What a Single Payer Health Insurance Plan Looks Like – Medical Informer Video

Gerald Friedman: A single-payer plan in Maryland would cover everyone, improve outcomes and make business more competitive

20 Responses to “What a Single Payer Health Insurance Plan Looks Like – Medical Informer Video”

  1. roosta655 says:

    Did you even think about what it would mean if you could have an insurance company cover you after you are sick?
    Health Insurance companies should choose who they cover the same way you get to choose who to have cover you..
    You don’t have to revamp the whole system if all you need to do is make it illegal to drop coverage to people after they’ve been accepted.

  2. quadcatfly says:

    WE NEED MORE WELFARE AND SOCIAL HOUSING !

  3. sirellyn says:

    For trying to manipulate you out thats cause for fraud and they should suffer for that.

    For pre-existing conditions that doesn’t make sense, does any other type of insurance have that? If you are a TERRIBLE driver are they forced to overlook that and charge you the same price as the best drivers out there?

    You SHOULD be able to choose. Cover only critical conditions (if you want), get cross state insurance, and not be mandated by your company.

  4. Mark Robinson says:

    CAnada vs Usa….?? The USA does have the greatest healthcare system…if you are rich…this is class warfare.

  5. DanGRtheMan says:

    No you idiot the government is much more effective for an economy and its people in administering the following things – single payer education for young people, single payer healthcare, infrastructure, prisons, judiciary, military, police, social security, fire service, environmental protection, central coordination of a money supply. Too much and too little government is ineffective though.

  6. foggymedia says:

    AMA and the pharmaceuticals are cartels in the US that have more price fixing power than they do in Canada, because your bought out Congress only has limited power in Canada to screw things up as bad. What would a moron suggest economically:

    Government as single payer auto repair
    Government as single payer grocery repair
    Government as single payer mortgage
    Government as single payer health insurance
    etc

    But I know some profound morons are going to think single payer everything is a good thing.

  7. Bomyster3000 says:

    In the US the insurers are the the doctors, the surgens, the medicine and the follow up care. I believe this is the reason why we dont want our people to be healthy, its very profitable from their ailments. Americans dont relies that the insurers are the ones the make medical malpractice not doctors

  8. Iamfatbrain says:

    Which ties it all back to “excellent argument against government being involved with healthcare”.

  9. Lexekon says:

    You missunderstand. Follow this chain for clarity:
    Hospitals take in patients who cannot pay for their treatment, reason not important.
    The government ends up supporting hospitals, in order to maintain the network’s area coverage needs. Charity doesn’t come close to closing this gap.
    The government gets it’s money from us.
    We, as taxpayers, are therefore paying for Uninsured Patients. Unless you are exempt from this system somehow. That is the ‘society being robbed’ I speak of.

  10. Iamfatbrain says:

    “society being robbed”, who’s “society”? It’s as if you don’t understand the definition of robbery. You’re the one advocating theft and force by supporting a system (that through government) robs people. Amazing that you have the mental capacity (or lack thereof) of having these two contradictory concepts in your head without causing head ache.

  11. Lexekon says:

    Then the real problem, as you stated, is society being robbed by the hospitals taking in uninsured and incapable of paying patients. I don’t want my and my families medical care compromised by our local hospital shutting down due to unpaid bills. Don’t order a pizza if you can’t pay for it. Same logic, don’t call an ambulance either. If a charity is willing to sponsor them, they have a golden opportunity to step up.

  12. Iamfatbrain says:

    Stop talking about “we as a society”, there’s no collective, there is only individuals. Society doesn’t make choices, society doesn’t have values. The problem you describe is an excellent argument against government being involved with healthcare. Freeloaders wouldn’t be a problem, private charities / churches / individuals would take care of those who can’t take care of themselves. Just because people are hurting doesn’t make it virtuous or right to steal from your fellow man.

  13. hivquestions says:

    hiv testing is government drug screening - no sex virus
    – hivquestions

  14. tomitstube says:

    what you’re saying is total bullshit. and i’ll prove it to you with real facts. like private health care has overheads close to 30%, while medicare and other government health programs have overhead costs of around 6%. and since you’re talking about “bankruptcy”, americans have around 1 million cases of bankruptcy every year, and over 60% of them are caused by medical bills.

    and if you want our useless private health care in sweden, then get used to paying almost 3 times as much you idiot.

  15. Lexekon says:

    You are certainly entitled to say charity is the last refuge for the uninsured, although all evidence suggests they are only capable of helping a fraction of those who would need them. The rest…

  16. Xeogt says:

    People are not obligated morally to pay for the sick and uninsured. I think you are wrong to think I advocate shared responsability. Every person on this planet are responsible only for themselves, and those that they are morally obligated to provide for, being enclosed pets and children. I agree that it is not moral to obligate society to pay, and such programs should be scrapped. If you are for some reason unable to provide for yourself, charity is what should be availible to you.

  17. Lexekon says:

    You cannot make a moral exception on one side, and not make it on the other. If you advocate for care and treatment needed by uninsured people, you must accept group responsibility. If you declare we cannot require payment from individuals up front, (for insurance), is it somehow no longer theft when they need expensive care we as a society must then pay for?
    Then if you feel we need not support treatment for uninsured, you would turn away every sick and injured person lacking ability to pay.

  18. Lexekon says:

    Since we as a society are footing the bill for the uninsured, then the solution needs to reflect our choices as a society. Freeloaders who know they can probably skate without most predictable health issues, and dodge paying insurance, are what drives up the cost for everyone else. You show me someone dodging out on food and shelter by choice, and then we will address that issue too.

  19. Xeogt says:

    There are no possible moral obligations. You cannot put an obligation upon another person to do anything, without them choosing it. Examples of such immoral behavior is conscription, rape, murder and theft, and theft is the category your proposal falls under. When you introduce force into the situation, you will always be worse off than without it, in the longterm and the immediate. A massive and longterm oritented deregulation of the entire market is a solution, not a proposal for the illegal.

  20. Xeogt says:

    The alternative you seem to think is worse? You’re not making a case for public healthcare, just for vigilance, which should always be practised. The overhead in public options is more than 33%, and it is always an alternative to just save up your calculated insurance fee and use that to pay for your medical expenses. Insurances’ purpose are to allow you to operate as close to bankruptcy (without medical savings) as possible, without being wiped out financially by accidents, nothing else.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks


Leave a Reply