health care

Aetna CEO Says We Need to Have a Conversation About Single Payer. We've Been Having It For A Long Time.

And it always ends the same way. Here's the political and economic reasons why America won't be converting to a single-payer health care system anytime soon.

|

Earlier this week, Aetna, one of America's biggest insurance companies, pulled out of Obamacare's insurance exchanges. Now its CEO thinks it's time for America to start talking about moving to a single payer health care system.

"Single-payer, I think we should have that debate as a nation," Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini told a group of employees at a meeting on Thursday, according to Vox's Sarah Kliff.

Here's the thing. We've had that conversation. Several times, in fact. It's always ended the same way.

We had that conversation in 2009 and 2010 during the congressional debates on the Affordable Care Act. Progressives wanted the law to include a public option that would be run by the government and compete with private insurers, but there wasn't enough support for that to pass. Instead, the ACA allowed states to create government-run health care cooperatives that would be unmoored from the economic principles of profit-seeking and could compete with private insurers. Twenty-four states exercised the option to create co-ops, but by the end of last year only four were still running. The rest collapsed because they were too expensive and poorly managed (in part because no one with any experience running a health insurance business was allowed to run them).

We kept having that conversation after Obamacare passed. In 2011, Vermont passed a law calling for the creation a state-wide single-payer health care system. But in 2014 the state scrapped the system before it even got off the ground because it was simply too expensive. Funding it would have required an extra $2.5 billion annually, almost double the state's current budget. Paying for it would have required a 11.5 percent payroll tax increase and a 9 percent income tax increase, and Gov. Peter Schumlin, who had advocated for single-payer and signed the bill to create the system, realized that even in deep-blue Vermont that was tantamount to political suicide.

"You'd think that, if there was any state where this could fly politically, it should have been Vermont," Matthew Dickinson, a political science professor at Middlebury University, told Vox's Kliff in 2014 as part of her detailed post-mortem of the state's experiment with single-payer health care. "But in this case, the price was so big that even a state as solidly blue as Vermont wasn't able to swallow it."

Still, we kept having the conversation. Referendum-happy Colorado, in 2016, asked its voters if they would want to have a single-payer health care system—and if they would support increasing payroll taxes by 10 percent to meet the estimated $25 billion annual price tag. They soundly rejected it. Despite Bernie Sanders traveling around the state to promote the idea, 79 percent of voters in November said "no."

Sanders is still having that conversation, but now in California. Lawmakers in Sacramento are working on a bill to create a single-payer health care system for the state, but a new poll shows 66 percent of the state's residents are opposed to the idea (opposition increases to 75 percent when those polled are told the price tag for the system is $179 billion annually).

Just this week, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California), hardly a conservative voice in Congress, told constituents she was opposed to a single-payer health care system. When it comes to a "total takeover" of health care by government, "I'm just not there," she said, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Is there a scenario where we end up with a national single-payer health care system within the next five years? Sure. Maybe there's a dramatic collapse of the insurance market—not impossible, given Obamacare's various ongoing troubles—and the government responds with a bailout that effectively nationalizes insurers and gives us a de facto single payer system.

Maybe the backlash against Trump is enough for Democrats to overcome the disadvantages they face—a bad Senate map and gerrymandered House districts—in the 2018 midterms and take control of Congress. Maybe they strike a deal with Trump, who has expressed favor for single-payer systems elsewhere in the world, to implement such a system. Maybe.

A more plausible scenario would see Democrats winning back control of Congress and giving Trump the boot in 2020, by which time maybe the health care market is such a total disaster that a new president can claim single-payer is the only solution and get Congress to go along. Or maybe Republicans will completely abandon their free market principles and will dive into the single-payer pool, as conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer speculated this week. In a poll conducted last month, almost half of Republicans said they supported a single payer system built around Medicare.

Still, I'm more than a little skeptical. Even with the Democratic Party moving to the left, it's unlikely that a new Democratic majority—which, by definition, would require Democrats to win elections in 2018 or 2020 in Republican-leaning districts—would coalesce around a position that's too far left for someone like Feinstein.

There are other political problems too. The AHCA has been battered in the media because it would disrupt health coverage for an estimated 24 million Americans over a decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office's assessment of an early version of the bill. Going to a single-payer model would disrupt everyone's existing health care plans. Sure, Democrats could argue that the change would be a good one, but change is scary and it's easier to scare people into opposing a new policy than reassure them that everything will be OK.

Even if Democrats solve the political issues of transitioning to single-payer, they still have to solve the economic issues. That's a little bit easier on the federal level than it is at the state level because most states are required to balance their budgets, but a national single-payer system could just be added to the federal government's tab. Still, the price tag—one analysis of Sen. Bernie Sanders' single-payer campaign promise pegged the cost at $32 trillion in the first decade, alone—is likely to make many Democrats blanche (especially those in newly-seized Republican-leaning districts who will already be looking over their shoulders at potential challengers).

All of this is fun to speculate about, but it's actually somewhat beside the point. Let's go back and look at what Bertolini, Aetna's CEO, actually said about single-payer health care:

"The government doesn't administer anything. The first thing they've ever tried to administer in social programs was the ACA, and that didn't go so well. So the industry has always been the back room for government. If the government wants to pay all the bills, and employers want to stop offering coverage, and we can be there in a public private partnership to do the work we do today with Medicare, and with Medicaid at every state level, we run the Medicaid programs for them, then let's have that conversation."

I don't think he's actually advocating for single-payer health care at all. What he seems to be saying is that he'd be open to having the government play a larger role in paying for health care, while contracting services through existing insurance companies—in other words, adding even more cronyism to a health care system that's already full of it. Libertarians and progressives alike should be suspicious of anyone advocating for having his own industry be "the back room for government."

Sadly, that's probably where we are heading. There seems to be little interest in Congress—and virtually none in the White House—for market-based health care reform, so the AHCA will further entrench government's role in health care. It seems plausible that we could end up with a Medicaid-for-all-style system like the one that Bertolini seems to be discussing, which I suppose would be nominally a single-payer system, but not really in line with what progressives mean when they use the term.

We'll continue having the discussion about single-payer health care, I'm sure. But until progressives can solve the economic and political barriers that have sunk that idea, repeatedly, in the past decade, I'm not sure it will ever be more than a conversation.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

238 responses to “Aetna CEO Says We Need to Have a Conversation About Single Payer. We've Been Having It For A Long Time.

  1. all the single payer plans seem to be cramming one sixth of the economy in a one tenth of the economy sized hole while adding a load of bureaucrat parasites to feed and retire on it and they get theirs first because it’s a contract.

    1. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

      This is what I do…,.,.,. http://www.careerstoday100.com

  2. Why does the conversation always go leftward, to centralized government and authoritarianism?

    1. Gravity. Large, massive objects pull smaller objects towards them. Works in politics as well as in physics.

    2. Because the so-called “average person” isn’t very bright at all and just can’t resist the seductive allure of “free shit”.

      1. Because the so-called “average person” isn’t very bright at all and just can’t resist the seductive allure of “free shit”.

        Ah yes, blame the victims — when the libertarian establishment has absolutely zero credible alfernatives — and many in the anti-gummint faction SNEER at the very notion of alternatives. They say it’s “conspiring with statists” as they become accomplices to the state! They say the state is all-powerful, also because of their own complicity.

        But it’s the average person who isn’t bright!!!
        As they run around yelling that “The Sky is Falling.”

        1. The average person just votes in an election where they decided the only two worthwhile candidates were Hillary and Trump.

          You tell me if they’re particularly bright.

          1. They had no alternative. And if everyone who disagrees with you is stupid, then you are what your handle suggests.

        2. “Stop stealing from your fellow citizens.” Is a pretty damn credible alternative.

          1. It’s only credible to authoritarians who reject “consent pf the governed” and “will of the people,” and are thus incapable of living in a pluralistic society. Where do you plan on moving?

            1. I will not knowingly initiate force. I am a self owner.

              Let the record show that I did not consent to be governed. I did not consent to any constitution. I did not consent to any president. I did not consent to any law. I did not consent to the police. Nor any tax. Nor any prohibition of anything. Nor any regulation or licensing of any kind.

              I do not consent.

              Define “the will of the people.” Your will is obviously not at all similar to mine. There are 300+ million DIFFERENT people who have “will” of their own that is not identical with yours.

              I’m not going anywhere.

              1. Proves me correct! Behold the authoritarian mind!!

                It’s only credible to authoritarians who reject “consent pf the governed” and “will of the people,” and are thus incapable of living in a pluralistic society.

                Let the record show that I did not consent to be governed

                Let the record show that you defend minority rule.

                Let’s consider your lack of moral principle. You belong to a club with 10 members.
                1) Six of them agree on … anything. You did not consent. How much weight does your position hold?

                2) Six of them decide to increase dues. You refuse to pay the higher dues, citing your lack of consent. They expel you. Are they within their rights?

                Now the dupicity!

                Define “the will of the people.”

                You ask that in public?

                Your will is obviously not at all similar to mine.

                I’m not the people.

                There are 300+ million DIFFERENT people who have “will” of their own that is not identical with yours.

                I’m not the people. Why do you claim MORE power than the aggregate will of those 300+ million?

                Where do you plan on moving?

                I’m not going anywhere

                Your choice. Learn to accept the consequences of your own action, like any responsible adult.

                Let the record show you are indeed authoritarian, have no idea what “will of the people” means, and admit it in public.

                1. You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

                  1. You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

                    You don’t even say what the word is.
                    Hint: do not bet me on that.

    3. Because they’re sooooooooo gooooooooood on civil liberties!

    4. Think of it this way: Obamacare is like the facehugger parasite in the Alien movies. Once it attaches itself to the victim, it is nearly impossible to remove without killing the victim as well. So once that happens, it’s only a matter of time before socialized medicine erupts from the shattered chest cavity of the American healthcare marketplace.

      1. Thank you for your colorful metaphor. You said, in three lines of text, all that’s wrong with healthcare.

  3. British Health Care.

    There. How about that conversation?

  4. It’s truly incredible that a government that has already proven it is inept at providing health care (the VA, Indian Affairs, etc) and it equally inept at handling insurance (Obamacare) is held out as the answer to BOTH issues.

    1. THIS. This is what I keep trying to tell people. If you have never worked at a medical office & had to navigate the impossible VA system to get a preauthorization to treat a patient, or attempted to be compliant with literally thousands of pages of Medicare regulations, or spent an hour on the phone with Medicaid trying to convince them that $142 + $322 doesn’t equal $560 even if their computer system says it does, then you have no idea what you are asking for when you advocate for single-payer.

      1. Amen! I retired early after 30 years of nursing. I loved the patient care, but was no longer allowed to do that… And it was even worse after I became a nursing supervisor.

      2. then you have no idea what you are asking for when you advocate for single-payer.

