Student Rally for Single-Payer Health Care in Vermont | Phoenix Content, Phoenix Lawyer, Phoenix Online Newspaper, Phoenix e Newspaper, Phoenix Sports, Phoenix Shopping
Student Rally for Single-Payer Health Care in Vermont
Friday, April 8, 2011
Medical, nursing, and public health students from around the country organized a rally to support universal, single-payer health care in Vermont. The March 26, 2011 event was led by student members of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) and co-sponsored by the American Medical Student Association (AMSA).
This entry was posted
on Friday, April 8th, 2011 at 6:12 am and is filed under Health.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
25 Responses to “Student Rally for Single-Payer Health Care in Vermont”
@thereinliestherib “The international comparison is apples to oranges.”
No that’s stupid. It’s not as if canada is another planet or Canadians another species. It’s not even that different culturally. It’s like saying we shouldn’t vote because that’s a greek idea.
Now I agree w/you that rising costs lead sot worse health stats. But single payer is actually cheaper then what we have now. (since another reason for rising costs is the need to make a profit.)
@booley So what? You’re only highlighting the point that socialist economies diminish personal accountability. And overall, no other country remotely compares to America’s poor health, or its tab. If you actually believe that the “system” is responsible for such ubiquitous poor health in America, then I guess you’d also believe that forks make people fat. HC is expensive in this country solely because we are so unhealthy, but the industry makes a LOT of money off it by socializing costs.
In Massachusetts $6 BILLION could be saved a year by going to a single payer system. Our Medicare for All Massachusetts — The Massachusetts Health Care Trust bill is H338. If we have to establish fairness in health care one state at a time, so be it.
Single Payer — Medicare for All!
@thereinliestherib “You’re only highlighting the point that socialist economies diminish personal accountability.”
There are numbe rof problems with your argument. But here’s the main one.
Clearly not being socialist and letting people suffer for what you presume is their “lack of responsibility” isnt’ working.
I know social darwinism is appealing to many. But it’s not just cruel, it simply doesn’t work.
You are also over simplifying why people get sick.
@booley Nope, you’re the one arguing that we should spread insurance liability among a population with direly disproportionate levels of individual risk. Health insurance is the only form of insurance whose premiums are not based on individual risk; thus, the healthy are overcharged and mandated to possess coverage well in excess of their needs in order to cover obese smokers. It’s like a system of car ins. where covering bad drivers is mandated, and bad driving is universal. Duuumb…
@booley Youtube doesn’t allow large replies. The NHS dictates nursing and doctor salaries and where they may, or may not work. By being the only provider of payment (single payer) the government has in effect become the only viable employer. Reimbursement and salaries are very low. Even then, just like with education, the “betters” of the UK who push “no choice” on the country, use their wealth to go private at any opportunity. Not sure what other single-payer countries there are.
@stuartclubb Ok your argument is what we call a loose thread. It sounds all nice and logical BUT it’s refuted by justa few facts in the real world.
For instance, even in the UK where with socialized medicine, there are still private hospitals.
But even more importantly, in Canada, the gov most assuredly does not own the hospitals.
Canada, Taiwan and Denmark are 3 single payer countries.
Hooray for healthcare professionals speaking out for their patients. Imagine having to be the doctor who informs you that the person in the next bed can get needed medical care, but your health care insurance doesn’t cover what you need because you are not privileged. Single Payer!
In Massachusetts $6 BILLION could be saved a year by going to a single payer system. Our Medicare for All Massachusetts — The Massachusetts Health Care Trust bill is H338. If we have to establish fairness in health
…In Massachusetts $6 BILLION could be saved a year by going to a single payer system. Our Medicare for All Massachusetts — The Massachusetts Health Care Trust bill is H338. If we have to establish fairness in health care one state at a time, so be it.
Single Payer — Medicare for All!
@SupportWeThePeopleKB BS. This is like watching trial lawyers protesting for more liability, and thus more lawsuits for themselves. Single payer coverage does absolutely nothing to address the core cost problem of worsening American health statistics. Socialized care in America would only leav the public liable for even MORE of other people’s stupid, irresponsible health choices. Socialize responsibility–not HC clerks and the obese, addicted baby boomers from whom they profit.
@booley US: 70% obese/overweight, 25% smoke, millions regularly abuse drugs and alcohol with general cultural acceptance, few/none exercise, the avg. American watches 4 hours of tv a day, and few/none eat a correct diet. Three of the most expensive diseases are heart disease, lung cancer, and diabetes. Name one country with similar stats. ONE. The claim that single payer is cheaper is based on the moronic notion that spreading liability reduces costs, rather than just diffusing them.
@thereinliestherib 25% of Americans smoke? But 40% of French smoke. And they drink even more then we do. Yet they live longer.
Not to say other factors don’t play apart but access to health care is a really big factor. Particularily when one can get to a doctor that will tell one they need to excercise more.
& spreading liability isnt’ moronic. It’s the basis of all insurance. Maybe you should look into what insurance is.
@booley Social darwinism? You mean “reality”? The primary result of increasing institutional socialization in America has been a total relaxation of social standards and the near extinction of the concept of choice/responsibility. Case in point, you’re arguing for socialized health care in a country where a skyrocketing 74% of the population is obese/overweight, which also happens to be the primary reason for rising HC costs. Talk about ignorant. And oh look, mandates for the industry…
@thereinliestherib “you’re the one arguing that we should spread insurance liability among a population with direly disproportionate levels of individual risk. ”
Again that’s what insurance is to begin with. And private insurance does base it’s premiums on risk assesment.
