Can you explain what 'single payer' means to those of us who don't live in the US please?

Universal health care. Socialized medicine. National health. Emphasis on long term health outcomes. Not for profit health care. Nationalized health care. Health insurance companies kicked out of the game. Big pharma put on a leash by aggressively negotiating what the national program will pay, as does Canada.

Sorry but that doesn't answer my question. Why is it called 'single payer'?

The government is the single payer for health care entities as opposed to for profit insurance companies or retail customers. It's just another way of saying nationalized medicine. In truth, universal health care is probably used more than single payer. They mean the same thing. The intention is to avoid saying things that excite American socialism-phobia such as socialized medicine or nationalized health care. But it's the same concept.

To put it another way...Single payer would mean the US government would control 1/6th of the US economy through health care, much as they did with the US Postal service during it's earlier days.

The US postal service has been a resounding success, as we all know.

Universal health care. Socialized medicine. National health. Emphasis on long term health outcomes. Not for profit health care. Nationalized health care. Health insurance companies kicked out of the game. Big pharma put on a leash by aggressively negotiating what the national program will pay, as does Canada.

BTW, the record is clear that Obama was openly for single payer during his first campaign. However when he actually started his drive to reform health care access, even the DISCUSSION of that most sensible solution which was also supported by the American Medical Association was taken off the table. It was a political/lobbying/economic decision. The powers that be concluded they couldn't get anything at all passed without throwing more money at the health insurance lobby (Obamacare greatly expands their customer base), big pharma, and the big corpses corporations that own hospitals, etc.

I don't recall Obama being in favor of single-payer during the 2008 campaign. Are you sure about that?

You're right. He backed off from that in the 2008 campaign:

Interestingly he made a distinction between single payer and universal which I really don't believe exists in the minds of most liberal health care reform advocates.

He was previously for it:

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program.” (applause) “I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”

http://www.pnhp.org/...ama_on_sing.php

So, is this flip flop about single payer anything like Obama being for same sex marriages before he was against same sex marriages before he was for same sex marriages?

So, is this flip flop about single payer anything like Obama being for same sex marriages before he was against same sex marriages before he was for same sex marriages?

Romnesia isn't only for republicans.

Obama's core base knows Obama has been pro gay civil rights always and pro single payer always. He made compromises when he had to for political reasons or at least FELT he had to. Whether he should have caved so totally on single payer is debatable. If he had at least allowed it to be discussed the end result of Obamacare may have been better, but on the other hand it may have meant that no reform ended up passing.

I hope it's clear. I don't love Obamacare but think its a step up from the status quo as far as more universal ACCESS to health care. I'd like to see liberals continue to push for more reform towards single payer even if it takes 100 years.

Even more dramatically, there is a good chance there would have been no 9-11 under Gore.

Wow, that's a good baiting troll post. I am very tempted to reply in a way that would end up with me on a vacation. But, let's try this instead...

Al Qaeda doesn't care who is in the White House. Period.

On October 12, 2000 - while Clinton & Gore were still in the White House, al Qaeda bombed the USS Cole off of Yemen.

The 9/11 hijackers were in the country, training how to fly planes long before Bush was elected. No one - except one guy - believes that they would have aborted their mission if Gore was President instead of Bush.

I have the right to my opinion. I suggest going back to the historical record about the red flag warnings that were sent to Bush's desk which he took NO action on. I don't believe Gore would have been that incompetent and I have every right to that opinion but of course we will never know because the supreme court stole the election for Bush.

So, is this flip flop about single payer anything like Obama being for same sex marriages before he was against same sex marriages before he was for same sex marriages?

Romnesia isn't only for republicans.

Obama's core base knows Obama has been pro gay civil rights always and pro single payer always.

They know because Obama told them so during all those late night sessions in those Chicago bath houses.