        This is why we lose. (If that’s our best shot)

  5. First thing we can do is to stop calling it single payer and instead call it taxpayers.

    1. Amen

    2. It’s especially stupid because only a tiny number of countries with very socialistic national health care systems actually have “single-payer.” “Single-payer” is a specific type of system, what Canada and the UK use.

      What’s he’s describing is in some ways closer to the French system, which isn’t single-payer.

      1. John, I can’t talk about Canada but I can talk about UK as I am a recent ex-Limey.

        The UK is not totally single payer; the NHS provides a level of service that s’free at the point of delivery’ i.e. paid from the NHS budget. But there is also ‘supplementary health insurance’ that is available from organizations such as BUPA which provide additional services and access to non-NHS facilities such as hospitals, doctors, and consultants. Primary us is to avoid NHS wait times, which can be long.

        Such ‘membership’ is available to the public and is often provided by companies to their employees as part of their remuneration package – I certainly had that benefit.

        I think I read that Canada does not allow this arrangement of supplementary coverage.

        1. Canada’s plans are independent in each Province of Territory.
          But I THINK they all added a private alternative, if only for long waiting lists. In 2005, Quebec’s plan was declared an unconstitutional threat to human life, because they banned a private alternative — which the Court said was constitutional — but NOT when the province cannot provide timely treatment. — citing Canadians dying in waiting lists of a year or more. One opinion said the waiting lists were an unconstitutional threat to human life. The specific case was a guy who needed a hip transplant, but could not get a specific date — only that it would be over a year.

          The court allowed a stay for nationwide. Under court pressure, the federal government reversed the deadly spending cuts from the late 90s, to reduce waiting times and add costly diagnostic equipment. (Their medicare is financed provincial and federal, like our Medicaid)

          The UK was even more barbaric. More recent (2013)

          The Keogh Report — like our Inspector Generals — found that thousands of patients died “needlessly” because of cost-cutting and unders5affing. Literally hundreds of deaths were rolled into empty rooms and abandoned. many were found dead in their own excrement, (shudder)

          Keogh Report (news)

      2. The French control their costs on the supply-side – not via demand-side rationing like UK/Canada. At core, they decide how many doctors they need, pay for their training, and then pay them a relatively fixed amount for the basic health system (vs the fee-for-service approach in the US).

        The end result is that the French have phenomenal coverage of primary care doctors – 1 for every 600 people there v 1 for every 3000 here; slightly fewer med/surg specialists than here – 1 for every 600 there v 1 for every 500 here – and overall a lot more doctors who earn less there.

        Don’t know whether that would work here – but you can bet med schools and doctors will hate it and oppose it.

        1. JFree – I’ve recited your second paragraph ad nauseum to anyone who brings up Obamacare, especially when they try to throw “well, it adds more competition to the market” into the mix. No one wants to talk about increasing the supply of people providing primary care. In basic economics, more supply equals lower price.

          Competition? Competition would allow for 1000 medical schools instead of the 140 or so we have here. In turn, we churn out more doctors and flood the market with em. The AMA isn’t dumb. Breaking up their monopoly on licensure hurts their wallets, bank accounts and beach houses. But no, we focus on the insurance side. Health Insurance ? Health Care

        2. Government in France is about 57% of GDP. In the US, it’s about 23% as it now stands. The French are insanely happy with their government, as shown by the national unanimity displayed in their recent election!

          1. Would Americans double their taxes to have single-payer … when we had a vastly superior health care network, including universal treatment, until FDR created our current system and LBJ destroyed universal treatment for the needy, for Medicaid with the HIGHEST uninsured rate in America.

  6. OK Jack, let’s try that. Let’s go ahead and have government hospitals and doctors, where anyone can walk in the door at any time and get free care of any kind.

    But just to be certain, let’s also liberate private health care from all government oversight while also being able to send the bill to the government. Their price competition will be kinda lame since the government will still pay for everything, but I bet dollars to donuts that there will still be competition, that doctors will still prefer to work the free market, that innovation will still come from the free market, and that free market hospitals and labs will still compete to get the best doctors and techs and staff.

    Then we can finally compare government quality to the free market. It won’t be a really fair comparison, because the government option will still have all that government quality control, and the market price competition will be a pale ghost of the real thing.

    Eh, whadya say? C’mon proggies, here’s your chance to prove markets suck.

  7. Just go full socialist so I can spend time with my family instead of working.

    1. You’ll have plenty of time together. Waiting all day in line for toilet paper.

      1. You’ll be able to use the currency for that purpose. It won’t be good for anything else.

        1. But only after its printed – the blank paper will have too much latent value prior to stamping it with the currency.

      2. I thought socialism brought an abundance of all products just not 23 choices for each.

  8. I know I sound like a broken record* but I want to remind advocates of “single-payer” that if Obama had gotten it through, Trump would now be making your health care decisions for you. And look at how the Congress handles the federal budget; fuck, they haven’t passed an actual budget in years. Do you really want the resources for health care going through that clusterfuck?

    *At least with the resurgence of interest in vinyl records, some of the millennials will understand what that means.

    1. This is maybe one of the best counterarguments I’ve heard – i.e. “just lie back and imagine President Pence decreeing that abortions and birth control will no longer be provided, and hospitals will no longer treat HIV with medication, but instead treat it with conversion therapy and end-of-life sacraments.”

      1. The state is always and every way benevolent.

      2. So trumped-up fear mongering?

        I mean, last time I heard, Medicare/Medicaid hadn’t done anything like that, so I’m kind of skeptical it’s a legitimate worry.

        1. Missed the point, you did.

          1. Possibly. Did you miss mine? That kind of argument only works if you’re relying on emotional thinking.

            It also increases skepticism in people that aren’t persuaded. So sure, it might work for some people. But for the rest, it’ll just entrench their positions.

            1. He would hypothetically be speaking to progressives, so emotional thinking would be right in their wheelhouse…

            2. He would hypothetically be speaking to progressives, so emotional thinking would be right in their wheelhouse…

            3. I was using a hyperbolic statement to illustrate a point. You decided to focus on the hyperbole and assert that hyperbole doesn’t convince people, while ignoring the actual point. So yes, I think I got your point, such as it was.

              Let me rephrase:

              Progressives are already outraged that the Republicans want to cut funding to Planned Parenthood. Is creating a situation in which cutting government funding to Planned Parenthood results in Planned Parenthood no longer existing preferable to the present situation?

              This is the problem with Single Payer that Progressive haven’t thought through all the way.

              1. They haven’t even begun to think it through. It’s a concept which hasn’t gotten beyond the visceral desire to have daddy make all candy free without consideration of the consequences.

              2. How about this?

                Congress cannot come to agreement on a budget.

                What happens to your health care?

                1. “What happens to your health care?”

                  Well, properly speaking, nothing happens to your healthcare. Because, so long as the government is in charge, none of it is yours. Any more than ‘your’ social security contributions are yours.

                  1. Well, properly speaking, nothing happens to your healthcare. Because, so long as the government is in charge, none of it is yours.

                    Try again, “Your health care” means health care FOR you. Not BY you.

        2. Medicare is broke with a robbed trust fund. It’s drug benefit has a clause that prohibits negotiation of drug prices.
          It is hard to even find a doctor to accept medicaid.
          Isn’t that enough reason to keep the feds as far away from your health as possible?

    2. Hey EES, as a prior generation vinyl person I can assure you that don’t have the same as issues that afflicted shellac 78s 🙂

  9. And it always ends the same way. Here’s the political and economic reasons why America won’t be converting to a single-payer health care system anytime soon.

    Aren’t you the optimist, Broheim.

  10. “I don’t think he’s actually advocating for single-payer health care at all. What he seems to be saying is that he’d be open to having the government play a larger role in paying for health care, while contracting services through existing insurance companies?in other words, adding even more cronyism to a health care system that’s already full of it.”

    If it’s done on the model of Medicare, it’s definitely single payer. Insurance companies in Medicare (excluding Medicare Advantage) are just claims processors. They don’t design or sell plans or manage any risk pools. They just take in the claims, decide which ones should get paid, how much, etc., and then disburse a check written against the US Treasury. We could have a system like Medicare Advantage for everyone where insurance companies actual sell plans and manage risk pools, and the federal government heavily subsidizes premiums. That’s roughly what they have in a number of European countries like France, Germany, and Switzerland. I don’t think that would technically be single payer.

    1. in other words, adding even more cronyism to a health care system that’s already full of it.”

      Worse than Cato’s wacky Medicare Vouchers?

  11. This is yet another one of those situations in which progressives lose sight of scale. Because Government X did something, therefore governments can do it.

    But countries that have national healthcare are a fraction of the size of the US. People who say “most developed countries have national healthcare” are ignoring that, for example, the EU does not have national healthcare. Britain has it. France has it. Germany has it. German taxpayers don’t contribute toward French healthcare, and vice-versa.

    But progressives don’t tend to see any stages in between “Monolithic US Federal Government” and “Somalian Anarchy.”

    Trouble being, as Boehm points out here, states usually have to have balanced budgets and, more importantly, can’t print money, so single-payer at the state level would be an E-ticket to becoming Greece or Puerto Rico.

    Thus, the way the Federal Government is structured vis-?-vis state governments prevents single payer from being in any way feasible, but I don’t expect progressives to see this any time soon.

    1. It’s my understanding that France doesn’t have it, but has a some kind of mix of public and private pay.

      1. I don’t think Germany has it either. The only countries as far as I known that have a real single payer system, in the sense that the government pays all claims, are Canada and Taiwan. The UK has a government-run system that pays all the claims for people in it (i.e. the NHS), but it sits next to a very sizable private system. Spain is somewhat like that from what I understand. France and Australia have a basic plan that covers everyone paid for out of taxes, but then private insurance (that nearly everyone buys) sits on top of it. The German and Swiss systems are not single payer at all. They have private insurance companies that are heavily regulated, and premiums are highly subsidized. They also let people buy more insurance than the statutory minimum.

        1. Thanks, that’s a pretty informative comment.

    2. Germany doesn’t have a single payer health care. They actually do have health insurance companies and mandatory health care participation. Health care premiums are taken directly out of the paycheck and last I remember everybody who has a job pays about 13% of their income to the health insurance, the employer also contributes. Most doctors take most insurances. Health insurances are just fairly strict about what they pay for any given procedure. Doctors in Germany have a good income, but not comparable to the US. On the other hand, medical procedures are much less expensive.

  12. (opposition increases to 75 percent when those polled are told the price tag for the system is $179 billion annually).

    I strongly suspect that would be on the low end.

    1. What I’m curious about is where the opposition number goes when you tell people the CA Legislature doesn’t want the benefits restricted only to legal citizens.

      1. the CA Legislature doesn’t want the benefits restricted only to legal citizens.

        Seems to me that we fought a Revolution against “taxation without representation.”

