I was assuming theyâd migrate and become EU citizens, but that I donât know. Wouldnât they kinda have to cover them, right? Theyâre not going to turn them away from hospitals I wouldnât think.
What, like through Obamacare? Does that even exist anymore? Thatâs beyond my knowledge, but Iâd be surprised if care was standardized.
I suppose they could, but whatâs the value of having a single-payer system that requires you to pay higher taxes to support other people(s) when you then need to turn around and spend more money on location-specific issues? I dunno, that just doesnât make sense to me.
Sure, theyâd have electoral influence.
Lol, maybe in theory like 30 years ago.
Yes, but Congressional Oversight would need to catch the issue and/or the judicial process would need to be carried out (could be years). The department head could certainly be fired, sure.
No, but itâs got like 120 million watchdogs (even more when you think about how many more would end up voting when govt actually touches their lives visibly)
Why not? In a single payer scenario EVERY citizen is covered. So if someone isnât covered, theyâre known to not be a citizen. Does the law that stops ERs from turning people away cover non citizens? Does the Constitution at all cover non citizens in that way?
Iâd say through Medicaid, the VA, and Medicare most likely. The nation wide public insurance that currently exists.
If it hasnât been done, yet we have public insurance today, how does it become a requirement of single payer?
To your previous point, location specific things cause added cost and inefficiencies. So why include them? Do states no longer collect tax money for state specific things in this scenario? Or local govt collecting local taxes?
Has one been elected in your lifetime that didnât preach it as part of their platform? Serious question.
If I was talking about something more Dem friendly Iâd understand, but commenting on REPUBLICANS wanting lower waste and expenses feels pretty iron clad
No way everyone, not just citizens, wouldnât be covered.
I didnât mean to imply it would be a requirement. We were talking about efficiencies. I was just saying some area healthcare is not as efficient as others (I used Alabama as inefficient, they might be awesome) and the only way to make everything efficient would be through standardization and a lot of ongoing work.
Because theyâre necessary? Snake anti-venom in the south is pretty important while itâs not nearly as important in MD.
No, but the federal will have to collect more revenue to pay for a federal program and who pays taxes is already limited. This goes back to whether a single-payer system is more cost effective, which I would argue it is likely not.
I doubt it, but I think we both know itâs mostly just lip service for low information voters.
Campaigning on it and even wanting it and actually doing it are different things. I think most maybe all Râs campaign on and want it. They just donât do it.
Who initially funded the research? The notion that private industry funded the start-up capital is fucking laughable, just like your theoretic ideology.
Iâm of the opinion that given the ability to remove the application, verification, renewal, etc things associated with a non single payer version, efficiencies would go through the roof.
My local metro has a 4 story building for our JFS. Thereâs an entire floor of people who ONLY handle renewals and verification.
Why does that law need to exist in a world where we have single payer?
I would still wonder how that would be anywhere near a requirement if itâs not already being done with our current national level public paid for HC.
I meant why include them in a federal single payer system when state methods already exist and presumably still would?
In a scenario where we get legitamate buy in from both parties, it wouldnât be that hard
Right, but that doesnât really impact whether or not we should at least expect it, right?
Lol, whut? Who said private sector funded ARPANET? Not this guy. I pointed out it was a government contract. The private sector did all the research and work.
Jesus, youâre an idiot. Your entire premise about the government and the internet was utterly dismantled with a single screencap, but you persist.
Are you currently residing in the U.K.? Have you ever lived in the U.S.? I have worked with many people from Europe and when I asked about their healthcare not one of them had to say a significantly bad thing.
Because we have 12M illegal immigrants? We donât require ID to vote would we for ER visits?
I donât understand the value of a single-payer system if you then need a state single-payer and presumably additional private insurance?
Is this single-payer for Neverland? Lol, jokes aside, I still donât think a single administrator is more cost-effective than private administrators. Could it be? Yes. Would it be? Thatâs the trillion dollar question.
Sure, I think itâs fair to measure a politician against what they campaigned on, but at this point, I think itâs nieve to believe that particular campaign promise.
Most people know that there are issues with the NHS, for example waiting times. But itâs whose to blame for that, sometimes itâs the patients (seriously, in some places 1 in 3 A&E cases is alcohol related) and a lot of the time itâs the politicians. Thatâs why people donât complain. The medical staff can be amazing and we are very proud of them. I am a big fan of the NHS, I believe a rising tide raises all boats. I know that saying itâs used for the economy but I think if people are treated well they normally give back. I donât mind if illegal immigrants get care as long as itâs not health tourism. However Iâve never ran the numbers for a 20% rise in inpatients.