The government is the single payer for health care entities as opposed to for profit insurance companies or retail customers. It's just another way of saying nationalized medicine. In truth, universal health care is probably used more than single payer. They mean the same thing. The intention is to avoid saying things that excite American socialism-phobia such as socialized medicine or nationalized health care. But it's the same concept.

I don't know how the US could set up such a scheme nowadays.

In the UK every worker pays in around $50 per month, over and above all other tax charges. The employers pay in more. This is just to keep things running.

The infrastructure in the UK is in place, has been for 60 years and needs renewing. We don't have the money for it. We don't have the money to be able to prescribe the most effective medecines to many out-patients - they get the value-for-money drugs that may cure, may just alleviate symptoms.

If you in the US want to impose a National Health Service like the British (the French service is better) tou will have to nationalise all the current hospitals and clinics (without compensation) and persuade doctors, other practitioners, ro take a massive cut in salary.

From the outside nationalised health care looks like a good thing, and in theory it is the way things should be, but it requires a million saints to be working there and not one person who wishes to live above the poverty line.

Believe me, it will never happen again. In Europe we were lucky that it happened just after WWII, when we were still all trying to rebuild a continent devastated by war and we were not counting the cost.

I have the right to my opinion. I suggest going back to the historical record about the red flag warnings that were sent to Bush's desk which he took NO action on. I don't believe Gore would have been that incompetent and I have every right to that opinion but of course we will never know because the supreme court stole the election for Bush.

I have probably read more PDBs than Obama. The one in question is that al Qaeda was planning attacks inside the USA. It also stated there were over 70 on-going FBI investigations into possible attacks. Here's a screen shot of the Presidential Daily Brief that the Left like to claim shows Bush did nothing. I would also like to post a PDB that Obama has read but there is no evidence that he ever has. Apparently the security meetings conflict with his tee time.

If you in the US want to impose a National Health Service like the British (the French service is better) tou will have to nationalise all the current hospitals and clinics (without compensation) and persuade doctors, other practitioners, ro take a massive cut in salary.

Doctors couldn't afford a cut in salary because their malpractice insurance premiums are so high. People can't expect the lawyers who sue doctors and hospitals for hundreds of millions of dollars to take salary cuts either, right?

Seriously, that was a big warning flag for me that Obamacare was flawed from the start - they (Obama and his Dem allies) wouldn't not allow tort reform to be part of any healthcare reform. That is because the organisation for trial lawyers donates heavily and almost exclusively to the Democratic Party. So, Obama blamed insurance companies (I agree), the drug companies (not so much, they wouldn't create the medicine unless there were profits to be made), and doctors (<deleted>? these are the guys keeping us alive) BUT trial lawyers were off limits and they play a big role in skyrocketing prices.

The government is the single payer for health care entities as opposed to for profit insurance companies or retail customers. It's just another way of saying nationalized medicine. In truth, universal health care is probably used more than single payer. They mean the same thing. The intention is to avoid saying things that excite American socialism-phobia such as socialized medicine or nationalized health care. But it's the same concept.

I don't know how the US could set up such a scheme nowadays.

In the UK every worker pays in around $50 per month, over and above all other tax charges. The employers pay in more. This is just to keep things running.

The infrastructure in the UK is in place, has been for 60 years and needs renewing. We don't have the money for it. We don't have the money to be able to prescribe the most effective medecines to many out-patients - they get the value-for-money drugs that may cure, may just alleviate symptoms.

If you in the US want to impose a National Health Service like the British (the French service is better) tou will have to nationalise all the current hospitals and clinics (without compensation) and persuade doctors, other practitioners, ro take a massive cut in salary.

From the outside nationalised health care looks like a good thing, and in theory it is the way things should be, but it requires a million saints to be working there and not one person who wishes to live above the poverty line.

Believe me, it will never happen again. In Europe we were lucky that it happened just after WWII, when we were still all trying to rebuild a continent devastated by war and we were not counting the cost.

This is my take on Obamacare. I would be all for free health care for everyone if the country was doing well, but it isn't.