    2. Believe it or not I think that’s pretty close. If you look at any number of benchmarks, a reasonable estimate of annual cost of care per person across a broad demographic is $5000-$6000. That CA number is around $5700/citizen/year. So less per person if you include non-citizens.

      This would imply a nationwide single payer would cost around $1.8 trillion per year.

      Of course that’s with the rationing that deductibles and cost sharing impose. Once people fully grok that someone else is paying, who knows what happens to utilization.

      1. Of course that’s with the rationing that deductibles and cost sharing impose. Once people fully grok that someone else is paying, who knows what happens to utilization.

        I believe every single-payer system in the world blew through its initial estimates within a few short years because of just that.

        You’re going to have a lot of people in neighboring states moving to California if they’re sick, paying a high cost for medical care– have spotty coverage etc. If a significant chunk of your budget is going to your healthcare costs, it’s not unreasonable to assume a lot of people will be willing to put up with the disruption of moving– even taking a lower salary if they can get their healthcare 100% covered.

        1. Well single-payer in one state is really stupid, for those and other reasons. But stupid never stopped us in California before (see: Train, bullet).

          Speaking of, here’s a true story. A CA state legislator once tried to pass a bill requiring “shall issue” pet insurance in CA, similar to Obamacare’s provision where you can’t charge someone more merely because they have a costly disease. Your 12-yo. dog got cancer? No problem, go buy “insurance.”

          Anyway it didn’t pass. But you know what happened to that dimwitted legislator who sponsored it? We elected him Insurance Commissioner.

          1. Progressivism always fails up.

            1. Progressivism is responsible for most of the good things of the 20th century — the end of child labor, women’s suffrage, the 40-hr work week, overtime pay, civil rights, gay rights, and more.

              Nothing else even compares.

              1. margolin|5.12.17 @ 9:47PM|#
                “Progressivism is responsible for most of the good things of the 20th century (bullshit stuff)”

                Like making homelessness a universal problem?
                Idiot.

                1. Counting Sevo’s cyber-bullying and aggression, just on this page. #1
                  Or do your own page search

                  1. Michael Hihn|5.14.17 @ 9:09AM|#
                    “Counting Sevo’s cyber-bullying and aggression, just on this page. #1
                    Or do your own page search”

                    Yep, calling bullshit is bullying and aggression to our poor dementia victim.
                    Fuck off, Mike.
                    That’s NOT aggression, that’s a suggestion, you tired old shit.

        2. You could do something like “must have residency for the years” to discourage people moving in just to get treatment.

          But yeah, absent any sort of formal “state citizenship” out-of-state folks are going to be a problem.

          1. How are you going to enforce that? I’ve heard it’s both “racist” and “classist” to ask for an ID to merely vote- seems like it would be even harder to ask for ID in a medical emergency…

        3. People who are sick usually don’t have the financial resources, or the energy, to move somewhere just for health care.

          Moving is very expensive, and very taxing.

          1. margolin|5.12.17 @ 8:08PM|#
            “People who are sick usually don’t have the financial resources, or the energy, to move somewhere just for health care.
            Moving is very expensive, and very taxing.”

            Cheaper and less taxing than paying what medical care costs, but as a lefty twit, I’m sure you hope no one noticed that.

            1. Counting Sevo’s cyber-bullying and aggression, just on this page. #2

          2. Don’t worry about Sevo, they just like to blast newbies. Ignore the posts, and Sevo will slink away eventually.

            1. mortiscrum|5.13.17 @ 7:54AM|#
              “Don’t worry about Sevo, they just like to blast newbies. Ignore the posts, and Sevo will slink away eventually.”

              Mortiscrum, I call bullshit on new and old vermin.
              I can’t remember. Have you ever posting ANYTHING that isn’t a lefty lie?
              Oh, and fuck off.

              1. Haha, I love the “oh, and fuck off.” It’s like you have a quota to meet.

                1. mortiscrum|5.13.17 @ 10:37AM|#
                  “Haha, I love the “oh, and fuck off.” It’s like you have a quota to meet.”

                  You mean like the amount of lefty bullshit you sling?
                  Nope, just calling the bullshit as it shows up, and offering good suggestions:
                  Fuck off.

                  1. Counting Sevo’s cyber-bullying and aggression, just on this page. #16
                    (#2 of his SECOND round of assaults! EVERY post is personal insults and name-calling.)
                    Our own Berkeley snowflake has been TRIGGERED (gasp)
                    SICK?

                    You mean like the amount of lefty bullshit you sling?
                    Fuck off.

                    Slaps down mortiscrum for DARING to talk back to His Holiness.

                    1. Michael Hihn|5.14.17 @ 11:41PM|#
                      “Slaps down mortiscrum for DARING to talk back to His Holiness.”

                      Calls mortiscrum no bullshit just as I do your pathetic attempts at slinging same.

                    2. Counting Sevo’s cyber-bullying and aggression, just on this page. #27
                      (#1 of his THIRD round of assaults! EVERY post is personal insults and name-calling.)
                      Our own Berkeley snowflake has been TRIGGERED (gasp)
                      SICK?

                    3. Counting Sevo’s cyber-bullying and aggression, just on this page. #27
                      (#1 of his THIRD round of assaults! EVERY post is personal insults and name-calling.)
                      Our own Berkeley snowflake has been TRIGGERED (gasp)
                      SICK?

                    4. Counting Sevo’s cyber-bullying and aggression, just on this page. #27
                      (#1 of his THIRD round of assaults! EVERY post is personal insults and name-calling.)
                      Our own Berkeley snowflake has been TRIGGERED (gasp)
                      SICK?

              2. Counting Sevo’s cyber-bullying and aggression, just on this page. #3

              3. Counting Sevo’s cyber-bullying and aggression, just on this page. #15
                (#1 of his SECOND round of assaults! EVERY post is personal insults and name-calling.
                He comes here ONLY for bullying and verbal aggression.)
                SICK?

            2. Don’t worry about Sevo, they just like to blast newbies.

              Margolin is no newbie.

    3. Me too. From a quick Google search, average spending per person is about ten thousand dollars. At thirty nine million people, to could estimate California’s costs at $391,400,000,000. Which is more then double that figure.

      Gotta love poll questions that don’t give enough context!

      1. California could ration coverage significantly, acting as a governor on costs (Hey the system can only process *this* many sick people at a time!). I suspect that just like the NHS, whatever modest cost estimates they’ve come up with (as reasonable as they are) they’ll blow through them in a few years when the unintended consequences of free stuff percolates through the system.

      2. That $10K number is the NHE that includes out-of-pocket expenses. It’s closer to $6K given a diverse risk pool.

        1. Real per capita health costs are $10,700, according to the latest (March) data from the Altarum Institute.

  13. We’ll continue having the discussion about single-payer health care, I’m sure. But until progressives can solve the economic and political barriers that have sunk that idea, repeatedly, in the past decade, I’m not sure it will ever be more than a conversation.

    You can always offer something for nothing.

  14. Ten percent payroll tax increase? According to my last earnings statement, ten percent is about what my employer kicked in for my health insurance. I kicked in about three.

    So if my healthcare were covered by a payroll tax increase of ten percent and I didn’t have to buy insurance any more? That’d be a net boon for me.

    And seeing as, last time I checked, I was around the 80th percentile on gross income, that means for most Americans it’s probably be a bigger boon.

    So I think the “sticker shock” argument might be relying on people not checking their paystubs and doing the math.

    1. Umm…you think the difference won’t be taken out of your check and/or salary somehow? How do you figure?

      Do you also believe that excise taxes on gasoline don’t change the price?

      1. Ah, I see. You’re figuring that the percent you pay now will go away. See, it’s a ten percent increase over what it is now in the market (such as it is).

        Could be wrong there, but if it’s an increase over something else one assumes the baseline is still included.

        1. Yep. Currently I’ve got payroll taxes, income taxes, and health insurance premiums.

          In single payer, the premiums go away. The discussed proposal would have paid for this work a proposed payroll tax increase (on top of current payroll taxes) and income tax (on top of current income taxes).

          By my math, my employer-side premiums are about ten percent, and my income side are about three percent, totaling thirteen percent. Three discussed new taxes were 11 percent payroll and 9 percent income, totaling twenty percent (I forgot about the increase in income tax on my first pass).

          So it’d be swapping thirteen percent in premiums for twenty percent in new taxes.

          And like I said, if you’re lower income then me (like most Americans) then your premiums take up a larger chunk of your gross already, so it’s more favorable. For example, back when I was a student worker, something like thirty percent of my paycheck was going to premiums, not counting what my employee was paying. So back in 2008, this would have been a huge boon.

          1. If it’s a boon for most Americans then I’m pretty sure 10% is by definition too low and won’t cover costs.

          2. Did you count the large tax break (subsidy) you get for
            employer-sponsored health insurance — you don’t have to
            count it as income. Worth about $250 B/yr to employees….

            A subsidy we should get rid of, I’m sure you will agree.

            1. margolin|5.12.17 @ 9:56PM|#
              “Did you count the large tax break (subsidy) you get for employer-sponsored health insurance — you don’t have to count it as income. Worth about $250 B/yr to employees….
              A subsidy we should get rid of, I’m sure you will agree.”

              Oh, you’ll get agreement on that, but since you are a lefty twit, it’s odds-on you have no idea where that came from. Hint: It’s the government’s fault.
              After WWII, Truman, lefty econ ignoramus that he was, decided to keep wage and price controls in place, otherwise, he’d get blamed for the market adjusting prices to post war reality. So, in order to attract talent where they could offer no higher wages, companies added medical insurance.
              And, hey, presto, we got the disaster we’ve been dealing with every since, with low-watt bulbs like you suggesting we fix it by adding more government stupidity to the mix.
              Has anyone pointed out that you’re not real bright?

              1. Counting Sevo’s cyber-bullying and aggression, just on this page. #4

              2. Counting Sevo’s cyber-bullying and aggression, just on this page. #17
                (#3 of his SECOND round of assaults! EVERY post is personal insults and name-calling.)
                Our own Berkeley snowflake has been TRIGGERED (gasp)
                SICK?

                since you are a lefty twit … low-watt bulbs like you … Has anyone pointed out that you’re not real bright?

                He fucked up the story on Truman. It was FDR who exempted the benefit from his wage and price controls. IRS later added the tax exemption (smirk)

                1. Michael Hihn|5.14.17 @ 11:52PM|#
                  “He fucked up the story on Truman. It was FDR who exempted the benefit from his wage and price controls. IRS later added the tax exemption (smirk)”

                  (Laughing): You’re full of shit.
                  Let’s see your lies, asshole.

                  1. OK, let me allow Mike a true and irrelevant comment:
                    “It was FDR who exempted the benefit from his wage and price controls. IRS later added the tax exemption (smirk)”

                    Yes, and it was Truman who continued the exemption an wage controls after the war. (laughing like hell at the pathetic attempt at misdirection).
                    Fuck off, Mike.

