Posted on 07/28/2017 6:25:40 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
Yes.
There were rumblings of this among corporations during the election. They want to dump the semi socialized system we have now from the businesses to the tax payers.
Then a lot of new FReepers started making the case for socialized medicine a few months ago. And Trump used to be an open advocate for single payer.
Of course, limiting competition always works so well, right?
Just like basic income, we have a lot of people who should know better advocating for the dumping of basic economics.
The U.S. based doctor who'd developed the treatment said in January of this year that it would've given Charlie a good chance at recovering. Charlie and his parents were DENIED that treatment by the NHS (Government) and they were prohibited by the Hospital and the Government from taking him out of the country for treatment.
Who in the HELL gave any Government the power over two parents to deny them seeking the best medical care possible for their child?
It's an outrage. Charlie's death is on the Judges, NHS' and Government of the UK's hands. It's an outrage you'd defend the position you are. You're arguing against natural parental rights.
And the Doctor will tell you, "Come back in about nine months, and I might be able to fit you in."
There is no CONSERVATIVE case for Single Payer, but there is a REPUBLICAN one.
Many of the crony-capitalist donors who fund that party would like nothing better than to shove their employee health care costs onto somebody else’s books.
It’s not “single-payor”.
It’s “government-payor” which means the Feds determine how much doctors and providers are paid, and what services are available to patients. It would turn into the largest crony capitalism scheme in the history of mankind - then bankrupt our children and grandchildren.
Most people my age are on single payer. I’m on two single payer systems plus my retirement insurance. The one I like best is the VA. Any serious problems I go to the VA. No deductibles for anything except an $8 co-pay for prescription drugs.
I rarely use my United Health Care / Blue cross.
And they let this person on a site called “The American Conservative” to post a “conservative case” for one of the most un-conservative causes out there.
It’s interesting that the Amish never have to discuss this sort of thing.
True ... the wording from your post is correct ... kudos
The phrase “single payer” does imply an absolute monarchy, does it now.
Innovations have stopped now. R&D costs a lot of money, and the finance teams that run publicly traded companies view it was an unnecessary expense.
They keep some around for “Show me”, but not much.
The U.S. based doctor who'd developed the treatment admitted that he never examined the patient. I've even read reports that the NHS in Great Britain asked him to come over and examine Charlie back around January, but he never did.
By any objective measure this guy is a quack, and there's a move afoot in New York or Mass. (I forget which state holds his license) to initiate a formal complaint against him through his medical licensing board.
Rather than regulate to an efficient healthcare, compete to one. Let the government provide healthcare, but also allow without hindrance private enterprise to compete.
The “treatment” is not “developed”. It is pre-phase one experimental therapy.
This is what Dr. Hirano said after (finally) examining the patient: “I became involved in Charlie’s case when I was contacted by his parents, and I subsequently agreed to speak with his doctors to discuss whether an experimental therapy being developed in my lab could provide meaningful clinical improvement in Charlie’s condition.
Unfortunately, a MRI scan of Charlie’s muscle tissue conducted in the past week has revealed that it is very unlikely that he would benefit from this treatment.”
“Meaningful clinical improvement”, for a researcher, does not mean the same thing it means to laypeople. And, it is clear from the above that your charge that Charlie Gard was “denied lifesaving therapy” is false.
Flame away!
I am a straight down the line conservative that agrees strongly with this article. You can reply that I am not conservative because of this stance, but you would be wrong. You can cite, as has already been done, the 5 or 6 standard canards that are always used when health care comes up, but are they really correct?
Simply put, our health system is not “the best in the world.” What it is is the leading cause of bankruptcy in America (even for the insured) and it does not provide outcomes that compare favorably to many of the single payer systems. Those systems work better for their people at a much lower cost per person or % of GDP than our system works for us.
Whether we have single payer (government) or multi-payer (insurance) we still place ourselves under an “access master.” Insurance companies deny treatments as uncovered every day. Insurance companies ration every one of us with a lifetime maximum benefit at which point we no longer have access to care except that which we can pay out-of-pocket. Being more comfortable with an insurance company as our gatekeeper than the government is understandable, but in the end it is not significantly different.
My family has faced the ‘uninsurable’ label in the individual market because of a very minor and fully healed per-existing condition. I have paid off enormous medical bills that were over and above great corporate insurance coverage because of an operating room mistake by a doctor. Both scenarios make me very personally aware that our market based, insurance managed system is critically broken.
Disagree if you want, but that is my experience and view.
Precisely! Under which article of the Constitution does federal control of health care fall? I seem to have forgotten...
Under single payer the insurance premiums that you now pay would translate/transform into additional medicare taxes. Maybe a little lees.
I don’t believe we need any national health care program as long as we continue Medicare, making sure at least most of the employee contributions go to that fund and not the general fund. Then provide a reasonable safety net for the poor, including the low wage working segment, a fund for catastrophic cases, and the freedom for any insurance company to service across any state line.
Get rid of Obamacare and set us free.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.