I have the right to my opinion. I suggest going back to the historical record about the red flag warnings that were sent to Bush's desk which he took NO action on. I don't believe Gore would have been that incompetent and I have every right to that opinion but of course we will never know because the supreme court stole the election for Bush.

Well if you want to go back in history, Bill and Al had their chance and blew it. But, we all know it must have Bush's fault for all those attacks, Khobar Towers, two embassies, SS Cole, not to mention other attacks, and the passing up the opportunity to eliminate Bin laden at least a couple of times. But that's ok, no need to let reality get in the way.

I have the right to my opinion.

Yes and so do people who think that 9/11 was an inside job, but I don't believe them either.

I have just returned to the USA after 16 yrs and while i was enrolling my children into school i saw a flyer that said free health care for families. a family of 4 can earn 45k dollars a yr and own a car and a house to qualify for this free medical insurance. It is medicaid, so what is the need for Obama care if medicaid is in place already? Oh there is one catch to qualify the applicant must be a USA citizen.

I mentioned a clean needle program because, like other programs for the downtrodden, it's off the agenda of this presidential campaign. Romney would like to focus on upper classes, Obama on the middle classes, and scant little attention by either - focused on those on the lowest rungs of the social ladder. Before Bush left office, he appointed Wall Street insiders, the top CEO's at Goldman Sachs, to fix the problems that those big shots were perpetratding with their slick manipulations of other peoples' money. Obama kept most of the same people at the top gov't positions dealing with finance and bail-outs. Both candidates bow to the 'too big to fail' attitude that keeps wall street big shots garnering multi-million dollar bonuses, EVEN WHEN THEIR BIZ DECISIONS LOSE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

Wall street is the tail which wags the Wash D.C. dog. I wish there was a candidate who would be brave enough to let badly run businesses fail, and not be so quick to shovel taxpayer money in to their laps. Romney, no way. Obama, maybe.

The Goldman Sachs CEO who was appointed 'czar' to clean up the meltdown of Wall Street, actually gave tens of billions of federal dollars to the US's ten biggest banks - AND MOST OF THE BANKS DIDN'T EVEN WANT TO TAKE THE MONEY ! His sage reasoning: "If we only give tens of billions to the failing banks, then consumers will think we're being unfair. What balderdash!

I mentioned a clean needle program because, like other programs for the downtrodden, it's off the agenda of this presidential campaign. Romney would like to focus on upper classes, Obama on the middle classes, and scant little attention by either - focused on those on the lowest rungs of the social ladder. Before Bush left office, he appointed Wall Street insiders, the top CEO's at Goldman Sachs, to fix the problems that those big shots were perpetratding with their slick manipulations of other peoples' money. Obama kept most of the same people at the top gov't positions dealing with finance and bail-outs. Both candidates bow to the 'too big to fail' attitude that keeps wall street big shots garnering multi-million dollar bonuses, EVEN WHEN THEIR BIZ DECISIONS LOSE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

Wall street is the tail which wags the Wash D.C. dog. I wish there was a candidate who would be brave enough to let badly run businesses fail, and not be so quick to shovel taxpayer money in to their laps. Romney, no way. Obama, maybe.

The Goldman Sachs CEO who was appointed 'czar' to clean up the meltdown of Wall Street, actually gave tens of billions of federal dollars to the US's ten biggest banks - AND MOST OF THE BANKS DIDN'T EVEN WANT TO TAKE THE MONEY ! His sage reasoning: "If we only give tens of billions to the failing banks, then consumers will think we're being unfair. What balderdash!

Are you talking about TARP? If so you might wish to read this article...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TARP Repayments Surpass Loans

By DARRELL A. HUGHES

WASHINGTON—The U.S. Treasury Department said Friday the total amount repaid to taxpayers for government funds used to bail out U.S. companies has surpassed, for the first time, the amount of outstanding debt.