                    1. Counting Sevo’s cyber-bullying and aggression, just on this page. #32
                      (#6 of his THIRD round of assaults! EVERY post is personal insults and name-calling.)
                      Our own Berkeley snowflake has been TRIGGERED (gasp) SICK?

                      Fuck off, Mike.

                      http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1689.html

                      “By the fall of 1946, most federal price controls had been lifted. “ (sneer)

                      “IF I SCREAM A LOT … AMD INSULT EVERYONE … I CAN CHANGE REALITY……… FOR I AM SEVO! ……. .. AND I AM PROUD OF MY AGGRESSION … IF ANYONE DARES OBJECT TO MY ALMIGHTY DIKTATS …, THEY SUFFER VICTIMHOOD,

                      I AM NOT AN AUTHORITARIAN, YOU SWINE
                      FUCK OFF

                  2. Counting Sevo’s cyber-bullying and aggression, just on this page. #28
                    (#2 of his THIRD round of assaults! EVERY post is personal insults and name-calling.)
                    Our own Berkeley snowflake has been TRIGGERED (gasp)
                    SICK?

                    (Laughing): You’re full of shit.
                    Let’s see your lies, asshole

                    His Holiness believes His word is Gospel.
                    So I call him out AGAIN as full of shit.
                    On top of FIVE refusals to name a single, viable free-market healthcare alternative.
                    Unmmm ….. put up or shut up. (sneer)

                2. And for pete’s sake Mike can’t even get his lies right:
                  “Section 213(6) of the Revenue Act of 1918 provided that benefits received from health insurance were not considered to the part of gross income for tax purposes”
                  https://economix.blogs.nytimes.

                  1. Counting Sevo’s cyber-bullying and aggression, just on this page. #28
                    (#2 of his THIRD round of assaults! EVERY post is personal insults and name-calling.)
                    Our own Berkeley snowflake has been TRIGGERED (gasp) SICK?

                    OMG OMG OMG HIS LINK ISN’T EVEN A WEB PAGE. BAAAAAHAAAAHAAAA
                    AND I SUCKERED HIM INTO ADMITTING HE WAS FULL OF SHIT THAT TRUMAN DID IT!

                    https://reason.com/blog/2017/05…..nt_6843676

                    SWEEEEEEEEEEEEET

                    http://www.history.com/this-da…..sed-in-u-s

                    “Less than 1% of the population paid the income tax at that time”

  15. As Maggie used to say: “sooner or later you run out of other people’s money”

    1. No — the USA is extremely wealthy. There is plenty of money — trillions — for a single-payer system.

      1. No, there really isn’t.

        1. Sure there is — our corporations are hardly taxed at all, and the wealthy can pay much more — they’re now paying much less than they did in the ’50s and ’60s.

          The US is an extremely wealthy country — easily wealthy enough to cover everyone in the country.

          1. “Sure there is — ”

            No, there ain’t.

            “our corporations are hardly taxed at all,”

            Wrong.

            “and the wealthy can pay much more — ”

            Wrong again.

            “they’re now paying much less than they did in the ’50s and ’60s.”

            Who cares?

            “The US is an extremely wealthy country — easily wealthy enough to cover everyone in the country.”

            The government is broke as a joke just from existing entitlements and debt service, running on borrowed, printed, and stolen money. We’re still paying for a global war since the turn of the century. The whole budget is already a house of cards.

            The kind of aggressive taxation and complete government takeover of the medical industry you seem to want would necessarily violate the rights of millions of innocent people, and destroy what’s left of the economy, ruining the lives of millions more.

            And it still wouldn’t work. But you don’t care about that at all.

            Fuck off, slaver.

          2. our corporations are hardly taxed at all

            You’ve already said a lot of stupid shit on here…but GODDAMN, is this ever stupid.

          3. margolin|5.12.17 @ 8:57PM|#
            “Sure there is — our corporations are hardly taxed at all,”

            “Corporate taxes” are paid for by the customers and dimwits like you have no understanding of the additional costs it adds to everything you buy.

            1. Counting Sevo’s cyber-bullying and aggression, just on this page. #5

      2. margolin|5.12.17 @ 8:00PM|#
        “No — the USA is extremely wealthy. There is plenty of money — trillions — for a single-payer system.”

        Trillions won’t begin to pay for idiots like you.

        1. Counting Sevo’s cyber-bullying and aggression, just on this page. #6

      3. the USA is extremely wealthy. There is plenty of money …

        Another dimwit that doesn’t know the difference between money and wealth. Go take a look at the Venezuela Money Supply as they have plenty of money.

  16. Single-payer will happen because there simply is no other choice, if the goal is to provide universal, affordable health care.

    1. Single-payer health care would be neither universal nor affordable. Rationing, long queues, and corruption would be inevitable. Other existing medical entitlement programs have already failed to control fraud and waste at every level.

      Government programs can’t summon medical resources out of thin air. It isn’t a viable choice at all. It’s a non-starter.

      I wanted to be polite about this, but considering the horror and misery I deal with on a regular basis because idiots like you have incrementally forced a broken system on us, you can take your bullshit propaganda and fuck straight off.

      1. Single-payer is affordable in all other OECD countries, and of higher quality than is health care in the US.

        What you fail to admit is that private insurance also has rationing and corrupting.

        Why you have this bias, I’m not sure.

        1. “I wanted to be polite about this, but considering the horror and misery I deal with on a regular basis because idiots like you have incrementally forced a broken system on us, you can take your bullshit propaganda and fuck straight off.”

          What part of this did you not understand, asshole?

          1. margolin is in deep denial. In most OECD countries, government makes up about 50% of GDP (57% in France, for instance) while in the US it’s about 23% of GDP. I think the top tax rate in Denmark is about 60% and that rate kicks in at and income level of $55,000. And how about those petrol taxes in Europe. Gasoline there costs twice as much as in the US, with all the difference accounted for by taxes. Yup, our economy will really boom with $5 and $6/gallon gasoline. Good luck!

            1. Johnimo|5.13.17 @ 12:07AM|#
              “margolin is in deep denial.”

              You’re too kind. That’s willful stupidity, not denial.

              1. Counting Sevo’s cyber-bullying and aggression, just on this page. #7

        2. Re: margolin,

          Single-payer is affordable in all other OECD countries, and of higher quality than is health care in the US.

          None of those things is true at all. Just because you think you get the service for “free”, doesn’t mean the overall cost is lower, especially if you take into account the taxes paid by each individual which, presumably, would pay for services that the individual would not use while he or she is healthy, and does so with no opt-out. You may say that for a person who suffers from cancer, the fact that he or she can receive life-saving treatment that is almost free is something that makes a single-payer system “affordable”, but you would be missing the fact that most people do not get cancer and that the cost to them is much higher than if the patient pays for his or her treatment him or herself.

          What you fail to admit is that private insurance also has rationing and corrupting.

          Leaving aside the strange admission, private insurance and health care are not the same thing. Rationing in single-payer systems is how governments hide the costs from the users.

          1. “…most people do not get cancer and that the cost to them is much higher than if the patient pays for his or her treatment him or herself.”

            Very few people have the resources to pay for cancer treatments themselves. Yes, it would be far less expensive to only treat cancer sufferers with the money to pay and let most of them die without treatment.

            1. Re: Vernon Depner,

              Very few people have the resources to pay for cancer treatments themselves.

              That may be so, but that does not mean people with cancer have a right to life-saving treatments, no matter how guilty you feel for being healthy.

              Emotional arguments are not valid, Vernon. Consider that there’s no economic reason for cancer treatments to be so unaffordable after all these years, except that the true cost is hidden from patients because of over-reliance on third-party payment services. Consider that 50 years ago, computers were hugely expensive and difficult to use, and today you probably havein your hands a computer 10000 more powerful and 10000 less expensive. The only reason why it is not the same with some medical treatments is because of government intrusion. Remove the intrusion and the cost should come down.

              1. “Emotional arguments are not valid, Vernon.”

                Uh, yes they are, because here in the real world citizens have emotions and act and vote on them. You have a nice theory, but unless we are willing to throw very sick people out of the hospitals to die for lack of funds, we can’t get there from here. That’s what it would take to impose free market medical care. No, no one has a right to treatment for serious illnesses, but we are going to give them treatment anyway. Because we’re emotional. That means we need an effective system for paying for medical care for everyone?if we don’t have an effective system, we’ll do it ineffectively. Yes, because of emotions, Mr. Spock. Americans are kind and generous people. Pretending that doesn’t matter when making policy is unrealistic.

                1. Vernon Depner|5.13.17 @ 7:21PM|#
                  “…You have a nice theory, but unless we are willing to throw very sick people out of the hospitals to die for lack of funds, we can’t get there from here. That’s what it would take to impose free market medical care.”

                  So you prefer they sit in the waiting room and die there?
                  Lefty twits never seem to have done any research at all.
                  Fuck off.

                  1. Counting Sevo’s cyber-bullying and aggression, just on this page. #8

            2. Vernon Depner|5.13.17 @ 12:49PM|#
              “Very few people have the resources to pay for cancer treatments themselves”

              Which is the reason folks with half a lick of intelligence buy insurance. If you choose not to buy insurance so you can buy the newest video game, I hope is saves you from cancer. Other than that, I don’t care; you made the choice.
              Vernon, I hope you bought insurance. If you haven’t, please die quickly.

              1. Counting Sevo’s cyber-bullying and aggression, just on this page. #9

        3. margolin|5.12.17 @ 9:43PM|#
          “Single-payer is affordable in all other OECD countries, and of higher quality than is health care in the US.”

          Posting lies absent evidence tends to make you look like an ignoramus.

          1. Counting Sevo’s cyber-bullying and aggression, just on this page. #10
            A Berkley snowflake?

        4. Single-payer is affordable in all other OECD countries, and of higher quality than is health care in the US.

          This would be funny if it wasn’t so sad there are people that believe this shit. I spent 6 weeks with my daughter in a 20 bed neurological ICU in Boston. They had a map on the wall with push pins for where all their patients came from. Of those 20 beds (never one empty) only 2 had US patients. There were 2 from Canada, 1 from the UK, a bunch from Europe, and a few from the far East and Middle East.

        5. The US has better quality care than any other country in the OECD. Stop thinking life expectancy measures the quality of a health care system. It’s more effected by car accidents and obesity than health care; if measured by actual procedure success rates, etc. the US exceeds the rest by a wide margin.

          And single payer would not be affordable; it would just shift the expense to tax payers or government borrowing. No one would have any incentive to keep costs down. Greece is the country you should look at as the model for such a system.

  17. The reason both sides of our vaunted political divide want single payer to seem inevitable (and therefore eventually established) is that it will be THE vehicle to a totalitarian society. Once the federal budget (debt) is completely tied to health care, then the suddenly catastrophic debt situation will establish an irrefutable logic for not just death panels, but for the federal government to control every aspect of our lives, at any age, that might have an effect on our personal health and hence the debt problem. This is why the ruling class of both parties salivates at the hope of single payer.

