Posted on 07/07/2017 11:04:36 AM PDT by C19fan
Lingering uncertainty about the fate of the Affordable Care Act has spurred the California legislature to consider adoption of a statewide single-payer health care system.
Sometimes described as Medicare for all, single-payer is a system in which a public agency handles health care financing while the delivery of care remains largely in private hands.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
You left out “letting people die if they’re above a certain age” as another way to save money. Works every time.
Because “death panels” will ensure all kinds of savings?
Yeah it is so good and inexpensive that California had to put it off for a year because “they cannot afford it”. It will bankrupt the state.
LOL. There are the same people that told us Obama care wouldn’t add to the deficit, would reduce the medical cost curve, would reduce premiums by $2500 a year and you could still keep your current plan and doctor. Sorry, we’ve seen this movie before.
Watching ten month old babies die saves money.......right....sick!!!!
Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money = Charlie Gard
Spot on!
When you grovel to the state for your healthcare, they own you, completely. It’s a communist’s wet dream.
Of course it saves money..instead of treating people they are sent home with an Aspirin and told to suck it up and die..the only ones who will get the kick a@@ health care will be the illegal aliens because of course they give Democrats votes
In Canada, single payer “saves” money due to wait times and Doctor shortages.
For example, 2016 average wait time for a MRI is eleven weeks !
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/waiting-your-turn-wait-times-for-health-care-in-canada-2016
Here comes the push...
Six months ago I was hearing stories that this was being pushed by the NEA behind doors at selected Universities.
That cuts close to the core of the matter. There are two ways to keep costs down - one by having so much competition that the services, which would be relatively plentiful, would be competing on a cost basis, which by definition, single-payer cannot do.
And the other way is by severe rationing of the services, of which "death panels" are only one aspect. The other approach would include long lines, rescheduling to a later date, vastly foreshortened actual face time with medical professionals, and using a very restricted list of "approved" pharmaceutical drugs.
Some more words "The NYT are f@ing monsters!"
The article “forgot” to mention Charlie Gard. Government can deny single-payer help for cost-savings AND deny other help that may make the single-payer care look bad.
If private payment/care is allowed, you quickly get back to a two tiered system and the single-payer can’t compete.
What color is the sky in their world?
...which may or may not be the latest, greatest, most efficacious medicine available.
"Hey comrade! Penicillin was good enough for your great-grandmother...quit complaining!"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.