Comments on: Universal Coverage: Not Politically Realistic

By: NM Symposium Part 2 Universal Coverage: Right Goal, Wrong Principle?

NM Symposium Part 2 Universal Coverage: Right Goal, Wrong Principle? — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 21:17:20 +0000

[...] Avlon, Univeral Coverage: Not Politically Realistic It isn’t politically realistic for Republicans to aim for universal coverage – even a worthy [...]

By: debs

debs — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 01:04:43 +0000

Yeah, ok–suppose you were right. And we eventually moved to single payer? And….what, exactly? All that means is that the government administers you health insurance. You still pick your dr. And we’d pay higher taxes, but no premiums, and either no co-pays or minimum ones. What, exactly, are you afraid of? That your health care would only be as good as the French have–what exactly is your fear?

You people say this stuff–but I’m never sure what the anxiety is. You act like people in Paris or Toronto are living some nightmarish 12th century existence, that you can’t be treated in these places for anything, that you’d likely die on the spot if America had a single payer system. In fact, unlike the Canadians, we’d let people buy supplemental insurance. And all this stuff about waiting for elective surgery-hip replacements? Kind of an odd complaint, no? Who are the people who get hip replacements in America? Old people–people on Medicare. People who are already on a single payer system–you know, the thing you’re terrified about. But, apparently, our single payer system works better than their single payer system in this one case.

But still you’re terrifed!! It’s all very odd.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:17:51 +0000

sftor1: “As no one is being asked to give up their private health care”

Given that you’re a strong advocate of single-payer with its rationing by goverment-enforced monopsony, you’ll understand when I choose NOT to believe you.

I’m sick and tired of the blatant hypocrisy coming from the Left, when amongst themselves they call the public option a steppingstone to single-payer while then turning around 180 degrees and “reassuring” the rest of America that it isn’t.

You advocates of single-payer have no credibility when it comes to telling the rest of us what we may or may not be giving up.

By: SFTor1

SFTor1 — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:47:58 +0000

I don’t think I would be so upset at being “coercively” treated for cancer or a heart attack, if the choice was not treatment at all. As no one is being asked to give up their private health care, it is hard to see where the coercion would come from.

The health care industry has had forty years to increase competition and lower cost. It has done the opposite.

Reality, what a concept.