  18. The reason both sides of our vaunted political divide want single payer to seem inevitable (and therefore eventually established) is that it will be THE vehicle to a totalitarian society. Once the federal budget (debt) is completely tied to health care, then the suddenly catastrophic debt situation will establish an irrefutable logic for not just death panels, but for the federal government to control every aspect of our lives, at any age, that might have an effect on our personal health and hence the debt problem. This is why the ruling class of both parties salivates at the hope of single payer.

    1. Canada has single-payer. Where is their totalitarianism???

      (Think, please.)

      1. Tell me about Canada’s rights to free speech and self-defense. And never mind the waiting periods for things Americans take for granted. Yes, there are often waiting times. Long ones. Canadians come here because services are often easier to get.

      2. “Canada has single-payer. Where is their totalitarianism???”

        No, Canada doesn’t!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
        (know what you’re posting about before you do, bozo)
        “To that end, each of Canada’s 10 provinces and three territories finance and run a statewide health insurance program. There is no cost-sharing for the health care services guaranteed under federal law.”
        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk (you’ll have to search; it doesn’t auto-shrink)
        Canada has ten payers with no way to collect the data in one authority. It also has a minuscule population, but lefty dimwits promoting that model always ignore that, right?
        And then, it stinks:
        “‘Free’ Health Care in Canada Costs More Than It’s Worth”
        […]
        “If health care actually were free, the relatively poor performance of the health care system might not seem all that bad.
        http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/n…..33080.html
        Lefty twits ought to learn but never do. Tell us how great Venezuela is, lefty twit.

        1. Are you seriously using the Washington Post as a source? And the Huffington Post? Why not just cut straight to the Democratic Party web site?

          1. Longtobefree|5.13.17 @ 7:42AM|#
            “Are you seriously using the Washington Post as a source? And the Huffington Post? Why not just cut straight to the Democratic Party web site?”

            Yes, because they AR both lefty sites and they show the lefty position to be wrong.
            If I cited CATO, I’d be accused of cherry picking.

            1. They have 10 single-payer plans. (lol)

              1. Michael Hihn|5.14.17 @ 9:17AM|#
                “They have 10 single-payer plans. (lol)

                You have stupid (laughing)
                What a fucking pathetic POS.

                1. Counting Sevo’s cyber-bullying and aggression, just on this page. #18
                  (#3 of his SECOND round of assaults! EVERY post is personal insults and name-calling.)
                  Our own Berkeley snowflake has been TRIGGERED (gasp)
                  SICK?

                  “They have 10 single-payer plans. (lol)

                  You have stupid (laughing)
                  What a fucking pathetic POS.

                  Canada’s healthcare is a separate single-payer plan — as defined in this thread — one in each Province and Territory.

                  SEVO SAID SO HIMSELF! (OMG) here (sneer)

                  To that end, each of Canada’s 10 provinces and three territories finance and run a statewide health insurance program

                  That was his “reason” for saying that Canada does NOT have single-payer. (snort)

                  No, Canada doesn’t!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                  Here, cyber-bully is slapping me down for saying all 10 of those “statewide” (sic) plans are ….. tada … single payer!

                  Oh, yeah …

                  There is no cost-sharing for the health care services guaranteed under federal law

                  (LOL) Canada’s medicare is jointly financed, federal and Province/Territory, like our Medicaid.
                  Multiple fuckups by our Bellowing Blowhard!

                  1. Michael Hihn|5.15.17 @ 12:14AM|#
                    Counting Sevo’s cyber-bullying and aggression, just on this page. #18
                    (#3 of his SECOND round of assaults! EVERY post is personal insults and name-calling.)
                    Our own Berkeley snowflake has been TRIGGERED (gasp) SICK?”
                    Stopped counting Mike’s stupidity

                    “Canada’s healthcare is a separate single-payer plan — as defined in this thread — one in each Province and Territory.
                    SEVO SAID SO HIMSELF! (OMG) here (sneer)”
                    So Canada does not have a single payer? What a fucking imbecile.

                    “That was his “reason” for saying that Canada does NOT have single-payer. (snort)
                    No, Canada doesn’t!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
                    Mike, I have a hint. When the hole you’re digging is neck-deep, quit digging. But because I really do despise you as I do, I’ll be happy to give you a new shovel to keep digging.

                    “Here, cyber-bully is slapping me down for saying all 10 of those “statewide” (sic) plans are ….. tada … single payer!”
                    Here Mike admits “single payer” is…tada… ten-payer, and does so without the appropriate embarrassment. Pathetic.

                    Mike, you really are an embarrassment to those who post here.
                    Fuck off.

                    1. Counting Sevo’s cyber-bullying and aggression, just on this page. #29
                      (#3 of his THIRD round of assaults! EVERY post is personal insults and name-calling.)
                      Our own Berkeley snowflake has been TRIGGERED (gasp) SICK?

                      Fuck off.

                      Because he was humiliated here

                      And LIES about that post of mine!!!

        2. Counting Sevo’s cyber-bullying and aggression, just on this page. #11
          A Berkley snowflake?

        3. Canada has ten payers with no way to collect the data in one authority.

          (smirk) Their federal government tracks data for the entire count ty… just like ours does … and 99% of every country in the world. Here’s Canada’s

          http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/home-ac…..te-eng.php

          Further, the OECD collects highly detailed data on all its member countries, things like the percentage of mammograms. Have you ever heard of the OECD?

          It also has a minuscule population, but lefty dimwits promoting that model always ignore that, right?

          Umm, those fucking lefties are intelligent enough to know that international comparisons are tracked on a per capita basis. Do you know what that means?

          Sorry, but you’re not the first person on earth to figure our that not ever nation has the identical number of residents. You’re not even the fifteen millionth.

          I shall now batten down my hatches for the inevitable punishment, by a snowflake.

          1. OK, fucktard, I know your IQ is extremely limited, but since I’m a nice guy I’ll give this a try:

            Michael Hihn|5.14.17 @ 9:36AM|#
            Canada has ten payers with no way to collect the data in one authority.
            (smirk) Their federal government tracks data for the entire count ty… just like ours does … and 99% of every country in the world. Here’s Canada’s
            http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/home-ac…..te-eng.php”
            Yes you pathetic piece of shit, they have ways of “tracking” it, but no way of using that to control supply. The supply is controlled by the 13 local jurisdictions (laughing at the idiot who posted that bullshit)

            “Further, the OECD collects highly detailed data on all its member countries, things like the percentage of mammograms. Have you ever heard of the OECD?
            Goody. Irrelevant.
            Have you ever hear of stupid on a stick? That would be you. The champion of bullshit; here’s Mike.

            1. More for the imbecile Mike:
              “It also has a minuscule population, but lefty dimwits promoting that model always ignore that, right?”
              “Umm, those fucking lefties are intelligent enough to know that international comparisons are tracked on a per capita basis. Do you know what that means?”
              Umm, fucking ignoramuses like Mike can’t seem to recognize when their bullshit is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand.

              “Sorry, but you’re not the first person on earth to figure our that not ever nation has the identical number of residents. You’re not even the fifteen millionth.”
              Sorry, you’re not the first imbecile to miss the point. Try standing up next time. Maybe it’ll hit you in the head and knock some sense into you.
              But I doubt it.

              “I shall now batten down my hatches for the inevitable punishment, by a snowflake.”
              If you don’t like being called on your bullshit, you should bullshit less. Mike, consider assisted suicide; the world will be a better place when bullshit slime-bags like you are history.

              1. Counting Sevo’s cyber-bullying and aggression, just on this page. #20
                (#5 of his SECOND round of assaults! EVERY post is personal insults and name-calling.)
                Our own Berkeley snowflake has been TRIGGERED (gasp)
                SICK?

                the imbecile … fucking ignoramus … bullshit …. imbecile …t’ll hit you in the head and knock some sense into you.

                Now threatens physical assault. … as predicted! …

                “I shall now batten down my hatches for the inevitable punishment, by a snowflake.”

                If you don’t like being called on your bullshit, you should bullshit less. Mike, consider assisted suicide; the world will be a better place when bullshit slime-bags like you are history.

                Here’s his fuckup. The HYSTERICAL part is my bolding

                It also has a minuscule population, but lefty dimwits promoting that model always ignore that, right?

                He’s pissed … PISSED…. because the comparisons are …. PER CAPITA! … righty dimwit doesn’t even know that makes a “minuscule population” IRRELEVANT! (O … M …. G)

            2. Counting Sevo’s cyber-bullying and aggression, just on this page. #19
              (#4 of his SECOND round of assaults! EVERY post is personal insults and name-calling.)
              Our own Berkeley snowflake has been TRIGGERED (gasp)
              SICK?

              OK, fucktard … Yes you pathetic piece of shit … laughing at the idiot … stupid on a stick? …. The champion of bullshit;

              Plus THIS fuckup

              have ways of “tracking” it, but no way of using that to control supply. The supply is controlled by the 13 local jurisdictions (laughing at the idiot who posted that bullshit)

              Canada’s Supreme Court says Sevo is full of shit here, too. Canada had sharply reduced the federal share of funding, allowing Canadians to die on waiting lists of a year or more, because federal had …. reduced the supply!! (snicker)

      3. Oh it’s coming any day now, just like in Switzerland, Sweden, Netherlands, LOL!

      4. Canada has single-payer. Where is their totalitarianism???

        The fact is you don’t know anything about the Canadian health care system. I live fairly close to the border and have over the years had many Canadian friends. I can assure you most of them think their health care system is a disaster. In fact 2 of them died on waiting lists with conditions that if treated in the early stages were quite treatable.

        A few years back my wife was working for a Canadian company with US facilities on the border. She was 2nd in charge at the US facility (400 employees) and she often went up to the Canadian corporate offices for meetings. Then she had a major heart attack. When she got back to work a number of her Canadian colleagues commented that if she were Canadian ‘she would be dead’.

  19. The reason both sides of our vaunted political divide want single payer to seem inevitable (and therefore eventually established) is that it will be THE vehicle to a totalitarian society. Once the federal budget (debt) is completely tied to health care, then the suddenly catastrophic debt situation will establish an irrefutable logic for not just death panels, but for the federal government to control every aspect of our lives, at any age, that might have an effect on our personal health and hence the debt problem. This is why the ruling class of both parties salivates at the hope of single payer.

  20. The reason both sides of our vaunted political divide want single payer to seem inevitable (and therefore eventually established) is that it will be THE vehicle to a totalitarian society. Once the federal budget (debt) is completely tied to health care, then the suddenly catastrophic debt situation will establish an irrefutable logic for not just death panels, but for the federal government to control every aspect of our lives, at any age, that might have an effect on our personal health and hence the debt problem. This is why the ruling class of both parties salivates at the hope of single payer.