The Treasury, in its May report to Congress on the Troubled Asset Relief Program, reported TARP repayments reached $194 billion, which has exceeded by $4 billion the total amount of outstanding debt—$190 billion.

However, the outstanding debt amount does not include $106.36 billion that has been committed to institutions but has yet to be paid out by the Treasury. Factoring in that amount, the outstanding debt would be roughly $296 billion.

Read more here: http://online.wsj.co...2253092016.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, if you recall, Romney said the auto industry should not be bailed out but should go through a structered bankruptcy. It was Obama that paid off the UAW by giving them a large ownership position in GM, completely ignoring bankruptcy laws. Blame Obama for that part of TARP that will never be repaid.

Romney had nothing to do with any of it and Bush still isn't on the Republican ticket.

I respect Romney if he recommended restructuring US auto industry giants, rather than dumping billions of federal/taxpayer money in their laps. I wonder if he had the same attitude toward Wall St. and badly run banks and too-slick-for-their-own-good investment conglomerates. In other words, businesses succeed or fail depending on how well they're run.

I respect Romney if he recommended restructuring US auto industry giants, rather than dumping billions of federal/taxpayer money in their laps. I wonder if he had the same attitude toward Wall St. and badly run banks and too-slick-for-their-own-good investment conglomerates. In other words, businesses succeed or fail depending on how well they're run.

Romney did recommend that but is taking a lot of heat for it now on the campaign trail because the Obama has succeeded in portraying the auto industry bailout as a feather in his cap.

About letting the financial institutes go bust, that appeared to be the game plan at first but the powers-that-be lost their courage when they saw the ferocity of the market reaction when Lehman went bust.

I respect Romney if he recommended restructuring US auto industry giants, rather than dumping billions of federal/taxpayer money in their laps. I wonder if he had the same attitude toward Wall St. and badly run banks and too-slick-for-their-own-good investment conglomerates. In other words, businesses succeed or fail depending on how well they're run.

Romney did recommend that but is taking a lot of heat for it now on the campaign trail because the Obama has succeeded in portraying the auto industry bailout as a feather in his cap.

About letting the financial institutes go bust, that appeared to be the game plan at first but the powers-that-be lost their courage when they saw the ferocity of the market reaction when Lehman went bust.

You are correct that Obama has succeeded in calling the auto industry a feather in his cap. Unfortunately he is lying.

The auto industry bailout began under the Bush administration, NOT the Obama administration, with the lending of TARP funds to GM and Chrysler.

All Obama has done is manage the bankruptcy to the benefit of the UAW and take credit for a temporary solution. GM and Chrysler both still owe the major portion of the TARP funds they accepted and the outlook for repayment isn't good.

I have just returned to the USA after 16 yrs and while i was enrolling my children into school i saw a flyer that said free health care for families. a family of 4 can earn 45k dollars a yr and own a car and a house to qualify for this free medical insurance. It is medicaid, so what is the need for Obama care if medicaid is in place already? Oh there is one catch to qualify the applicant must be a USA citizen.

Study this chart and I think you'll see you got it wrong.

For ADULTS to get Medicaid they need to be DIRT POOR (unless PREGNANT).

For CHILDREN yes they could be in FAMILIES with incomes as you state but the adults in those families would not be on the program.

http://dch.georgia.g...-criteria-chart

Nice one and oh so on the money.

The only point I would make is that short term partisan politics is not going tojust drive the US into the ground but the entire global economy into the fiscal cliff instead.

So whoever wins this interminable election needs to be able to fly us away from that particular cliff face......

This is my concern - if only the US was affected by this election I would have no real interest, but this is a world-event, not just a US event.

This is my concern - if only the US was affected by this election I would have no real interest, but this is a world-event, not just a US event.

And won't we be glad when it's over!

This is my concern - if only the US was affected by this election I would have no real interest, but this is a world-event, not just a US event.

