# John Conyers’s sweeping single-payer health care bill



## Knight (Aug 28, 2017)

A really long article about a health care bill to implement a single payer health care system in America. 






What Rep. John Conyers’s sweeping single-payer health care bill would actually do
117 House Democrats have signed on to a bill that would virtually nationalize health insurance.
Updated by Jeff Stein on August 28, 2017 8:10 am
https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/po.../16114436/john-conyers-single-payer-insurance




Worth the read if only to point out the complexities of what it would take to change. 




I do get a chuckle out of the use of "free care" to describe this, I think tax paid is more appropriate.


----------



## GreenSky (Aug 28, 2017)

I think we will eventually go to a single payer system but it won't be Medicare for all.  It will be Medicaid for all.

High taxes and lousy healthcare. 

There are so many horror stories coming from other countries like England and Canada that I'm convinced the "free" care will be worth every penny.

Rick


----------



## Timetrvlr (Aug 28, 2017)

Strangely enough, I suffer from low-cost Universal Health Care, an excellent Doctor and relatively low taxes---in Canada.


----------



## Don M. (Aug 28, 2017)

A SP-UHC system, such as what most of the rest of the developed world uses, would be a huge benefit to the majority of our people.  I'm sure there are some issues in various countries, but overall, their care is far better than ours, and at about half the costs.  The latest ranking of the nations...as of 2016...appears on the Bloomberg site, and the U.S. comes in at number 50 out of the 55 nations ranked.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...re-system-ranks-as-one-of-the-least-efficient

However, so long as our Health Care Industry continues to make very generous donations to our politicians political campaigns, we can only expect our soaring costs, and declining benefits to continue.


----------



## nvtribefan (Aug 28, 2017)

GreenSky said:


> There are so many horror stories coming from other countries like England and Canada that I'm convinced the "free" care will be worth every penny.
> 
> Rick



All the horror stories I hear about health care in places like England and Canada come from Americans.  
The Canadians I know have no complaints.
Just saying.


----------



## Knight (Aug 28, 2017)

How about skipping what takes place elsewhere. No doubt systems that have been in place for 50 years are having problems, so why not learn from the problems they are experiencing? 


I doubt I'll be around to see a universal single payer system come to be in America. A few of the hurdles making that happen IMO.  


1.getting doctors to accept what the government is willing to pay.
2.getting hospitals to accept the same concept of controlledpayment.
3.explaining that taxes taken from wages will make health care free for everyone. 
4.convincing millions of under employed, part time employees that the government will take a percent  in taxes on top of whatever they make.
5.that the government will increase the staff needed to administer any system correctly. & that system won't have the kind of administration that has been in the news about the poor administration of the VA.
6.that rural and metropolitian services will be equal
7. everyone will receive the prompt attention they expect even though the system is supposed to cover as of 2017 326,474,013 people. 
8.prescription pricing to be controled & still get the ongoing research to develope new cures.
9.dealing with self inflicted health issues like COPD or obesity. & yes I know not all of that is self inflicted. 


I think it can be done I think it's going to be bumpy as hell getting there.


----------



## Trade (Aug 28, 2017)

nvtribefan said:


> All the horror stories I hear about health care in places like England and Canada come from Americans.
> The Canadians I know have no complaints.
> Just saying.



Exactly. I've never heard anyone from Canada or the UK say they would trade systems with us. However there are millions of Americans that would like to trade with them.


----------



## Butterfly (Aug 28, 2017)

nvtribefan said:


> All the horror stories I hear about health care in places like England and Canada come from Americans.
> The Canadians I know have no complaints.
> Just saying.



This has also been my experience.

I don't know why we are so scared of single payer health care -- Medicare is essentially single payer health care, and it functions just fine.


----------



## Trade (Aug 28, 2017)

Knight said:


> I do get a chuckle out of the use of "free care" to describe this, I think tax paid is more appropriate.