  21. The reason both sides of our vaunted political divide want single payer to seem inevitable (and therefore eventually established) is that it will be THE vehicle to a totalitarian society. Once the federal budget (debt) is completely tied to health care, then the suddenly catastrophic debt situation will establish an irrefutable logic for not just death panels, but for the federal government to control every aspect of our lives, at any age, that might have an effect on our personal health and hence the debt problem. This is why the ruling class of both parties salivates at the hope of single payer.

  22. The reason both sides of our vaunted political divide want single payer to seem inevitable (and therefore eventually established) is that it will be THE vehicle to a totalitarian society. Once the federal budget (debt) is completely tied to health care, then the suddenly catastrophic debt situation will establish an irrefutable logic for not just death panels, but for the federal government to control every aspect of our lives, at any age, that might have an effect on our personal health and hence the debt problem. This is why the ruling class of both parties salivates at the hope of single payer.

  23. The reason both sides of our vaunted political divide want single payer to seem inevitable (and therefore eventually established) is that it will be THE vehicle to a totalitarian society. Once the federal budget (debt) is completely tied to health care, then the suddenly catastrophic debt situation will establish an irrefutable logic for not just death panels, but for the federal government to control every aspect of our lives, at any age, that might have an effect on our personal health and hence the debt problem. This is why the ruling class of both parties salivates at the hope of single payer.

  24. The reason both sides of our vaunted political divide want single payer to seem inevitable (and therefore eventually established) is that it will be THE vehicle to a totalitarian society. Once the federal budget (debt) is completely tied to health care, then the suddenly catastrophic debt situation will establish an irrefutable logic for not just death panels, but for the federal government to control every aspect of our lives, at any age, that might have an effect on our personal health and hence the debt problem. This is why the ruling class of both parties salivates at the hope of single payer.

  25. The reason both sides of our vaunted political divide want single payer to seem inevitable (and therefore eventually established) is that it will be THE vehicle to a totalitarian society. Once the federal budget (debt) is completely tied to health care, then the suddenly catastrophic debt situation will establish an irrefutable logic for not just death panels, but for the federal government to control every aspect of our lives, at any age, that might have an effect on our personal health and hence the debt problem. This is why the ruling class of both parties salivates at the hope of single payer.

  26. The reason both sides of our vaunted political divide want single payer to seem inevitable (and therefore eventually established) is that it will be THE vehicle to a totalitarian society. Once the federal budget (debt) is completely tied to health care, then the suddenly catastrophic debt situation will establish an irrefutable logic for not just death panels, but for the federal government to control every aspect of our lives, at any age, that might have an effect on our personal health and hence the debt problem. This is why the ruling class of both parties salivates at the hope of single payer.

  27. The reason both sides of our vaunted political divide want single payer to seem inevitable (and therefore eventually established) is that it will be THE vehicle to a totalitarian society. Once the federal budget (debt) is completely tied to health care, then the suddenly catastrophic debt situation will establish an irrefutable logic for not just death panels, but for the federal government to control every aspect of our lives, at any age, that might have an effect on our personal health and hence the debt problem. This is why the ruling class of both parties salivates at the hope of single payer.

  28. The reason both sides of our vaunted political divide want single payer to seem inevitable (and therefore eventually established) is that it will be THE vehicle to a totalitarian society. Once the federal budget (debt) is completely tied to health care, then the suddenly catastrophic debt situation will establish an irrefutable logic for not just death panels, but for the federal government to control every aspect of our lives, at any age, that might have an effect on our personal health and hence the debt problem. This is why the ruling class of both parties salivates at the hope of single payer.

    1. What worries me is that the server squirrels seem to agree with you!

      What terrible secrets do they know?

      1. Seriously, though…it would probably only take a few lines of code to at least give people the opportunity to delete their own posts. You have a login system, you obviously are leveraging a user database. It’s just laziness, especially with a forum that YOU KNOW has repeat posting problems.

        1. My contributions to Reason have dropped from 4 figures to zero. It seems Welsh presumes Reason’s greatest efforts are his appearances on various TV shows and streaming them here on a barely functional web site. If so, the efforts are worth what they are getting from me.
          By comparison to FIRE or IJ or even CATO, Reason is accomplishing little, Welsh’s TV appearances considered.

          1. Nice to see you here again, I took a break for a bit. Thanks giving some bastards the replies they deserved. I hope things are working out for you.

            After all the things I’ve been through this year, the healthcare trolls in particular can go fuck themselves and die in a fire. Shit’s not even funny anymore.

            1. I got tired of Mike’s constant whine about victimhood and Tony’s sore-loser pouts among other issues (business, too). Hope things are better.

              1. Counting Sevo’s cyber-bullying and aggression, just on this page. #21
                (#5 of his SECOND round of assaults! EVERY post is personal insults and name-calling.)
                Our own Berkeley snowflake has been TRIGGERED (gasp)
                SICK?

                I got tired of Mike’s constant whine about victimhood

                Calling out a raging cyber-bully for repeated aggression (23 on this page alone) is … WHINING … and VICTIMHOOD. And if you DARE give him any backtalk …

                it’ll hit you in the head and knock some sense into you. … consider assisted suicide

                But he’s NOT a snowflake!

          2. If I had money to spare I’d definitely donate to FIRE.

          3. Sevo
            My contributions to Reason have dropped from 4 figures to zero.

            But 23 verbal assaults and screwups on this page alone!. In fairness, raging cyber-bullying is not a “contribution”

          4. Sevo
            My contributions to Reason have dropped from 4 figures to zero.

            But 23 verbal assaults and screwups on this page alone!. In fairness, raging cyber-bullying is not a “contribution”

        2. I’m kind of glad we don’t have that ability.

          Having a comments section with mostly hands-off moderation, on a political blog with a minority viewpoint, is already an invitation to trolls. Being able to edit or delete our own posts would enable all sorts of mischief.

          Not that everything I’ve ever posted here has raised the quality of discourse, but I kind of like this place. I suspect the gentle moderation wouldn’t last if trolls could game the comment system by Orwellian editing.

          1. Have you ever been the Bloody Elbow’s comment section? That’s the gold standard of comment sections in my book. Editing is possible, but only for 2 minutes after posting the comment. After that, it’s set in stone. The format also makes it incredibly easy to see who is replying to who. Here, once the thread goes 5 comments deep, it’s a mess.

            Incidentally, it’s a heavily moderated comment section, which wouldn’t work that well for political discussions, but the tech of it is ideal.

  29. What do you think progressives in the USA mean by single payer system that’s different from what Medicaid for all would be?

  30. opt out. Do not purchase health insurance until you can buy what you want that fits your needs exactly. Pay as you go. If disaster strikes, make payments to hospital and doctors. I will never buy until I can get the value for my dollar that I want. If we stick together, things will change.

  31. What is preventing single payer is American innumeracy. This makes it easy for the rich to prevent people from learning how it could work to their benefit (at least compared to the Byzantine ACA and AHCA). I’m convinced that a Swiss-type single payer system is the best alternative if we can’t have a free market system. I’m hopeful this will become obvious as ObamaCare or its replacement collapse.

    1. I’m convinced that a Swiss-type single payer system is the best alternative if we can’t have a free market system.

      Switzerland has a small culturally homogeneous population. I worked with a Swiss national for about 4 years. One of his hobbies, if you want to call it that, was to document the extent of “stuped” labels we had. One of his favorite was braille on drive through ATM’s. Anyway, we talked about heath care on numerous occasions. He said the Swiss system wouldn’t work here because of our legal system and cultural expectations. As an example he said if you went to the doctor for a cold the doctor would tell you to ‘get the fuck out of here’. IOW, they don’t allow some far away administrator get in the way of common sense decisions by the people actually delivering the service.

  32. “Or maybe Republicans will completely abandon their free market principles…”

    Where the hell have you been the last century?

  33. Dream on. The tribal libertarians will swallow it. Americans can only choose from available options, not theories, slogans and soundbites devoid of substance. Lady Liberty is now totally undefended by Team Red and Team Lib.

    Six months ago, who’d have thought that massive GOP fuckups would transform Obamacare from a sick loser to WAY more popular than what now passes for free market reforms. Pay attention snowflakes. The GOP has nothing — going all the way back to “shut down the government to defund Obamacare — with no alternative.”

    Far-right Republicans and libertarians have been taken over by anti-government goobers, who have nothing except snarling “git gummint out of it. Repeal don’t replace!” — which is the opposite of free-market outcomes, when we had one.

    In a free market, we did have universal …. treatment. Until LBJ, everyone could get treatment, for anything, from thousands of Charity Hospitals across America, which Americans had always been willing to pay for.

    Americans are willing to pay for universal coverage — but only progressives CLAIM to seek it. Individual components are favored by a large majority of Americans — coverage for conditions and the indigent, because American, and because charity.

    REAL libertarians support Transition and Restoration, not the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of Repeal.

    Cont’d

    1. Fuck it, I’m going to bed.

      I’m getting too old for this shit.

      1. I’m 75 and not senile. (Some will disagree)

        1. Michael Hihn|5.13.17 @ 4:39AM|#
          “I’m 75 and not senile. (Some will disagree)”

          Perhaps senility isn’t the issue. Maybe stupidity will suffice, you pathetic piece of shit.

          1. Counting Sevo’s cyber-bullying and aggression, just on this page. #30
            (#4 of his THIRD round of assaults! EVERY post is personal insults and name-calling.)
            Our own Berkeley snowflake has been TRIGGERED (gasp) SICK?

            senility … stupidity … you pathetic piece of shit.

            (yawn)

    2. When did “charity hospitals” provide universal, free healthcare to all Americans (women, minorities)? In the 1800’s? In the 1950’s? There was “free market” in the Jim Crow era?

      Let’s forget for the moment that “back in the day” America had something like 150 million people, medicare wasn’t always a thing, and many things that eats up entitlement spending were less or didn’t exist.

      You’re saying charity hospitals can just pop up now and solve our healthcare dilemma? They’ll provide quality care to MILLIONS of Americans, despite rising costs and inability for many to pay?

      Oh, but Americans will pay for it, you say. How much? A 10% “charity hospital tax” for all income earners? 5 dollars for a gallon of gas?

      Some charity hospitals might not accept medicaid patients or refuse to perform abortions to save cost or out of religious objections. But surely the government will just let them be – because they were so accommodating to charter schools, Uber, Lyft, and other alternatives to existing models. They won’t micromanage any aspect of charity hospitals in the interest of “fairness” or “diversity”. No sir.

      You’re kinda like Trump in that you think saying ideas aloud is better than making an argument for it, and you denounce the opposition as phonies. At the end of the day, it’ll be the government who will shut down your half baked ideas. And none of your precious hospitals will be able to thrive with the ACA still intact. So you’re yelling at the wrong people.

      1. When did “charity hospitals” provide universal, free healthcare to all Americans (women, minorities)

        Umm. only the needy. Since the 1500s.