The problem is that the U.S (and the U.K) is using quantitative easing or in other words money printing to artificially prop the economy up at the expense of their creditors. This can only go on for so long until the pain of creditors having their debt diluted outweighs the pain of accepting the U.S is in default and stop buying any more dollar denominated debt. This would cause the U.S to default overtly instead of the covert default by installments, which is what money printing amounts to. The frightening thing is that only strict Austrian school medicine, that's to say cold turkey for a decade, is likely to prevent collapse, but such medicine is an electoral impossibility.

This is my concern - if only the US was affected by this election I would have no real interest, but this is a world-event, not just a US event.

And won't we be glad when it's over!

China is. They are quite simply salivating at the thought of Romney walking around with a 5T credit card

This is my concern - if only the US was affected by this election I would have no real interest, but this is a world-event, not just a US event.

And won't we be glad when it's over!

That depends who wins.

With Obama we know that there will be no solution to the monetary fiasco, so the whole world will slide further towards the abyss of total fiscal bankruptcy.

With Romney I have no idea of where would end up - he has not put forward the type of policy that would go towards solving anything either. In fact he has not put forward any detailed proposals that I have seen - maybe because he would expect the other side to steal the ideas.

The world needs leadership on finance - not politicians trying to grab support to get hold of the levers of power for four or five years, as with the US, France, Britain and Germany. What happens if China calls in all the markers she holds? She'd rule the world straight away or have to go to war to get what we all owe her.

The world needs leadership on finance - not politicians trying to grab support to get hold of the levers of power for four or five years, as with the US, France, Britain and Germany. What happens if China calls in all the markers she holds? She'd rule the world straight away or have to go to war to get what we all owe her.

Not sure you can include UK in your list nor Germany though I agree with what you are saying.

I'd also like to say that QE (this thread or on the main forum) is working in the UK and it would also work in Germany if they were not bleeding money to the Euro. Come to think of it, it would also work in France if they were not bleeding money.

So it comes down to want of power in the US and how morally bankrupt one is willing to go to achieve it. One thing Romney has done is usher in a new dimension to US politics in that you can say one thing clear as day one day and say completely the opposite the next and you will get both votes.

It seems that the Obama campaign tactic to demonize absolutely anyone who ran against him has really worked on some folks.

“If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things.”

This is my concern - if only the US was affected by this election I would have no real interest, but this is a world-event, not just a US event.

The problem is that the U.S (and the U.K) is using quantitative easing or in other words money printing to artificially prop the economy up at the expense of their creditors. This can only go on for so long until the pain of creditors having their debt diluted outweighs the pain of accepting the U.S is in default and stop buying any more dollar denominated debt. This would cause the U.S to default overtly instead of the covert default by installments, which is what money printing amounts to. The frightening thing is that only strict Austrian school medicine, that's to say cold turkey for a decade, is likely to prevent collapse, but such medicine is an electoral impossibility.

I agree.... and I just love that phrase "quantitative easing"!

That depends who wins.

With Obama we know that there will be no solution to the monetary fiasco, so the whole world will slide further towards the abyss of total fiscal bankruptcy.

With Romney I have no idea of where would end up - he has not put forward the type of policy that would go towards solving anything either. In fact he has not put forward any detailed proposals that I have seen - maybe because he would expect the other side to steal the ideas.

The world needs leadership on finance - not politicians trying to grab support to get hold of the levers of power for four or five years, as with the US, France, Britain and Germany. What happens if China calls in all the markers she holds? She'd rule the world straight away or have to go to war to get what we all owe her.

whether Obama, Romney, Superman, the Messiah or the Mahdi is at the helm there is no way that the Greatest Nation on Earth™ is able to manage a balanced budget and pay back its debt ever at today's dollar value. and the chance of China calling in "all the markers" is as remote as your attendance of the party i am throwing at my 149th birthday... you are just too old to live that long Humph

note: sovereign debt is not meant to be paid back. everybody will be happy as long as the sovereign debtor receives sufficient revenue to service and roll-over the debt.