I'd much rather pay taxes to the government than premiums to a health Insurance company like I do now.


----------



## NancyNGA (Aug 28, 2017)

Trade said:


> I'd much rather pay taxes to the government than premiums to a health Insurance company like I do now.


:iagree:


----------



## Aunt Bea (Aug 28, 2017)

Butterfly said:


> This has also been my experience.
> 
> I don't know why we are so scared of single payer health care -- Medicare is essentially single payer health care, and it functions just fine.





Trade said:


> I'd much rather pay taxes to the government than premiums to a health Insurance company like I do now.





NancyNGA said:


> :iagree:




Me too!

I would rather pay my monthly premiums to the government for a Medicare for all policy that would protect me from the cradle to the grave.

I really think that once the major employers do the math they will fight to shift the health insurance burden to the government and be willing to make a one time salary adjustment for the amount they currently spend on health insurance to help employees with the initial cost of coverage.


----------



## GreenSky (Aug 28, 2017)

Except that Medicare is broke.  And higher income people who have paid more into the system now pay more when they get the benefit.

We won't have Medicare for all.  We will have Medicaid for all (think a national VA system).

BTW, the true cost of Medicare benefits is about $1,000 per month.

Rick


----------



## nvtribefan (Aug 28, 2017)

GreenSky said:


> Except that Medicare is broke.  And higher income people who have paid more into the system now pay more when they get the benefit.
> 
> We won't have Medicare for all.  We will have Medicaid for all (think a national VA system).
> 
> ...



The oracle has spoken.


----------



## GreenSky (Aug 28, 2017)

Apparently you must think what I wrote is wrong.  Aside from my prediction of Medicaid for all, just what did I post do you have an issue with?

Certainly you must agree with the actual cost of Medicare to the taxpayers.  It's here: http://www.kff.org/medicare/state-i...0&sortModel={"colId":"Location","sort":"asc"}   You can dispute that if you like.

And obviously since Medicare spends more than it takes in my comment about going broke is correct.  https://www.cnbc.com/2014/07/28/medicare-solvent-until-2030-social-security-until-2033.html

Any other comments?

Rick


----------



## Knight (Aug 29, 2017)

Green Sky/Rick


The reality and complexity of converting from what is to what is hoped for seems to escape some. One feature the conversion would have to eliminate employer paid health insurance in order to generate the funding needed. The thought that employers would then redirect that cost benefit to the government is reasonable. But the benefit in lieu of a higher wage hasn't been part of any discussion. Neither has a discussion about would the millions of employees have to contribute a percent of their wage. 


Participation by over 300 million to be managed by the government. Maybe examples like the VA and funding for Soc. Sec. Medicare & Medicaid are one of those stick your head in the sand and ignore items. 


Ignoring the trend of an aging population, conversion from a manufacturing society to a lower paid service job society should translate into either a single payer system not being properly funded or the need to increase the percent needed to fund "free care" for all. 






IMO maybe the most difficult to achieve would be the wage control of those providing health care. And in turn filter down to the rest of the wage earners. 


1 in 8 Americans Employed By U.S. Healthcare Industry
http://www.exploremedicalcareers.com/1-in-8-americans-employed-by-u-s-healthcare-industry/




For an understanding of what happens with wage & price control this should help.
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/remembering-nixons-wage-price-controls

I lived thru that & it sucked. 




I don't live in lala land where I trust or depend on government. I look around at what is happening and form my opinions. My opinion is single payer eventually will happen. I also think it won't be the way those looking thru rose colored glasses expect.


----------



## GreenSky (Aug 29, 2017)

Knight, thank you for that thoughtful reply.  I admit there are issues with our current system (made many times worse by Obamacrap) and we will be under a single payer system sooner rather than later.

I find it amazing that people trust the same government that runs the VA, post office, etc.  Single payer is wonderful unless you need something serious but non-critical.  Good luck getting a hip replacement when money is more important than care.

