@wajoma said
Well yes, of course I'd like to see where you got this from other than your own overly active ass:

"The guy who's philosophy requires the death of sick children..."

On the one hand you fess up the cost, your Mr Innocent act, yet over and over again you try to hide it, here it is again in this very post i.e. '...deprives no one..."

Yes No'1 it deprives individuals of control over their most personal possession, their own body.

You never want to accept the logical consequences of your philosophy, but yes, the position you have taken would mean that sick children wouldn't get healthcare if their parents couldn't afford it and many would die.

Why don't you just admit that slightly inconvenient fact rather than pretending outrage when it is pointed out?

Actually, ensuring healthcare for all gives one greater control over their own lives, not less. See if you can't get medical care and you die because of it, your control of your body is severely diminished. As is control of your body if you get hit by a bus and have to lie in the street crippled because you don't have funds for an ambulance. Etc. etc. etc.

@sh76 said
Except perhaps for some uber-rich communities, almost no doctors' practices could survive without being able to take any insurance at all.

I'm puzzled; why wouldn't doctors be able to take patients wanting to pay cash for whatever reason?

@wolfgang59 said
My question was
Do you have any friends who made the CHOICE to get cancer.

That was in response to your stupid post about choices.


Pathetic that I have to explain this to you like you are a 7 year-old.

After much goading you finally agreed with my statement that poor health choices lead to poor health results. No need to try to weasel out of it now wolfgang, try to be a man for 5 minutes and take responsibility for your words.

I implore you top try to be honest with your self, it's good for the soul.

@wajoma said
After much goading you finally agreed with my statement that poor health choices lead to poor health results. No need to try to weasel out of it now wolfgang, try to be a man for 5 minutes and take responsibility for your words.

I implore you top try to be honest with your self, it's good for the soul.

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.

Sometimes you get poor health results regardless of how careful you are of the things you can control.

How would Wajomastan determine those who are worthy of being treated for their sicknesses, accidents, chronic conditions, etc. etc. etc. and those who aren't and can be left to die?

@no1marauder said
I'm puzzled; why wouldn't doctors be able to take patients wanting to pay cash for whatever reason?

They would, but they'd also be subject to the suite of rules governing doctors who take Medicare/Medicaid/Whatever they'd call it. These rules govern which treatments they can authorize and, of course, they would not be allowed to discriminate or prioritize private pay customers. Being burdened by the raft of regulations the system would enforce would also make their practices less efficient.

There's a reason many doctors don't take Medicaid.

This is an old article, but it says that nearly 1/3 of doctors don't take Medicaid.

https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.2012.0294

If one has good insurance, no doubt going to one of these allows a more efficient and streamlined experience.

When every doctor is forced to conform to federal bureaucracy to take ANY insurance, this option will be off the table.

Edit: Read the comments under this article:

https://www.statnews.com/2017/12/28/medicaid-physicians-social-contract/

@no1marauder said
Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.

Sometimes you get poor health results regardless of how careful you are of the things you can control.

How would Wajomastan determine those who are worthy of being treated for their sicknesses, accidents, chronic conditions, etc. etc. etc. and those who aren't and can be left to die?

Obviously, the hard-working millionaire heir who hasn't worked a day in his life is deserving of the highest-quality health care, while the lazy, mooching child with leukemia should be left to die in the streets.

@sh76 said
They would, but they'd also be subject to the suite of rules governing doctors who take Medicare/Medicaid/Whatever they'd call it. These rules govern which treatments they can authorize and, of course, they would not be allowed to discriminate or prioritize private pay customers. Being burdened by the raft of regulations the system would enforce would also make their practices l ...[text shortened]... ents under this article:

https://www.statnews.com/2017/12/28/medicaid-physicians-social-contract/

I don't agree; a small number of doctors don't presently take Medicare but nobody sticks a gun to their head and says they must:

"Only about 4 percent of American doctors don’t accept Medicare."

But:

"If your provider has opted out of Medicare, the limiting charge does not apply, and your provider can bill any amount he or she chooses."

https://www.healthmarkets.com/resources/medicare/why-you-should-choose-a-doctor-who-accepts-medicare/

So IF some small percentage of doctors want to opt out of the system and some small amount of patients want to pay them more than the Medicare for All system would, I don't see what would stop either.

@wajoma said
After much goading you finally agreed with my statement that poor health choices lead to poor health results. No need to try to weasel out of it now wolfgang, try to be a man for 5 minutes and take responsibility for your words.

I implore you top try to be honest with your self, it's good for the soul.

What on earth are you on about you silly boy?

@no1marauder said
I don't agree; a small number of doctors don't presently take Medicare but nobody sticks a gun to their head and says they must:

"Only about 4 percent of American doctors don’t accept Medicare."

But:

"If your provider has opted out of Medicare, the limiting charge does not apply, and your provider can bill any amount he or she chooses."

https://www.healthmarke ...[text shortened]... ts want to pay them more than the Medicare for All system would, I don't see what would stop either.

Single payer might be called Medicare for all, but my strongly educated guess is that it would function more like Medicaid than Medicare. Remember, Medicare is not and was never meant to be a 100% coverage system. Almost every senior that I know has supplemental insurance to cover what Medicare doesn't. Plus, Medicare does charge premiums.

Something like the Warren plan would presumably have no deductibles, no premiums and no copays. In this, it would be like Medicaid. Medicaid is, perforce, very tough on doctors, which is why doctors don't typically take Medicaid unless they're forced to.

A close relative of mine told me the story of how her doctor basically refused to keep treating her young multi-child family (without outright dumping them) because payments he was getting from Medicaid were just not worth his time. I've heard many similar anecdotes.

Medicaid has excellent coverage for the patient, but it does not treat providers very well and if that were the only insurance available, doctors would have to treat more patients or decrease the time they spend with each patient to thrive.

No, I can't prove that empirically, but I'm close to certain that it's accurate.

Edit: From the shameless self-promotion department, anyone who wants to learn a lot about Medicare can do so here:

https://lawshelf.com/videocourses/videocourse/medicare-

I hope it's not obsolete in a couple of years. Heh.

@sh76 said
Single payer might be called Medicare for all, but my strongly educated guess is that it would function more like Medicaid than Medicare. Remember, Medicare is not and was never meant to be a 100% coverage system. Almost every senior that I know has supplemental insurance to cover what Medicare doesn't. Plus, Medicare does charge premiums.

Something like the Warren plan would ...[text shortened]... wshelf.com/videocourses/videocourse/medicare-

I hope it's not obsolete in a couple of years. Heh.

Many of the universal health care schemes around the world do not provide "100% coverage" - for example the French system typically does not cover 100% of the cost and many French people take supplemental coverage to make up the difference.

@kazetnagorra said
Many of the universal health care schemes around the world do not provide "100% coverage" - for example the French system typically does not cover 100% of the cost and many French people take supplemental coverage to make up the difference.

Yup; that's why you shouldn't ban private insurance.

Edit: That's also not a single payer system.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Seniors who meet the means thresholds are also eligible for Medicaid.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

You don't want to know what the waiting time is for the cataract operation in NZ's UHC system, like knee and hip replacements you go on a waiting list and are virtually tortured into going private if you can afford it.