We have some serious, serious problems in our system.
And so do single payer systems.
It's fantasy to think otherwise.

Oh, so you were responding to my post... but not to me?

You should clarify that if you're going to respond to a post of mine without intending to respond to or make some reference to me. What do you do, just randomly click on posts and inject completely unrelated thoughts into threads? If you do that in person having a conversation with you must be exhausting.



"Considering." The United States "considered" privatizing Social Security as a means of inflating the bank accounts of Wall Street executives. Did it happen?



Oh, I wasn't referring to you...

My comment was in general and I will try to be more careful about clarifying in the future, since it is impossible to "read" tone, facial expression, or body language on a message board.

I have been reading dozens and dozens of publications/articles/blogs the past few days. Many people are living in a fantasy world about single payer healthcare.

If that doesn't describe you, then...wOOt!

just curious, iky.... what do you think should be done with our healthcare system?

I'll not debate the specifics, but if you're correct and it goes to $120 to 200 Billion in 5 or 10 years, the problem is.....?!??!



Don't want to suggest it's great, but the France and the UK's personal income tax rates are from 0% to 50%. Germany is at 45%. Sweden is 29%-59%. Finland is 9% to 32%. And Switzerland is at 13%. Hardly "outrageous" if it also includes universal healthcare.



Many with Medicare choose to buy a suppliment.

Given the facts:
1) We spend twice as much as the average industrialized country.
2) Our health ranks 35th, just above Cuba
3) 50-ish million people are without healthcare
4) spending 17% of our GDP on healthcare is crippling our ability to compete.
5) the only existing step between our current system and nationalized health care (ie Britain and France) is single payer (Canada).

... which is preferable?
a) the current system of private insurance
b) private insurance competing against a public option
c) single payer
d) nationalized healthcare

I've searched around but can't find anything about this. Gotta link?

If true, it bugs. Too "Logan's Run" for me. However, people in this country are denied care, both surgical and other, all the time. Some have no insurance and, therefore, very limited options, if any at all. Some have insurance and are denied care. And some are lucky to have enough energetic family/friends who put on bake sales, spaghetti feeds, car washes, raffles, etc., to help pay for uncovered care so they can afford it. A happy day for me will be the day when nobody has to have a car wash to afford treatment, but I digress...I just don't think all of this is moral or humane either.

All systems have flaws. I'd prefer the flaws present in a system that provides all citizens basic health care, including dental and vision, with options to purchase supplemental coverage by those who believe it will benefit them. Rates for supplemental coverage should be regulated and kept at reasonable rates by disallowing them being sold by for-profit companies. Non-profits can offer these policies at more reasonable rates. And salaries can be lucrative at many well-run non-profits. Lucrative is OK. Obscene salaries/bonuses/perks are not.

Well that's just silly, it's just too logical.

speaking of "waiting"....

Yeah, I'm still waiting too.

Personally, A is working for me. It's okay. Which would I prefer though? Probably C. I do not like B or D.