GOP Senator Wants To Block States From Setting Up Single-Payer Systems

[Elixir]

Proposed legislation.

*Yawn*

Let me know if it ever makes it out of committee.

Good attitude - I wish Sen Kennedy had that approach to single-payer.

 

[RavenSky]

The headline is misleading. His proposal is not about blocking states from setting up anything, but about use of federal funds as part of the latest Obamacare repeal bill.

Kennedy is attempting to insert the issue into Republicans’ latest bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Under the so-called Cassidy-Graham legislation, states would be given block grants to set up their own health care systems. While the fate of the bill is unclear, the Louisiana senator seeks to add an amendment that would prevent states from using federal money for a single-payer system.

However you feel about the merits of that amendment, it is not about blocking states from doing anything.

Based on the bit you quoted, it most certainly is an attempt to block progressive states from setting up a single-payer system.

The fucking Republicans are trying to rush through yet another "repeal and replace" bill that will provide "block grants" to the states to set up whatever kind of health insurance program they want...

unless it is a program that just might work. In that case, fuck state's rights.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The UK NHS (National Health Service) is the oldest and largest single-payer healthcare system in the world. Patients still have the option to take out private insurance for private treatment also. National Insurance contributions are compulsory deductions from employees' wages and from employers.


This worked very well until the past 20 or so years. However with an increase in population and government cuts in staffing it can take up to 3 weeks to see a doctor. Patients can always see a doctor in the outpatient emergency treatment centres.

Nonetheless it still provides universal coverage.

The wealthy or those with their healthcare policies in addition to National Insurance can also use a whole range of private medical care facilities.

A person with no ID or Insurance will still be treated by a hospital.


Like any organisation, government healthcare systems require cost effective professional operation which is not simply 'cut-price.'

Cuba also has a single payer healthcare system. Even more than the UK it also focuses on preventative medicine and tries to reduce the amount of drug medication given to patients.


Sander's idea is not based on something new and something worse considering. Perhaps one day he will be acknowledged in history or hopefully given an award in his lifetime.

While some private services could deliver government healthcare, the US government should also construct government hospitals. Yet these could offer private healthcare for those who want better hospital rooms and less waiting time.

- - - Updated - - -

The headline is misleading. His proposal is not about blocking states from setting up anything, but about use of federal funds as part of the latest Obamacare repeal bill.

However you feel about the merits of that amendment, it is not about blocking states from doing anything.

Based on the bit you quoted, it most certainly is an attempt to block progressive states from setting up a single-payer system.

The fucking Republicans are trying to rush through yet another "repeal and replace" bill that will provide "block grants" to the states to set up whatever kind of health insurance program they want...

unless it is a program that just might work. In that case, fuck state's rights.

In my view Sanders is the only one trying to implement a tried and tested method of healthcare that while not perfect supplies universal coverage for everyone.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Well, when this nasty bit ultimately doesn't make it in to the Cassidy-Graham bill, it will make the proposed legislation a little more palatable, and that's what the GOP needs. We'll all breath a sigh of relief when we're stuck with just the original turd.

 

[untermensche]

Single payer is the best idea the US could have right now.

It would greatly lower the costs of healthcare and create greater control over the rise of costs.

What also needs to be done is the single payer system has to be allowed to negotiate drug prices.

Both of these would greatly lower costs.

Besides being the wise and moral thing to do.

Never in history has a good option been so clear.

That some oppose it merely shows the depth of their blindness and stupidity.

 

[SimpleDon]

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said Tuesday that he’s so opposed to the idea of a single-payer health care system that he’s trying to block California or any other Democratic state from setting up such a system.

Fucking GOP hypocrite... States rights my ass!

Kennedy said he doesn’t think Americans would be happy with a single-payer system if they actually had it.

Americans do have a single payer system in place and they do like it. It is called Medicare.

This idea that it is a matter of opinion or ideology which health care system is the most effective is the core of Kennedy's argument. But it is not true. It is easy to compare the outcomes of many different systems by looking at the outcomes of the many different systems here and around the world. The entire problem is that the Republicans like Kennedy are trying to force the most inefficient system on the US, medical care provided through for profit insurance companies.

The other idea behind this latest Republican stab at reforming the health care system is equally flawed, the idea that the individual states are better equipped to manage health care for their own citizens than the federal government is. This is how the health care system was managed before ObamaCare. It was a failure, that is why we have ObamaCare. There are no real differences between the states in how disease affects people or how disease is treated to justify running different systems in the different states.

