can fill-out a form begging us not to make you pay. Once we receive your form, we will remove the line on your invoice that says you are paying for birth control and abortifacients. You still have to pay for them, we just won’t print the words on the bill.” The government calls this a “religious accommodation.”

It is a law that imposes fines on people who are required to self-report the new crime of not having health insurance to the IRS (the agency that collects federal taxes). These fines are not taxes, but they can be imposed because Congress has the power to levy taxes even though people cannot be fined without due process of law.

As I said. No one knows what it says.

0 Likes

#32

Hillary Clinton is probably right in this way. If the left gets as much socialization of medicine done as it is likely to ever get done, it will probably be a two-tier system like in France, rather than a one-tier system like in Canada. Most people will have “Medicaid with deductibles” and low-end care, while a minority who can afford it will have insured or self-financed high-end care. Notice that Obamacare “fixed” some of the “uninsured problem” by putting an additional 17 million people on Medicaid…some of whom previously had employment-based insurance of better quality.

“Medicare for all” isn’t possible because Medicare is discounted care, price-wise. You can’t have a discount for everybody. It wouldn’t be a discount then. Well, I guess you can in a way. If the quality of care and access to it was significantly reduced, then the whole system could be price-fixed lower than it is now.

0 Likes

#33

I’m a native born American, practising Catholic, believe that we all as a nation have a responsibility to live together not tear each other down with name calling and hateful mudslinging. I’m open to any candidate’s intelligent practical ideas if they are maturely for the common good.

I believe in the motto “united we stand, divided we fall.”

0 Likes

#34

I agree with a later poster who said no one really can. For one thing, it has so many provisions that don’t seem to square with the idea of having a real system. But the core of it is to oblige one segment of the middle class to subsidize insurance for another segment of the middle class.

The truly poor just get more people added to their already crowded ranks with Medicaid. The wealthy can always pay for high quality insurance and care without much disturbance to their budgets or their companies’ budgets.

It’s the upper part of the middle class that gets squeezed, both in terms of added taxes and greatly increased premiums. The rest of the middle class gets progressively reduced rates and for some, it’s free or nearly so. Now, “upper part” isn’t just an income thing. You can get the full rates if you have a smallish household and multiple income-earners in it even if you’re just middle-middle class. Unsurprisingly, if you are a moderate earner and have a “live-in partner” instead of a spouse, you’re better off than if you’re married, because “household income” does not clearly include that of a “live-in”.

Also, if you’re a mid-to-low-paid corporate employee, you’re likely to lose because the employer can contribute less to your medical plan or none at all, if the employer reduces your working hours.

0 Likes

#35

Passing it to see what is in it didn’t work, apparently.

0 Likes

#36

I highly disagree that anything here you’ve said is factual.
For example:
The Congressional Budget Office prepared at the request of Senate Budget Committee Chairman Mike Enzi (R-WY), concluded that eliminating Obamacare would definitely, unambiguously and undeniably (Get the picture?) increase the deficit.
See the actual report here:
cbo.gov/publication/50252

0 Likes

#37

Please note that no plan (or simply not wanting to listen to anyone else’s plan) is not an excuse to implement a costly, not to mention unconstitutional one that everyone admitted not to have read.

0 Likes

#38

Once again the statement that no one supports the Affordable Care Act is false.
While it seems that half of American do not support it, the other half, millions of Americans such as myself, do support it.
gallup.com/poll/182318/americans-slightly-positive-toward-affordable-care-act.aspx

We need to improve what we have and work in a bipartisan fashion.

0 Likes

#39

The ACA is totally unconstitutional. Regardless of how many people like the disaster of a plan (didn’t I read that several providers are pulling out?) doesn’t excuse it. Another fine example of executive overreach by BHO. If your costs are down, someone else’s has doubled, perhaps TRIPLED, and it’s not to cover their own care, but to cover the care of the people who AREN’T paying into it.

0 Likes

#40

Can you show where the Dems have been quicker to join hands with conservatives so that things could be accomplished in the government? You seem to feel its all on the Repubs… I see the Dems being just as clique-ish and uncooperative…

Also, around here the economy isn’t that good and the lower paid fellows are NOT buying into the ACA because they cannot afford it. They work and are not low enough to get government assistance but they don’t make enough to afford the insurance, much less the cost of actual medical expenses… so they are not playing… The older folks who have worked and Have insurance are having to pay much more for their deductible. I’m not even going to get into the small companies who have to provide coverage for employees… Somebody is making a killing off the American people. I’m just not sure who… Insurance companies??? Doctors??? Pharmas? Hospitals? “IT’S NOT AFFORDABLE!!!”

0 Likes

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.