Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

The Conservative case for universal healthcare?

Michchamp

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Messages
34,245
Link (from the American Conservative):

Don?t tell anyone, but American conservatives will soon be embracing single-payer healthcare, or some other form of socialized healthcare.

Yes, that?s a bold claim given that a GOP-controlled Congress and President are poised to un-socialize a great deal of healthcare, and may even pull it off. But within five years, plenty of Republicans will be loudly supporting or quietly assenting to universal Medicare.

And that?s a good thing, because socializing healthcare is the only demonstrably effective way to control costs and cover everyone. It results in a healthier country and it saves a ton of money.​

I can see this happening, with the impetus being the money corporate America (the non-healthcare sectors) saves, and the feds save, which they can then go blow on more high-priced, completely worthless hardware like the F-35, as the article goes on to say:
So while it?s a commonly progressive meme to contrast the national expenditure of one F-35 with our inability to ?afford? single-payer healthcare?and I hesitate to say this lest word get out to our neocon friends?there is no need for a tradeoff. If we switched to single payer or another form of socialized medicine, we would actually have more money to spend on even more useless military hardware.​

We'll suddenly start hearing about what a great idea this is from whoever replaces Paul Ryan, and the years when the GOP staged almost symbolic votes against Obamacare on a daily basis because "socialism bad" will be forgotten.
 
Trump could pass it if he wanted to. No problem. His base would 100% support it if it came from him.
 
Trump could pass it if he wanted to. No problem. His base would 100% support it if it came from him.

But the real question is how long is it going to take before he taps that hot little Hispanic socialist chick from the Bronx-assuming she wins which she probably will?
 
But the real question is how long is it going to take before he taps that hot little Hispanic socialist chick from the Bronx-assuming she wins which she probably will?


Sometimes your real questions are real different from my real questions. For real.
 
Sometimes your real questions are real different from my real questions. For real.

We?re already 90% of the way to the Canadian and great Britain healthcare systems anyway.

We?re going to go the rest of the way. There is virtually no question on that.

The famous Herr SctuppTrumpf - When is he going to reach to grab the shorthairs, so to speak?

That?s the unknown factor going on here.
 
Trump could pass it if he wanted to. No problem. His base would 100% support it if it came from him.

That would do more to shit on Obama's presidency/legacy than any other "takesies backsies" he'd pulled off so far.
 
I've been predicting that they will do this for months since agent Orange scamed his way to the white House. Espically if he feels he is behind in 2020.
 
I can't stand Trump, but I love the idea of the single-payer healthcare the left has been clambering for being called "Trumpcare".
 
We'll take it.

Why not?

As I said the country is 90% of the way to having a Great Britain/Canadian type of public health care anyway.

But those countries aren?t really single payer.

In those countries everyone who isn?t broke dick poor chooses superior private insurance instead.
 
Why not?

As I said the country is 90% of the way to having a Great Britain/Canadian type of public health care anyway.

But those countries aren?t really single payer.

In those countries everyone who isn?t broke dick poor chooses superior private insurance instead.

I more or less agree, though I'm not sure where you're getting the 90% number from
 
In those countries everyone who isn?t broke dick poor chooses superior private insurance instead.


Make that "private insurance in addition to" rather than "private insurance instead" and that's how I think it should be.
 
We'll take it.


You'd pretty much have to.


It would make so much sense for Trump to do it too. It kills Obamacare and takes the wind out of the sails of any blue wave. I think it would do a lot to help get him reelected.
 
Except there's just one problem. It doesn't make fiscal sense. Even the left leaning Urban Institute pegs the cost at $32 trillion over the next 10 years. For perspective all government spending is expected to be $56T over that same period. We could double taxes at every level and it wouldn't cover the cost of this idiotic plan. Anyone who thinks it's going to be paid for by the savings on private spe doing and cuts to the $800 billion defense budget is simply delusional.
 
Last edited:
Personally my preference would be to have coverage for catastrophes and disasters only, skipping the routine, don’t really want coverage for all the other stuff and If i get sick and die so be it, and you guys should be totally on board with that, one less trump supporter, ahh besides who wants to be stuck in this lowest plain of vibrational exsistant any longer than we need to anyway. Or how bout massive discounts for those that actual eat healthy, don’t drink or smoke and excersie regularly, that could work for me too, sorry I don’t wish to pay for your poor eating and lazy habits, no single payer or universal forced coverage care.

And with that said it’s a clear night time to go star gaze and NOT see any ufo’s, stupid aliens
 
Last edited:
Except there's just one problem. It doesn't make fiscal sense. Even the left leaning Urban Institute pegs the cost at $32 trillion over the next 10 years. For perspective all government spending is expected to be $56T over that same period. We could double taxes at every level and it wouldn't cover the cost of this idiotic plan. Anyone who thinks it's going to be paid for by the savings on private spe doing and cuts to the $800 billion defense budget is simply delusional.

But it?s not going to be single payer. It?s going to be like GBR and Canada and our Westen allies where anyone who can get private insurance does and those who can?t settle for long lines and rationing and crap which as I pointed out we?re pretty much already there anyway without just coming out and saying it.

From following your posts over the years, I kinda think you agree we?re pretty much already there too.
 
Except there's just one problem. It doesn't make fiscal sense. Even the left leaning Urban Institute pegs the cost at $32 trillion over the next 10 years. For perspective all government spending is expected to be $56T over that same period. We could double taxes at every level and it wouldn't cover the cost of this idiotic plan. Anyone who thinks it's going to be paid for by the savings on private spe doing and cuts to the $800 billion defense budget is simply delusional.

So I'm looking up numbers, 2016 was what I found easiest.

Medicaid $565.5 billion.
Medicare $672.1 billion.
Private health insurance $1,123.4 billion.
Out of pocket $352.5 billion.
Prescription drugs $328.6 billion.

$3.04T in 2016.

$3.04T x 10 = $30.4T that we'll spend if everything stays the same (it won't). In fact, the study even says "over the next decade, the U.S. is projected to spend more than $33 trillion, plus inflation, on health care services without any changes to our current health care system."

If we're already spending $33 trillion on our current inefficient system, is it inconceivable to think with 18% of the country's GDP opening up that we can't find a way to make this happen in some form? It feels like a discussion worth having at the very least.
 
So I'm looking up numbers, 2016 was what I found easiest.

Medicaid $565.5 billion.
Medicare $672.1 billion
.
Private health insurance $1,123.4 billion.
Out of pocket $352.5 billion.
Prescription drugs $328.6 billion.

$3.04T in 2016.

$3.04T x 10 = $30.4T that we'll spend if everything stays the same (it won't). In fact, the study even says "over the next decade, the U.S. is projected to spend more than $33 trillion, plus inflation, on health care services without any changes to our current health care system."

If we're already spending $33 trillion on our current inefficient system, is it inconceivable to think with 18% of the country's GDP opening up that we can't find a way to make this happen in some form? It feels like a discussion worth having at the very least.

We're already making it happen in some form, as you point out.

Medicare and Medicaid have both been around for over half a century, and together their numbers add up to about the same as private health insurance.

You've delineated prescription drugs as being its own sum but it isn't; they're either already covered by Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance or out of pocket and you haven't apportioned how much is covered by which, but this is kind of anecdotal and almost a footnote.

We already have a lot of public health care; we don't have to go to single payer.

We can expand Medicaid to fill the gaps for people who aren't old enough for Medicare who are denied coverage by private insurers who also aren't poor enough to qualify for Medicaid under current eligibility.

We didn't have to do Obamacare.

We could have just expanded Medicaid and left everything else in place a lot more affordably to taxpayers.
 
Back
Top