Rick


----------



## helenbacque (Aug 29, 2017)

I've always thought that health care for profit is immoral.  Yes, pay the providers well for their goods and services but take the profit element out.  It's obscene for one person to become wealthy because his neighbor is sick and in the whole picture, we're all neighbors.  

Will there by change?  Not until the lobbyists for the AMA and Big Pharma are run out of Washington and that is unlikely to happen.


----------



## Knight (Aug 29, 2017)

helenbacque said:


> I've always thought that health care for profit is immoral.  Yes, pay the providers well for their goods and services but take the profit element out.  It's obscene for one person to become wealthy because his neighbor is sick and in the whole picture, we're all neighbors.
> 
> Will there by change?  Not until the lobbyists for the AMA and Big Pharma are run out of Washington and that is unlikely to happen.


That is a point I didn't touch on. Let's suppose the profit is removed. What do you think would happen to wage increases, product development?


----------



## GreenSky (Aug 29, 2017)

Why is it ok for a doctor to make a profit on healthcare?  Should they work for free?  How dare a surgeon expect to make $250,000 simply because he saves lives every day.

Removing profit motive removes the incentive to develop new drugs, prosthetic devices, etc.  Capitalism is king.  Crony capitalism stinks.

Rick


----------



## Knight (Aug 29, 2017)

Crony capitalism another point.  


When the ACA was put in place the general thinking was that as a system it would lay the ground work for a single payer system. But congress didn't have to be a part of that. If they didn't want to be subject to the ACA with all it's mandates and costs. I wonder if they would do the right thing & generate legislation to prevent themselves or their wives from investing to generate their wealth.




Back to a skilled surgeon. What is his or her specialty worth? A panel would probably be set up to make determinations. From there what is the most likely sceanario. Medical students flocking to the lowest paid or trying for the highest level? 




So many things to iron out to make it possible to have a low cost system that will take care of the health care needs of over 300 million. How about putting the NIKE LOGO "Just Do It" as a theme, let the problems surface then deal with those as they occur. 


Might mean denial for critical health care issues for as long as it takes to solve those problems, but if a person has faith in our government to get it done in a timely manner at low cost then they should start a petition or demonstrate or both.


----------



## Robusta (Aug 31, 2017)

Incremental change over.  Require folks to buy into medicare as seniors do now. Slowly move the population over at two year increments.   Negotiate drug price like the other nations do.
Doctors are not going to run screaming from the fiel just because their wages are regulated.  Certainly are not going to be truck drivers because their wage fell from 250,00 per year to 230,000.


----------



## GreenSky (Aug 31, 2017)

Maybe not but primary care doctors gross about $175,000 but that means a 60+ hour week plus emergency calls.  Not to mention all the headaches over government mandated record keeping, etc.  The real issue is how many people will go into debt for 20 years paying student loans of $500-750,000 to earn that amount?  Probably better off being dentists.

The biggest issue I have with the "require folks to buy" comment is where in the Constitution can the feds require us to buy anything?  

That being said, the way to save Medicare from going completely broke would indeed be to extend coverage to 55 years and up rather than 65.  But it must be the only way to get health insurance otherwise we'd have the same adverse selection we now have with Obamacare. 

Although one poster believes I'm opposed to single payer like Medicare for all because I'm just one of those dishonest insurance agents.  Actually I'm opposed to it because of Constitutional reasons and my fear that it will be Medicaid for all.  I don't want to be forced into a clinic waiting hours (if not days/weeks) to see a doctor. 

Yet 95% of my income is from helping people with Medicare supplements and advantage plans.  From a standpoint of my income, Medicare for all would be the greatest thing that could happen.  (But I'm still opposed).

