What is the logical consistency of being in favor of taxpayer-funded vouchers for private schools, but being opposed to a taxpayer-funded "single payer" health care system?

Comments

Comments

• The "allotments" for single payer universal health care are already being made in the form of all the money being paid to private insurance companies now. the money is thee. On a net net basis we would save money and have better outcomes. There is a benefit plan in NY that covers 400,000 people from pre-natal until age 65--and then continues prescription coverage for senior until death. It is a generous plan with no co-pays. It's cost r that you are subject to the per capita is less than $4000, per year. Compare that to what you or your boss are now paying your insurance company. Add in yr co=pays.

  • Report
  

  by Stronghart on June 20th, 2009

• After you add in your co-pays, you will come up with an average that is close to $5000 per capita, --and you will still be subject to the same bureaucratic rules that you fear from the government--only now you are subject to the insurance company bureaucrats.

  • Report
  

  by Stronghart on June 20th, 2009

• Thanks for the answer and the comments. It only took 1.5 years for someone to make an attempt...:-D...

  • Report
  

  by Old School on June 20th, 2009

• The difference still being "employer/employee optional payer" versus "single payer through mandatory taxation." The dollars for discussion are there, but they are not "tax" dollars. The dollars still aren't there per your question per se. The dollars are opt-in dollars now, versus mandatory tax dollars. One can still choose to not have healthcare and keep their own money. Freedom of choice is a big deal. We still kill the unborn over it.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on June 20th, 2009

• When you "choose" not to have insurance because (a) you can't afford it, or (2) you think that you are healthy enough and won't ever get sick or in an accident it is the rest of the country that actually pays when your hope for perpetual health goes wrong.
  -
  In the meantime, averaging out health care costs over a 300,000,000 population would actually lower costs.
  -
  The administrative cost for Medicare (socialized medicine? ask you grandfather)is under 3%. the administrative costs for HMO-Insurance companies varies from 11% to 25%. That means that for ever $1 you pay for for insurance you get only 75 to 89 cents devoted to your health.
  -
  Not a good deal.

  • Report
  

  by George Dufferin on June 20th, 2009

• I've been on Medicare for years and years. My grandchildren should have a similar system.

  • Report
  

  by MargaretMcGhee on June 20th, 2009

• Margaret, it is due to go broke and not serve you as it has. It will not last..by all definitions and experts.
  
  George, name a goverment program besides the IRS that is self-sustaining. Do you really believe that non-competitive bureaucrats can save the day? The government does not invent, rather it acquires inventions made by the private sector. Do you know that bureaucrats dont get fired for being poor workers and the government as whole tolerates waste far more than private companies. Surely you see this in your daily lives.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on June 20th, 2009

Comments

• Thank you for your answer, CH. It pretty much what I suspected, though I would phrase it differently....
  .
  In the case of school vouchers, the proponents are hoping that eventually the government will be broke enough (or run by enough Neo-Liberals) such that the vouchers will go away and education will be entirely privatezed.
  .
  In the case of single-payer health care, the opponents are afraid that it will work so well that people will come to expect it and wonder why it was ever privately run, just like we do with fire protection, police protection, water quality, electricity distribution, sewage treatment, etc.
  .
  Note that in all of these cases, there is nothing stopping people from buying service above what the government provides. It's just that we as a society have agreed (except in health care) that everyone should be provided a certain minimal level.

  • Report
  

  by Old School on October 24th, 2007

• Germany, and Switzerland, offer a combination of state run health care and private systems.
  Canada and Britain have single payer systems. Few people in those countries are marching to get rid of their systems.
  Right now, the insured family is already at the mercy of insurance company bureaucrats who already ration the care paid for by the insurance company.
  Furthermore, if you lose your job and get sick it is almost impossible to obtain new coverage at rational rates. (except to the insurance company.

  • Report
  

  by Peter the Mayor on June 20th, 2009

• Most Canadians love their system and are secure in knowing that it will never be taken away, and that they will always get care. Ask a few.

  • Report
  

  by MargaretMcGhee on June 20th, 2009

• Who is "rationing" your health care now? -- Answer: Insurance company administrators. What is their motive for rationing: company profits.

  • Report
  

  by centrator on June 26th, 2009

• The difference is that you are free to find another company that provides the services you want or you can self-insure and pay as you go. A problem that I see with mandatory health insurance, as was passed in Massachusetts 2 years ago and which is a cornerstone of Obamacare, is that it does not result in an increase in the quality of nor a decrease in the cost of health care.

  • Report
  

  by CannedHam on June 26th, 2009

• @CannedHam - Just *TRY* to find health insurance at anything resembling an affordable price if you have a pre-existing health condition. Just TRY!
  .
  Go to one of the online health insurance sites, fill out an application saying that you have ongoing treatment for clinical depression and Type II diabetes and see if ANY health insurance company will cover you.
  .
  "Free to choose" my A**!!!!!!!!

  • Report
  

  by Old School on June 26th, 2009