        Take a wild guess of how much they knew about healthcare in the mid 1800s. What procedures were available? Third-party health care was largely unknown. It was mostly herbs and other “home remedies,” not a lot different than Old Testament days.

        Charity healthcare came FIRST — provided by the fraternal lodges in the 1500s, much like Rotary and Kiwanis support it today. It was mostly for people living alone or otherwise neglected. As healthcare demands grew, lodges ? who were already involved — added “membership coverage” for members, akin to HMOs. My father described paying weekly dues every payday to his German-Saxon lodge. Ethnic lodges were then quite common, because of so many 1st and 2nd generation immigrants. And Charity Hospitals evolved, run by churches, financed by the collection plate, plus a better destination for the lodges.

        I’m an atheist, but I know a church would never turn away anyone … which is why you’ve already lost.

        There was no health “insurance” until FDR created the need for it. NO existing sponsors were employer-based, mostly ethnic, so FDR’s employer-paid gimmick saw existing insurance companies add health.

        Cont’d

        1. At that point, the lodges/churches served the needy and/or elderly. Universal treatment. Then LBJ fucked that up. Healthcare wasn’t a RIGHT. Now it’s a RIGHT (Medicaid and CHIP) and THEY (the eligibles) have the HIGHEST uninsured rate. More of THEM die uninsured than any other group. Here’s a snapshot, not complete but easy to grasp.

          So we had universal treatment, not coverage, until Medicaid.

          There was “free market” in the Jim Crow era?

          More than now. Even in slavery. (gasp)

          Let’s forget for the moment that “back in the day” America had something like 150 million people, medicare wasn’t always a thing, and many things that eats up entitlement spending were less or didn’t exist.

          You just reversed yourself, admitting my point. Population size is meaningless.

          You’re saying charity hospitals can just pop up now and solve our healthcare dilemma?

          (laughing) You keep shooting yourself in the foot.
          The entire infrastructure needs to be rebuilt, which is WHY I attacked the “repeal don’t replace” assholes. It would require a phased transition, with the dollars transitioned back back, at whatever pace the rebuilding could proceed.

          They’ll provide quality care to MILLIONS of Americans, despite rising costs and inability for many to pay?

          They did before.

          Cont’d

          1. Part 3

            Oh, but Americans will pay for it, you say. How much? A 10% “charity hospital tax” for all income earners? 5 dollars for a gallon of gas?

            Umm, charity is not tax funded.

            Some charity hospitals might not accept medicaid patients

            THEY DON’T NOW. THEY DID THEN.

            They won’t micromanage any aspect of charity hospitals in the interest of “fairness” or “diversity”. No sir.

            Ummm, private charity.

            You’re kinda like Trump in that you think saying ideas aloud is better than making an argument for it,

            When I was asked, I kicked your ass.

            and you denounce the opposition as phonies.

            I’m sure you mean well.

            At the end of the day, it’ll be the government who will shut down your half baked ideas.

            If so, and the needless deaths continue, I’ll blame Republicans (as a group) and the libertarian establishment (Cato\ReasonOnline\Mercatus) You missed THAT too.

            And none of your precious hospitals will be able to thrive with the ACA still intact. So you’re yelling at the wrong people.

            STRIKE THREE YOU’RE OUT!!!
            I’M YELLING AT YOU BECAUSE YOU’VE EARNED IT.

            REAL libertarians support Transition and Restoration, not the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of Repeal.

            Any questions?

            1. Let’s shorten your long ass argument, because brevity (and ability articulate anything coherently) isn’t your strong point.

              “Something worked in the 1500 so it can work in the current regulatory state”.

              You’e not “out”, because you weren’t fit to step up to the plate. And after hearing your ridiculous “there was free market even in slavery” no one should ever take you seriously. The fact that slave owners may have observed market rules in selling and taking care of human products does not mean there was free market in that era.

              And who’s being contradictory? You say private hospitals treated only the elderly and the needy, but you call that “universal”. And church ran hospitals “turn away” any number of patients seeking certain treatment. Some Catholic hospitals won’t perform abortions.

              What private entity in this country can operate with zero government oversight and social engineering? Uber and Charter Schools are only given some leeway because they operate their business in a certain way.

              Private solutions are a product of a free market. They’re not solutions in and of itself. The notion that privately funded hospitals can be the primary provider of “universal” care – in this time of skyrocketing healthcare cost – is pure fantasy. The government spends billions on PUBLIC healthcare to treat people who pay ZERO in income tax.

              Did your dad’s “German fraternity” employ dozens of administrators who might earn 40 thou a year and get benefits? Different times, Mike.

              1. XM,
                Good.
                Mike thinks (and I use that term loosely):
                1) Bloviating = thoughtful discourse.
                2) His “solutions” have never been offered before, since Mike doesn’t bother to read anything other than his long-winded crap.
                Suffice to say, Mike is a self-important, if harmless, nincompoop.

                1. Boldface as self-defense from aggression … by a proven clueless ? now a psycho liar
                  (Sevo, of course, supports the lies and bullshit. Because aggression. So this ridicule applies to him ? by his choice,)

                  brevity (and ability articulate anything coherently) isn’t your strong point.

                  You had a MASSIVE amount of stupidity to correct.
                  (laughing hysterically) You STILL think I’m defending ACA. (OMG)
                  And now a fucking liar, distorting and lying about everything I said.
                  LET’S COUNT THE BULLSHIT.

                  here was “free market” in the Jim Crow era?

                  More than now. Even in slavery. (gasp)

                  And after hearing your ridiculous “there was free market even in slavery” no one should ever take you seriously.

                  BULLSHIT #1. LIAR denies the market was freer in the late 1800s than now. I said the “free market” was moreso … which means freer than now, chump

                  The fact that slave owners may have observed market rules in selling and taking care of human products does not mean there was free market in that era.

                  BULLSHIT #2 Claims slaves were the ONLY MARKET in the 1800s! Like a proggie!!
                  NO MARKETS IN REAL ESTATE, CLOTHING, CROPS, ANIMALS, WAGONS or ANYTHING other than slavery…(lol)

                  Cont’d. (LOTS of bullshit to correct)

                  1. Part 2 (cont’d bullshit correction

                    When did “charity hospitals” provide universal, free healthcare to all Americans (women, minorities)

                    Umm. only the needy. Since the 1500s.

                    And who’s being contradictory? You say private hospitals treated only the elderly and the needy, but you call that “universal”

                    BULLSHIT #3. NOW HE LIES ABOUT HIS OWN QUESTION (omg)
                    You asked about “free” … I used boldface to remind you ? but it was free for “only the needy”

                    And church ran hospitals “turn away” any number of patients seeking certain treatment. Some Catholic hospitals won’t perform abortions.

                    BULLSHIT #4 I DID NOT SAY ALL CHARITY HOSPITALS. (I’ll ask readers to excuse SOME of his ignorance, because he’s just a kid who didn’t live with it — which compounds his hate-spewing, cyber-bullying and aggression)
                    You ADMIT it’s not all Catholic hospitals, so you shot yourself in the foot again.
                    You may be confused because (for the most part) ONLY Catholic ones had “Charity” in their name. I was born in “Lutheran Hospital” which was a charity hospital without saying so. Protestant denominations did not have “charity” in their name, else some assume they treated only their own denomination.

                    Cont’d

                    1. Part 3 (cont’d bullshit correction)

                      What private entity in this country can operate with zero government oversight and social engineering?

                      I ‘m not surprised that anti-gummint gomer believes “gummint” would forbid charity hospitals from saving human lives. Because gummint.

                      Private solutions are a product of a free market. They’re not solutions in and of itself.

                      Why do you say some government will always be needed???

                      The notion that privately funded hospitals can be the primary provider of “universal” care – in this time of skyrocketing healthcare cost – is pure fantasy.

                      Why do you say that government must ALWAYS be involved in healthcare?

                      The government spends billions on PUBLIC healthcare to treat people who pay ZERO in income tax.

                      Relevance???

                      Did your dad’s “German fraternity” employ dozens of administrators who might earn 40 thou a year and get benefits? Different times, Mike.

                      NOW he says private hospitals cannot exist (for charity, the only topic here) because of how the system works without them????
                      This COULD be related to his daffy notion that ACA must always exist.
                      But MY argument is that Dad stood in line every payday, to pay his dues to ? a volunteer (gasp)

                      Cont’d

                    2. Part 4

                      Here’s why you shoulda asked, instead attacking and being an even bigger fool.f. (still self-defense from aggression)
                      Yes, times have changed. The 21st century version of lodges is Co-Op HMOs. I was a member for 12 years, Doctors are salaried employees of their patients. They run their own hospitals and pharmacy, thus ? wait for it ,? NO REIMBURSEMENT OVERHEAD. Cheaper than single-payer could ever be, direct control of patients ? and consumer choice (a lower-price competitor). But it was killed by Republicans

                      I’ve explained why you never heard of this. The libertarian establishment now hates gummint and no longer loves liberty ? so they don’t even look for solutions, and have none.

                      That was included in Obamacare, approved by Obama as an alternative to single-payer, if it would gain GOP votes. (He had campaigned as a centrist on health care, attacking mandates. See Gary Johnson’s great ad attacking Obama for moving from center to left).
                      Republicans refused the deal ? to hurt Obama ? thus pissing away their chance to kill single-payer forever. And by forcing Obama to seek votes from his far left ? Obamacare was created by Republicans, who REFUSED bipartisan efforts (like Kennedy’s tax cuts — copied identically by Reagan later – which were STRONGLY opposed by AFL-CIO and his own far left in Congress. “Tax cuts for the rich!” Kennedy didn’t need his left. Republicans were still sane.)

                  2. Michael Hihn|5.14.17 @ 8:35AM|#
                    “Boldface as self-defense from aggression … ”

                    Boldface as proof of stupidity.
                    Mike, if calling you on your bullshit is ‘aggression’, you must have a constant stream of it. You never post here without long (LOOOOOOOOONG) streams of bullshit with perhaps a chunk of obvious buried in it someplace.
                    Did you mommy tell you that you were clever? She lied.

                    1. Counting Sevo’s cyber-bullying and aggression, just on this page. #22
                      (#6 of his SECOND round of assaults! EVERY post is personal insults and name-calling.)
                      Our own Berkeley snowflake has been TRIGGERED (gasp)
                      SICK?

                      proof of stupidity … your bullshit … bullshit … Did you mommy tell you that you were clever? She lied.

                2. SEVO: His “solutions” have never been offered before, since Mike doesn’t bother to read anything other than his long-winded crap.

                  You’ve had TWO acts of aggression, but STILL never named any “solutions,” And we all know why (lol)

                3. Counting Sevo’s cyber-bullying and aggression, just on this page. #12
                  A Berkley snowflake?

                  1. Michael Hihn|5.14.17 @ 9:18AM|#
                    “Counting Sevo’s cyber-bullying and aggression, just on this page. #12
                    A Berkley snowflake?”