Rick


----------



## Trade (Aug 31, 2017)

GreenSky said:


> Yet 95% of my income is from helping people with Medicare supplements and advantage plans.  From a standpoint of my income, Medicare for all would be the greatest thing that could happen.  (But I'm still opposed).
> 
> Rick



Medicare for all is pretty much a compromise for me because Medicare only pays 80%. I realize that's a generalization by the way. That leaves a niche for private health insurance companies who are as far as I am concerned leeches on society. Ideally I'd like to go all the way with the government covering everything. And that appears to be the ultimate goal of the Conyer's plan. I am all in for it. I realize that would put you out of a job, but relax Dude. It's not going to happen all that quick. You should make it to retirement OK. But you might want to suggest to some of your younger cohorts that it might be a good time for them to start thinking about exploring alternative career options for the future.


----------



## Knight (Aug 31, 2017)

Robusta said:


> Incremental change over.  Require folks to buy into medicare as seniors do now. Slowly move the population over at two year increments.   Negotiate drug price like the other nations do.
> Doctors are not going to run screaming from the fiel just because their wages are regulated.  Certainly are not going to be truck drivers because their wage fell from 250,00 per year to 230,000.


A solution that sounds easy enough. 

Your idea so maybe you have an idea at what age the requirement to buy into the plan would begin. What amount would they pay and what about the ones in an age group not forced to pay? Would those paying in begin coverage right away and the rest be excluded? Would the insurance companies begin  a partial shut down as their customer base shrunk? What happens to employer paid health care? Do some depending on their age lose coverage? Do companies hire additional staff to keep track of those that are switching from conventional to being covered by a government run system? 

Looking to Canada & the UK single payer systems the reality of unstable financial ability to provide services is documented. Australia's system is a model to look at. At least there forward thinking is taking place. Recognizing the impact of a changing economy and adjusting makes sense. 

I'm not against a single payer system I just think conversion is not going to be simple. Phasing in will take a lot of serious planning.


----------



## Manatee (Aug 31, 2017)

Single Payer Healthcare, that would be like going to the DMV when you are sick!


----------



## Trade (Aug 31, 2017)

GreenSky said:


> Why is it ok for a doctor to make a profit on healthcare?  Should they work for free?



As surprising as it may seem to you GreenSky, doctors don't work for free in countries with universal single payer.


----------



## GreenSky (Aug 31, 2017)

I love it when a left wing wacko references the fattest and most dishonest left wing wacko around.  Michael Moore talks about wonderful healthcare in Cuba also.  Of course, it was complete BS.

So Trade, if you want to continue a discussion please do it without mentioning me.  I think you're a bit beneath my intellect.

Rick


----------



## Trade (Aug 31, 2017)

GreenSky said:


> I love it when a left wing wacko references the fattest and most dishonest left wing wacko around.  Michael Moore talks about wonderful healthcare in Cuba also.  Of course, it was complete BS.
> 
> So Trade, if you want to continue a discussion please do it without mentioning me.  I think you're a bit beneath my intellect.
> 
> Rick



So you think that British doctor in the video was lying?


----------



## Granny B. (Aug 31, 2017)

Knight said:


> When the ACA was put in place the general thinking was that as a system it would lay the ground work for a single payer system. *But congress didn't have to be a part of that. If they didn't want to be subject to the ACA with all it's mandates and costs.* I wonder if they would do the right thing & generate legislation to prevent themselves or their wives from investing to generate their wealth.



This is one of my big gripes about the system -- see my bold above --  If congress had to participate in any system they come with, we would no doubt get a better plan.


----------



## Knight (Sep 1, 2017)

Trade it's understood that doctors don't work for free but for a better understanding of salary I prefer an explanation from a source in the UK. Michael Moore tends to look for extreme examples that IMO don't tell the whole story. 

Salary and job requirements explained in a British media outlet.
Junior doctors' row: The dispute explained.


Quoted from an article.


"The starting salary for a junior doctor is currently just under £23,000 a year, but with extra payments for things such as unsociable hours, this can quite easily top £30,000. 


