Originally Posted by Name User

Yesterday the fed chairman spoke.



I quoted that 17% figure in a post a few days ago and how it's unsustainable and acts as a tax on our economy.

Originally Posted by Slaphappy

CNN exit polling shows that trump won the majority of all over making above 50k a year.

Originally Posted by Excargodog

Actually, it has nothing to do with the presence or absence of a single payer system. What has driven the recent falling life expectancy in the US is overdose deaths. The Public Health measure is YPLL, or Years of Potential Life Lost. An eighty year old dying of cancer would have probably had a life expectancy - absent that cancer - of another five years. That’s five years of potential life lost. A sixteen year old kid dying in a single car rollover accident, on the other hand, represents about sixty-seven years of potential life lost, so in this case one young death has over 13 times the effect on life expectancy as one oldster falling off the twig.

During the ENTIRE 12 years or so of the Vietnam War we lost 50,000 youngish people (callit 4100 a year) and it tore the country apart politically. Currently we lose that many to opiate overdose deaths EVERY YEAR, about 50,000, and make it 70,000 if you include other drugs too, and neither political party seems to want to do much about it. But do the math. You can’t lose 70,000 relatively young people a year and expect life expectancy to continue to rise.

https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-to...se-death-rates

As for single payer - if you were in the military you had it. There were good things about it and a few bad, but that’s a DIFFERENT discussion. It is not why US life expectancy has started to decline. Absent the massive increase in young people dying of overdoses, US life expectancy would still be rising. Like I said, do the math. 2.7 million people died in the US in 2017, but absent the 70,000 plus young drug overdose victims life expectancy would have risen.

Originally Posted by RJSAviator76

The difference between the two is about whether you call it a tom-ah-to or tom-a-to.

Single-payer system has the government eliminating private insurance
No. Canada is single payer, and has private insurance available.

and having an unelected government bureaucrat choosing what they will or will not cover.
My airline's current health care plan is similar. An unelected insurance worker, or an unelected worker in my airline decides what will be covered.

But hey, you get a choice of a doctor, so shut up and color!
I do NOT have the choice of doctor NOW, unless I want to pay much, much more than if I go to an in-network provider. In Canada, you can walk into any facility, and see any doctor, with the same benefits and costs.

Let's not go into the whole premise of government reimbursements for physicians are so low that it drives doctors out of business.
This CAN be a problem, but it can also be a problem in the US. Currently in the US, many doctors are quitting because of the low pay relative to how much paperwork they have to do, and/or because of restrictions placed on them by the insurance companies. Our great chiropractor retired because he was fed up with the paperwork being out of control. And, unrestricted spending drives ridiculous costs. I had a splinter removed from my hand last summer, and it cost my company almost $10,000.

Single-provider is the same thing except now all the doctors work for the government.

So... one makes you think you have a choice in whom you see, the other one just tells you that everyone you choose is a government doctor.

What do they have in common? Government in control.
I STRONGLY prefer gov't control, where they are supposed to be looking out for my interest, vs. Insurance company control, where I am a mark to be fleeced for the maximum amount possible.

Military? Sure thing. Regular citizenry? Sorry, vehemently opposed to it. THE PEOPLE should be in control of their own destiny, not the government.
Hard to control your own destiny, when you can't afford the health care needed to save your life, or make your life functional.

It should be on the government to provide some basic ground rules and then get the hell out of the way.

Originally Posted by RJSAviator76

According to the world's health care experts, the MSNBC...

Originally Posted by RJSAviator76

We do too, Cliff.. It's called the VA. Fix that and then talk to me about single-payer system in the US.

I would almost dare say that if the VA is something to judge single-payer, government-run healthcare by, and by how many veterans choose to opt-out i.e. commit suicide, then expanding this to every American would be almost genocidal.

Originally Posted by atpcliff

VA is crap, and it is not single payer. If VA was single payer, then all doctors/facilities in the US would accept VA patients.

Originally Posted by Bozo the pilot

Brain freeze?
Move to Canada for the healthcare

Originally Posted by atpcliff

Overall, education made the difference. Lower education voters went for trump, higher education to Clinton.
I didn't vote for either. trump was unsuitable. Clinton was totally corrupted by Wall Street.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ote-for-trump/

Originally Posted by CousinEddie

Ah yes, American higher education. The institutions that offer play-dough, coloring books, and crying closets to help their students cope.