                    Poor, poor Mike. All his bullshit gets constant criticism. Always a victim! What a horrible way to live!
                    Dunno where you are Mike, but some states allow assisted suicide; given your pitiful existence it might be worth some thought.
                    Or perhaps you might try bullshitting less.

                    1. Counting Sevo’s cyber-bullying and aggression, just on this page. #23
                      (#7 of his SECOND round of assaults! EVERY post is personal insults and name-calling.)
                      Our own Berkeley snowflake has been TRIGGERED (gasp)
                      SICK?

                      .bullshit … some states allow assisted suicide; given your pitiful existence it might be worth some thought.

                      23 attacks and insults. NOTHING ELSE. On a single page

  34. Part two ?. Of reality

    Most shameful, libertarians have no way of doing it better, and a few ways are downright stupid — like Cato’s Medicare vouchers, to increase competition … in the wrong market! Insurance is not health care, dumbasses!!! The goobers see it as “privatization,” but insurance companies would add a costly (and useless) middleman. Do the math.

    We fucked up last year’s election, the spectacle of two executives running on no platform, not a single solution to any of the crises destroying our economy. Thank you libertarian establishment (Cato/Reason/Mercatus ? now as bureaucratic as gummint.)

    Thank you anti-gummint libertarians for shouting down pro-liberty SOLUTIONS in the late 80s. Eric Hoffer’s “The True Believers” showed how all mass movements collapse into zealots and fanatics … True Believers .. all united by hatred, of something. Today, voters are ready for radical change and we have nothing but vapid free-market slogans. We’ve had nothing for decades except, “git gummint out.” And “NO.” Destroyers, not creators.

    So Cato reports that 91% of libertarians refuse to call themselves libertarian. Even our own libertarian majority is ashamed of Tribe Lib.

    Libertarian policies could fix what’s wrong with America. If we had any. Libertarian politics don’t exist either.

    Katherine Mangu-Ward: “Ron Paul is great on principle, but terrible at politics.” He’s not the only one.

  35. 1. When it comes to a “total takeover” of health care by government, “I’m just not there,” she said.

    Well, then, what part of health care is NOT taken over by government? The benefits of an insurance policy are mandated. The “free” services are mandated. The purchase of health care insurance is mandated. What treatment you can receive is seriously constrained by what the law allows to be covered. And all that jazz. There are less than 1% of medical services available free of government control; those provided for full cash payment to providers who will not accept any insurance or government reimbursements.
    2. According to emperor Hussein II, we had a full and frank debate of health care and health care insurance on C-Span before the ACA was fully debated in the legislature. It was determined we could keep our doctors, keep our coverage, and premium costs would go down $2,500.00 each. How did you miss that?

    1. But despite all that, fiscal conservatives — both GOP and libertarian — have absolutely no alternative. (no better way than THIS!) It’s kinda hard to prevail from a vacuum. Obamacare won by default — after Republicans REFUSED a deal that would have likely made single-payer obsolete, which then forced Obama to go to his own far left (Rockefeller Democrats) for the votes, So the GOP caused much of the Obamacare structure.

      So they fucked that up. They’re fucking up now … which has turned Obamacare into a high approval plan, based on no real alternatives. So Republicans, who could have killed single payer, are now on track to have caused its creation.

      So how is Emperor Trump any better? All HIS promises are already shit-canned. Taking sides in this political climate is not possible for a growing majority of Americans. Left minus Right still equals Zero.

      1. Michael Hihn|5.13.17 @ 8:14AM|#
        “But despite all that, fiscal conservatives — both GOP and libertarian — have absolutely no alternative.”

        But here we have demented old Mikey to lead us to the true light.
        What a tired piece of shit.

        1. More aggression by our Senior cyber-bully …. TWO acts of aggression here, (so far) but STILL never named any “solutions,” And we all know why (lol)

        2. (separately) Counting Sevo’s cyber-bullying and aggression, just on this page. #13
          A Berkley snowflake?

          1. (separately) Counting Mike’s stupidity, just on this page. Too much to count.

            1. Counting Sevo’s cyber-bullying and aggression, just on this page. #24
              (#8 of his SECOND round of assaults! EVERY post is personal insults and name-calling.)
              Our own Berkeley snowflake has been TRIGGERED (gasp)
              SICK?

              TWO acts of aggression here, (so far) but STILL never named any “solutions,” And we all know why (lol)

              Counting Mike’s stupidity, just on this page. Too much to count.

              STILL NO “SOLUTIONS” (sneer)

  36. With Trump’s election, single payer has become the only possible outcome. Nobody is advocating a serious free market alternative.

    Baby boomers set the tone. They demand free healthcare. Millennials as always will follow the boomers lead, although they will end up paying.

    In the short term the costs will just be added to the national debt. Anything becomes a rounding error in 20 to 200 trillion.

    1. Nobody is advocating a serious free market alternative.

      There’s nothing to advocate. Despite how many tens of millions of dollars “invested” in a useless libertarian establishment.

      The largest problem, by far, is Medicare. Can anything be wackier than the Cato/Ryan Medicare Vouchers?
      Republicans could have ended single-payer forever, but REFUSED the deal that was in the early Obamacare.

      Back when the party still had a brain (and a soul) they worked with moderate Democrats to pass Kennedy’s tax cuts. which were identical to Reagan’s later cuts and strongly opposed by the AFL-CIO and Kennedy’s own far-left in the House and Senate. So it was Republicans who gave the power to the Rockefeller Democrats (far-left). The Stupid Party.

      They demand free healthcare

      Which is it, free health care or the lack of a free-market alternative?

  37. To be fair, Vermont’s tab was unacceptable because it duplicated the private insurance bill rather than replaced it.

    1. Bubba Jones|5.13.17 @ 6:36PM|#
      “To be fair, Vermont’s tab was unacceptable because it duplicated the private insurance bill rather than replaced it.”

      So there was more than enough of YOUR money to pay for everyone who has sniffles?
      To be fair, you’re not real bright.

      1. Counting Sevo’s cyber-bullying and aggression, just on this page. #14
        A Berkley snowflake?

        1. Michael Hihn|5.14.17 @ 9:20AM|#
          “Counting Sevo’s cyber-bullying and aggression, just on this page. #14
          A Berkley snowflake?”

          Counting mike’s stupidity? Oh, ‘way beyond count on this page alone.
          Did you show your page prints to the Koch brothers? Did they laugh at you? Or were they too polite and waited until you left?

          1. Counting Sevo’s cyber-bullying and aggression, just on this page. #25
            (#9 of his SECOND round of assaults! EVERY post is personal insults and name-calling.)
            Our own Berkeley snowflake has been TRIGGERED (gasp)
            SICK?

            mike’s stupidity?

            25th aggression on this page alone,

  38. Wonderful. Medicaid. The very program shown to have zero net effect on heath care outcomes for us all. Of course we still get to spend the money, which is the whole point.

    1. The zero net effect was based on a major fallacy. It’s a bit complicated.

      Before Obamacare, 1/4 of all our uninsured were eligible for Medicaid and CHIP (children) but never enrolled. Medicaid pays 25-40% less than even Medicare, thus a much higher doctor refusal rate. The uninsured rate was higher in Medicaid eligibles than in the private market! So Obamacare significantly increased the number of eligible people, with no increase in doctors who could afford to treat patients for as little as $17 per patient. So Obamacare had a con job to hide the uninsured.

      The original idea was to automatically enroll all the eligibles … VOILA! no more unenrolled! But that would be impossible, just to identify all the eligibles. So Obamacare automatically enrolls everyone who shows up for the mandated free Emergency Room care. So the Medicaid increase is bullshit, because we have no idea how many were auto-enrolled, and actually have a doctor, But we can be certain that the vast majority of increased enrollment have no physician — and they are included in the zero net impact. (I did say complicated!)

  39. It may be a disaster for the federal government, and a painful ordeal for the public, and take ten years, but it’s a done deal. Why? Because the government is never wrong.

    1. Why? Because the government is never wrong.

      Much bigger cause, there is NO credible free-market alternative.

      1. “Much bigger cause, there is NO credible free-market alternative.”

        Mike said this. You know, the guy who is constantly the victim of being called on his bullshit.
        So we know it’s true. His mommy said he was smart, you know.

        1. Counting Sevo’s cyber-bullying and aggression, just on this page. #25
          (#9 of his SECOND round of assaults! EVERY post is personal insults and name-calling.)
          Our own Berkeley snowflake has been TRIGGERED (gasp)
          SICK?

          there is NO credible free-market alternative

          the victim of being called on his bullshit.

          Keeps saying there ARE credible free-market alternatives.
          REFUSED four demands to name a single one. (Now 5)
          PUNISHES me for calling out His Holiness
          PUT UP OR SHUT UP, snowflake. (smirk)

  40. “Now threatens physical assault. … as predicted! …”

    Poor, poor Mike. Victim of the world!
    Do you think anyone reading my comments and your (cherry-picked) bullshit would find any threat to you at all?
    When the world says you’re full of shit and you stand alone claiming you’re the only source of the true direction, don’t you think there’s more than a bit of megalomania involved?
    I’m sure you are somehow isolated from the rest of humanity who (laughs) at you on a constant basis until you end up here or other sites where you try to garner sympathy for being called on your bullshit.
    Victimhood is a pathetic desire for those who have some claim to responsibility for their actions; you are beyond that.
    Fuck off, you sorry piece of shit.

    1. MOAR BULLYING!

      Counting Sevo’s cyber-bullying and aggression, just on this page. #32
      (#6 of his THIRD round of assaults! EVERY post is personal insults and name-calling.)
      Our own Berkeley snowflake has been TRIGGERED (gasp) SICK?

      bullshit …you’re full of shit …megalomania …isolated from the rest of humanity .. bullshit … Fuck off, you sorry piece of shit.

      INSISTS on proving me right! (out-of-control hatred)

      Called out as a liar, still waiting for a single example of a credible healthcare solution.
      SIX REFUSALS. PUT UP OR SHUT UP. (sneer)

  41. Hmmmm, medicare is 65% short of the money needed to pay promised benefits. The single payer system for Seniors.

    VA is allowing people to die waiting for treatment while bureaucrats cover it up so they get their bonuses, single payer for Veterans

    With the track record of government it is absolutely incredible anyone wants government to be more involved.

    1. Maybe if somebody offered a credible alternative?

  42. I’ve always been surprised that corporations haven’t been for single payer all along since its the last foothold that Unions have over employers

  43. gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!

    ====== http://www.Prowage20.Com

  44. Okay, just so I understand this. The CEO of a Yuge insurer that got in bed with with Obama on the ACA, which was a partial takeover of medical care, which ended up being a huge disaster and fleeced the taxpayers of trillions, now wants us to let the same federal government and presumably the same insurers execute a COMPLETE takeover of health care.

    Is that about right?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.