Junior doctors at the top end of the scale can earn in excess of £70,000. But it's important to remember these doctors can be in charge of teams, making life-and-death decisions and carrying out surgery. They are really only behind consultants in seniority.


In total, there are 55,000 junior doctors in England - representing a third of the medical workforce. The BMA has just over 37,700 members." 


http://www.bbc.com/news/health-34775980


For those with any interest in the pound value against the dollar. 
XE Currency Converter: USD to GBP
http://www.xe.com/currencyconverter/convert/?Amount=1&From=USD&To=GBP


Finding a doctor that lives far above what seems to me to be typical probably took Moore some digging. Missing from Moore's interview is the potential for an inheritance, wife working, or other wealth outside of his salary. I didn't hear how long that doctor practiced which makes a difference in top salary.


All in all IMO Moore presents a poor representation of how well doctors in the U K NHS system are paid.


----------



## Trade (Sep 1, 2017)

Knight said:


> Trade it's understood that doctors don't work for free but for a better understanding of salary I prefer an explanation from a source in the UK. Michael Moore tends to look for extreme examples that IMO don't tell the whole story.



I've already made my decision and it's final.


----------



## Don M. (Sep 1, 2017)

The best argument FOR a SP-UHC system appeared on 60 Minutes a couple of years ago.  They did a piece on the French health care system, and that system is something we could Learn From.  The French station Primary Care doctors in neighborhoods, and these doctors make housecalls....24/7.  They are paid about $100K/yr, and their housing is subsidized.  They can take care of many "emergency" calls without the patient having to rush to a hospital in the middle of the night.  

Contrast that with a situation where 95% of our current med students are planning on entering a specialty....so as to make the Big Bucks.  It won't be many years before we have very few family doctors available...and the one's we Do have will probably be imported from India.


----------



## GreenSky (Sep 1, 2017)

Knight said:


> All in all IMO Moore presents a poor representation of how well doctors in the U K NHS system are paid.



Michael Moore tends to engage in fiction but twists it (like others on the left and right) to suit his needs.  He's a dishonest pile of garbage hoping that the country becomes socialist.

Of course, he hates capitalism but has made millions from movies and books. And the sheeple believe his crap.  But like most of his "kind", socialism is not for the socialists.  It's for the rest of us.

On a personal note, 5 years ago I had a hip replacement.  I was playing golf the day before the surgery.  It was my choice to get this done.  Had I lived in Canada, England or other "wonderful" single pay countries the likelihood is I would still be waiting for this voluntary surgery.  However I would have received a free cane.

Rick


----------



## Knight (Sep 1, 2017)

Don M. said:


> The best argument FOR a SP-UHC system appeared on 60 Minutes a couple of years ago.  They did a piece on the French health care system, and that system is something we could Learn From.  The French station Primary Care doctors in neighborhoods, and these doctors make housecalls....24/7.  They are paid about $100K/yr, and their housing is subsidized.  They can take care of many "emergency" calls without the patient having to rush to a hospital in the middle of the night.
> 
> Contrast that with a situation where 95% of our current med students are planning on entering a specialty....so as to make the Big Bucks.  It won't be many years before we have very few family doctors available...and the one's we Do have will probably be imported from India.


I began with learning from what others got right & what has gone wrong for them since. 

The other posts about doctors pay along with yours point out one of the many problems why zeroing in on a single payer system is so difficult.  It comes down to what is intelligence and ability worth?  A wage is about a person selling their time and skill, some are satisfied with whatever they can get others try to excel. It could be that doctors from other places fill the void as you say. It could also mean that doctors that manage to squeak thru will fill that void. It comes down to accepting the idea that a D grade physician will get the same pay as a an A grade one in a system that pays by specialty. I don't think many would want to be operated on by a neurosurgeon that barely passed the qualifying criteria.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Sep 1, 2017)

I don't see much difference in how we pay doctors under our current system and how we would pay them under a medicare for all system.  

