Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Single Payer Health Care

Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 26, 2011, 2:20 a.m. EST by blitznstitch (30)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Single Payer Health Care is the solution! Obama gave up on it but that does not mean we must. First, Single payer will mean that the payroll tax coming out of your paycheck is for YOUR HEALTH CARE and not just old people and very poor people - but yours too. How horrible is it to work at a job that does not offer health care, but out of your paycheck is the cost of someone else's health care?! Or you pay the payroll tax for other people's health care and then also pay for your own health insurance (which means about 20% of your paycheck is for healthcare). Second reason we should fight for single payer, it will, as Mr. Buffet says, take the tapework off of our economy. Employers will no longer be burdened with providing health care! Downside to single payer: no more health insurance companies (booo hooo), doctors and other health professionals will make less (instead of 400,000 a year, doctors will make like 250,000, yea..cry me a river...), federal gov't could manufacturer drugs the drug companies, who are creating unnecessary and life threatening shortages and the emergence of a black market for legal drugs, will not manufacturer because it hurts their bottom line. Okay, so really no downside...let's push for it!!! Hawaii has it and loves it! If I pay taxes, let those taxes be for ME!

29 Comments

29 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 13 years ago

I;d rather see public health centers available like libraries

[-] 1 points by blitznstitch (30) 13 years ago

I don't see how public health centers would solve the greater problem of the cost of health care.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 13 years ago

prevention

[-] 0 points by blitznstitch (30) 13 years ago

prevention is like telling everyone to be Vegan, exercise, don't smoke, and don't drink alcohol. People get sick, shit happens, and how do you propose public health centers prevent cancers, alzheimers, car accidents, genetic diseases, broken bones, etc.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 13 years ago

cancer is usual spotted when people go in for check ups

people don't get check ups because that cost money

[-] 0 points by blitznstitch (30) 13 years ago

my point exactly! It costs too much money, so single payer would alleviate the very problem you have identified. COST

[-] 1 points by metroeco (11) 13 years ago

I started a health co-op whose members were covered for 12 categories of everyday emergency anywhere in the world, to specified maximum amounts, for $100/YEAR. They also own their own free clinic, which provides both holistic and standard care. I've written the book "Hometown Money" to explain how to do this, intending that such co-ops become a national nonprofit network upon which universal coverage can be nonprofit, affordable, transparent and democratic. http://healthdemocracy.org/book.html

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 13 years ago

government staff staff of 5 nurses on site

is that too much money ?

[-] 1 points by blitznstitch (30) 13 years ago

you are right, you have turned this into something tedious. Your focus is narrow, mine is broad.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 13 years ago

optical care isn't covered by many health plans

[-] 1 points by e307465 (147) 13 years ago

I'm open to anything so long as frivolous lawsuits are addressed and the government can prove that we can fund it. (Cut a few programs and that would be easy).

[-] 1 points by metroeco (11) 13 years ago

The League of Uninsured Voters (LUV) http://luvpower.org rallies the millions of uninsured to take the lead: http://www.tikkun.org/tikkundaily/2011/10/03/healthy-rebellion-the-uninsured-step-forward

[-] 1 points by DenverDave (1) from Denver, CO 13 years ago

I look at it this way. We can either have a system where the purpose of the system is to provide health care or we can have a system where the purpose of the system is to avoid people that need health care.

If we have two systems, we'll want the sick people to be in the other person's risk pool.

Most businesses want customers that need their products and services. Health insurance is different - the health insurance companies want customers that are unlikely to need much care - that's how the money is made.

[-] 1 points by technoviking (484) 13 years ago

what if my paycheck can't afford my healthcare?

what if i need someone else to help me?

are you not willing to help your dying neighbour?

[-] 1 points by blitznstitch (30) 13 years ago

we already are helping our dying neighbor, be they citizens or persons who immigrated illegally, the point here is not about excluding someone from care. The point is to radically change the current system into one that works for the majority of Americans - isn't that what this movement is about?

[-] 0 points by EndTheFedNow (692) 13 years ago

You'll NEVER get a single payer system imposed on those who don't want it (which is over half the country and why Democrats were thrown out in 2010). We need a public option OPT IN. Only those who opt in, pay the tax. Those who do not opt in are free to keep their Blue Cross or whatever (and pay no tax). Nobody has the right to impose their will upon, and take away the freedom others, so you will always lose because too many value the freedom of choice. If you support an opt in with a tax only on those participating, even those who do not want in will support you.

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 13 years ago

Massachusetts has it and they hate it.

[-] 1 points by blitznstitch (30) 13 years ago

oh yea, forgot to say Mass. does not have single payer, they have Obamacare - which is a mandate that all purchase private insurance. Single payer would be run by the federal gov't. It would reduce administrative costs, drug costs, health care costs etc. Doctors would be able to focus on being doctors instead of worrying about running a business, and patients would get better care.

[-] 1 points by blitznstitch (30) 13 years ago

no they don't - which is why Romney use to tout it as an accomplishment of his but now runs from it because of the extreme right