Republicans are trying to avoid the argument that they will lose. Whether the health care system should run as a business for profit or if it should be run to provide the best medical care for the most number of people at the lowest possible cost.

 

[dismal]

The headline is misleading. His proposal is not about blocking states from setting up anything, but about use of federal funds as part of the latest Obamacare repeal bill.

However you feel about the merits of that amendment, it is not about blocking states from doing anything.

Based on the bit you quoted, it most certainly is an attempt to block progressive states from setting up a single-payer system.

The fucking Republicans are trying to rush through yet another "repeal and replace" bill that will provide "block grants" to the states to set up whatever kind of health insurance program they want...

unless it is a program that just might work. In that case, fuck state's rights.

Why should the federal government help the states set up single payer? It does not make even the slightest bit of sense.

If a state (I don't live in) wants to give it a go, I say give it a shot. But I don't think anyone outside the state should have to pay for it.

 

[SimpleDon]

The headline is misleading. His proposal is not about blocking states from setting up anything, but about use of federal funds as part of the latest Obamacare repeal bill.

Kennedy is attempting to insert the issue into Republicans’ latest bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Under the so-called Cassidy-Graham legislation, states would be given block grants to set up their own health care systems. While the fate of the bill is unclear, the Louisiana senator seeks to add an amendment that would prevent states from using federal money for a single-payer system.

However you feel about the merits of that amendment, it is not about blocking states from doing anything.

The Republicans are saying that the states should be given the money from the ObamaCare taxes in a block grant to fashion the best health care system for their citizens because the states are in the best position to determine what that system will be. That is unless they determine that the best system for their state would be single payer, then the federal government is better equipped to determine that isn't the best system for that state and that they can't use the block grant money for that single payer system. Withholding the money is a very effective way of blocking single payer in the various states. Don't you agree?

And Kennedy admits that he wants to withhold the money to support an option of single payer because of ideology, not because of effectiveness.

There is no possibility that for profit insurance companies can compete with non-profits either single payer systems or community rate based non-profit insurance companies, the so-called community option. The for profit insurance companies can't even compete with themselves when they administer what is now how the majority of private health care is provided in this country, when large companies self-insure. It doesn't even have to be a very large company, fifty employees is all that a company needs to have to self-insure. That means that medical insurance is not very risky. You only have to have a group of fifty people to have a very well defined risk.

 

[SimpleDon]

Curse you, Sen. John Kennedy R-LA!

So, in the 240 years states have had the right to set up their own single payer system before Sen. John Kennedy rendered it nigh impossible how many have done it?

A few (Hawaii, Maryland(?)) and they work pretty well where implemented.

Vermont tried to set up single payer under ObamaCare but they weren't successful. They felt that they were too small of a state to set up a state agency to administer single payer and when thy put out a bid for a private insurer to administer a single payer system, basically Vermont paying medical costs plus a set percentage fee for administration to the insurance company, not one insurance company bid for the work.

I believe that no company bid not because they were afraid that the idea wouldn't work, but because the insurance companies were afraid that it would work. The single payer system that Vermont envisioned wasn't outrageous, it is basically the way that large companies handle their health care plans. The insurance companies didn't like it because there was more profit by accepting the federal subsidy for individual policies.

 

[Elixir]

SimpleDon points out:

Americans do have a single payer system in place and they do like it. It is called Medicare.

And as he also points out, it works very well and people (including myself) like it very much.
But it largely leaves the private insurance industry out of the loop, so the rethuglicans oppose it (at the behest of their lobbyists/donors). The specter of private industry losing even more share if states opt to emulate the medicare model is the stuff of their nightmares, so it makes sense that they'd propose illegalizing it or providing the option for the fed to withhold funding if states try to do the right thing for their citizens. "I don't think it's the right thing for the states" is one of the lamest excuses ever offered by a republican for denying states rights - which they pretend to be all for.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Single payer is the best idea the US could have right now.

It would greatly lower the costs of healthcare and create greater control over the rise of costs.

What also needs to be done is the single payer system has to be allowed to negotiate drug prices.

Both of these would greatly lower costs.

Besides being the wise and moral thing to do.

Never in history has a good option been so clear.

That some oppose it merely shows the depth of their blindness and stupidity.

As I mentioned its worked in the China, UK and Cuba. Also Hong Kong has a good system and Libya once had such a system.

Of course reducing drug prices and allowing other companies to produce generic versions much cheaper is vital.