Currently a doctor can charge any amount they choose but the health insurance companies and medicare negotiate a cap on what they will pay.  The doctor accepts that patient and the payment offered or rejects them.  The person that really takes it on the chin is the person with no insurance, they have to pay whatever the doctor charges.

As far as the quality of doctors it is a fact now and always will be a fact that 50% of all doctors practicing in this country graduate in the bottom half of their class.


----------



## Trade (Sep 1, 2017)

My wife is still 7 months away from being eligible for Medicare but today we already started to get the junk mail from the insurance companies looking to cash in. What really makes me mad is that they send these notices in a mail out that is designed to trick you into thinking it's an official correspondence from Medicare. It came in the same kind of cardboard foldout where you have to tear off the perforated sides to open. Exactly like the notices that Medicare and Social Security send out. And they use the same print format too. 

"Important Document Enclosed" "Medicare Health Care Information Enclosed". 

But what it is actually is Is a flyer from "TZ Insurance Solutions LLC", a private company looking to hawk their Medicare Advantage Plans. 

What Charlatans. Isn't there a law against impersonating an official government document? Well there ought to be.


----------



## nvtribefan (Sep 1, 2017)

GreenSky said:


> On a personal note, 5 years ago I had a hip replacement.  I was playing golf the day before the surgery.  It was my choice to get this done.  Had I lived in Canada, England or other "wonderful" single pay countries the likelihood is I would still be waiting for this voluntary surgery.  However I would have received a free cane.
> 
> Rick



Why on earth would someone get an unnecessary hip replacement?


----------



## GreenSky (Sep 1, 2017)

nvtribefan said:


> Why on earth would someone get an unnecessary hip replacement?



Nobody would do that.  I needed a hip replaced but was getting along ok with just pain killers.  But I chose to fix things rather than just load up on drugs.

Did you have a point to make?

Rick


----------



## Knight (Sep 1, 2017)

Aunt Bea said:


> I don't see much difference in how we pay doctors under our current system and how we would pay them under a medicare for all system.
> 
> 
> Currently a doctor can charge any amount they choose but the health insurance companies and medicare negotiate a cap on what they will pay. The doctor accepts that patient and the payment offered or rejects them. The person that really takes it on the chin is the person with no insurance, they have to pay whatever the doctor charges.
> ...






The center paragraph is the one that speaks to the difference, this sentence specifically.


Quote
"The doctor accepts that patient and the payment offered or rejects them." 


That is how the system works now, the ability to choose. If a person seeking a career in the medical field is happy with having what they earn dictated to them then a single payer system should work well for them. Many countries have that as the normal way to offer care. We'll just have to abandon the system in place now & get comfortable with socialized medicine. That could take some getting used to.






As for that 50% I think you mean medical students. Once a student is tested and certified they are then doctors with no % ranking.


----------



## Don M. (Sep 1, 2017)

I have a cousin in Denver, whose grandson graduated from medical school about 5 years ago.  A couple of years ago, we had a big family reunion in Denver, and I had an opportunity to talk to this young doctor at some length.  He admitted that a major portion of the curriculum was devoted to studying prescription drugs and matching them to various patient symptoms.  "Treatment", and masking of symptoms was paramount in his education, with very little time devoted to "Prevention".  In reality, I think a person can spend some quality time on the Internet...at sites such as the Mayo Clinic, or WebMD, and determine their own issues as well as, or even better, than a hurried diagnosis at a doctors office. 

Things really haven't changed all that much in the past century.  100 years ago, when doctors were often referred to as "quacks", the primary treatment was Opium.  Today, the answer for many of the patient's issues is the prescribing of Opioids.  The big difference is that today, It costs a fortune to support our present Health Care Industry....note, I said Industry, rather than "System"....and the primary purpose of Any Industry is to make money.


----------



## Butterfly (Sep 1, 2017)

With all the demonization of opioids, I think it is important to remember that these drugs serve a very useful purpose in medicine, i.e., what they were designed to do, the control of pain.  Without these drugs, many people could not function on any level except to lay in bed screaming.  Opioids have their place, and many, many people with intractable pain (for which no alternative method will alleviate the pain) use them wisely.  

When it comes to opioids, I think we must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.


----------



## Trade (Sep 2, 2017)

Knight said:


> If a person seeking a career in the medical field is happy with having what they earn dictated to them then a single payer system should work well for them. Many countries have that as the normal way to offer care. We'll just have to abandon the system in place now & get comfortable with socialized medicine. That could take some getting used to.



Someone needs to be able to negotiate for the patient because the elasticity of demand is very limited with regard to medical care.  If someone tries to gouge me on the price of a TV set, I can tell them to pound sand and walk away. But if I'm having a heart attack it comes down to pay or die.


----------



## GreenSky (Sep 2, 2017)

The solution is for government control of everything.  That way nobody get gouged for any service.

It's worked so well in the USSR.

Rick


----------



## Knight (Sep 2, 2017)

GreenSky said:


> The solution is for government control of everything.  That way nobody get gouged for any service.
> 
> It's worked so well in the USSR.
> 
> Rick



I think Don M's identifying health care as an industry is an accurate description of what America has. The media reports that as an industry it affects 1/6th. of America's economy. For profit has built America, so it may be time to eliminate and have government be the collector, employer & funds distributor in a single payer system. Most likely the employees that were paid wages from the profit of an insurance company will be re employed by the government since they will have to training needed to assure a smooth transition. 


That sounds like a shift from a capitalist economy to a socialist one but it only affects 1/6th of the economy. This is one of those times when being an older senior is a disadvantage. I'd like to be around to see how this turns out. So many interesting things to witness. Things like the impact on the stock market when the loss of investing in companies that used to be for profit are now price controlled kicks in. 


We do have examples of how well government controls work. Nixon demonstrated that, the Russian example & lately Venezuela.  But experience is the best teacher. Tell a kid not to play with matches, some listen others need to be burned to learn. 

This is one of those times when being an older senior and not getting to see how this all shakes out is disappointing.


----------



## Trade (Sep 2, 2017)

GreenSky said:


> The solution is for government control of everything.  That way nobody get gouged for any service.
> 
> It's worked so well in the USSR.
> 
> Rick



Actually it's working well all over the world. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_health_care


----------



## Knight (Sep 2, 2017)

Trade said:


> Actually it's working well all over the world.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_health_care




Trade I need some help understanding how you read that as success 


What I read is a description of how single payer is constructed and funded. Nothing about % of GDP with the exception of the inset for Israels percent of GDP shows 2005.


Another inset showing 
58 countries with universal health care in 2009.[1]
 Countries with legislation mandating universal health care, along with > 90% health insurance coverage, and > 90% skilled birth attendance.


I dropped down to the references and found 2010 as the year of input.


References[edit]
Jump up ^ Stuckler, David; Feigl, Andrea B.; Basu, Sanjay; McKee, Martin (November 2010). "The political economy of universal health coverage. Background paper for the First Global Symposium on Health Systems Research, 16–19 November 2010, Montreaux, Switzerland" (PDF). Pacific Health Summit. Seattle: National Bureau of Asian Research. p. 16. Figure 2. Global Prevalence of Universal Health Care in 2009; 58 countries: Andorra, Antigua, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Luxembourg, Moldova, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Oman, Panama, Portugal, Romania, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Tunisia, UAE, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Venezuela.




I could be wrong but from 2005 & 2010 the dates used in the article there are probably some changes to the success you claim. The article didn't mention how many of those 3rd. world countries receive foreign aid from America to be able to subsidize their successful plans. Or no cost for defence because other places pick up the tab for their security.  




I understand taking the time to research data from 2016 or the foreign aid given probably won't happen. Maybe just clarifying by country where a claim of success is shown.


----------