Anyway, you seem to want to engage in social darwinism so on to the next reply…
@thereinliestherib “Social darwinism? You mean “reality”? ”
Yes social darwinism. Admittedly you seem unable to stand by a topic (you seem to have totally let go of other the “we cant’ compare ourselves sot other countries” thing)
But your posts do show a clear trend to social darwinism.
You consider those that are at higher risk as being “irresponsible”
But the only option you offer is either they somehow stop (w/o any idea what their situation is) or die.
At least be honest about it.
This will show that it can work and saves money. It’s the camel’s nose under the edge of the tent to the for-profit medical industry that is bankrupting so many and providing poorer results than most of the industrialized world.
@booley People who are a higher risk are more irresponsible, that’s a mathematical FACT.. The majority of US HC expenditures don’t go to those who became ill through no fault of their own because of congenital disorders. The majority of US HC expenditures go to the treament of illnesses that are the direct result of obesity, smoking, poor diet, drugs, and other CHOICE-relevant conditions. So why should the healthy and responsible be forced to underwrite others irresponsibility?
@ozonetom Actually, the increased socialization of HC costs has only increased industrial profits, because increased socialization gives them greater and greater regulatory leverage to buy mandates, buying restrictions, and other regulations that increase costs for the healthy and responsible. The Obamacare mandate is a case-in-point, because it radically entrenches corporate revenue under the guises of a socially progressive program. Its total BS.
@thereinliestherib and this part is just dumb. Not only because the industry has fought the very regulations you claim they want but in that it’s been the industry that has decided costs rises.
Not to mention, as many have mentioned, actual socialized systems cost less. Much less and get better results over all.
@booley HA! Via PPACA the industry stands to greatly benefit from increased cost socialization and forced customers via the mandate. It’s in line with the historical model of industrial regulation, whereby industry’s acquire legal control over their own regulations, and use that to monopolize consumers rather than protect them. You honestly don’t smell the rot of corruption in a bill which requires everyone to buy a heavily monopolized product, just cuz its sold as “progressive”? WOW.
@booley “Circular logic”? Deductive, actually. The least healthy 5% consume 70% of all HC costs. Now correlate that with rates of 70% obese/overweight, 25% smoking, millions hooked on drugs/alcohol, and non-existent national exercise standards. Do the math, dumbass. Most politicians readily admit that the primary reason for the mandate is to force the healthy to subsidize the exceptionally unhealthy, rather than to address the core cost-source of an unhealthy country.
@booley The international comparison is apples to oranges. Other countries may effectively operate socialized care programs, but I dare you name a single country with as poor health stats as the US. Poor health = skyrocketing insurance risk, and thus cost. What our corrupt politicians aren’t telling you is the other half of the equation: rising health costs directly correlate with worsening health stats. Which of course, is why Obamacare forces that increasing liability onto the responsible.
@thereinliestherib “The international comparison is apples to oranges.”
No that’s stupid. It’s not as if canada is another planet or Canadians another species. It’s not even that different culturally. It’s like saying we shouldn’t vote because that’s a greek idea.
Now I agree w/you that rising costs lead sot worse health stats. But single payer is actually cheaper then what we have now. (since another reason for rising costs is the need to make a profit.)
@booley So what? You’re only highlighting the point that socialist economies diminish personal accountability. And overall, no other country remotely compares to America’s poor health, or its tab. If you actually believe that the “system” is responsible for such ubiquitous poor health in America, then I guess you’d also believe that forks make people fat. HC is expensive in this country solely because we are so unhealthy, but the industry makes a LOT of money off it by socializing costs.
In Massachusetts $6 BILLION could be saved a year by going to a single payer system. Our Medicare for All Massachusetts — The Massachusetts Health Care Trust bill is H338. If we have to establish fairness in health care one state at a time, so be it.
Single Payer — Medicare for All!
@thereinliestherib “You’re only highlighting the point that socialist economies diminish personal accountability.”
There are numbe rof problems with your argument. But here’s the main one.
Clearly not being socialist and letting people suffer for what you presume is their “lack of responsibility” isnt’ working.
I know social darwinism is appealing to many. But it’s not just cruel, it simply doesn’t work.
You are also over simplifying why people get sick.
@booley Nope, you’re the one arguing that we should spread insurance liability among a population with direly disproportionate levels of individual risk. Health insurance is the only form of insurance whose premiums are not based on individual risk; thus, the healthy are overcharged and mandated to possess coverage well in excess of their needs in order to cover obese smokers. It’s like a system of car ins. where covering bad drivers is mandated, and bad driving is universal. Duuumb…
Fools
@thereinliestherib “People who are a higher risk are more irresponsible, that’s a mathematical FACT”
No it’s circular logic.
And the rest of your post is just your prejudices masquerading as fact.
And even if they were true, encouraging large segments of the population to die isn’t the way to make people live healthier.
& again, you seem to not understand what insurance is.
@booley Youtube doesn’t allow large replies. The NHS dictates nursing and doctor salaries and where they may, or may not work. By being the only provider of payment (single payer) the government has in effect become the only viable employer. Reimbursement and salaries are very low. Even then, just like with education, the “betters” of the UK who push “no choice” on the country, use their wealth to go private at any opportunity. Not sure what other single-payer countries there are.
@stuartclubb Ok your argument is what we call a loose thread. It sounds all nice and logical BUT it’s refuted by justa few facts in the real world.
For instance, even in the UK where with socialized medicine, there are still private hospitals.
But even more importantly, in Canada, the gov most assuredly does not own the hospitals.
Canada, Taiwan and Denmark are 3 single payer countries.
Hooray for healthcare professionals speaking out for their patients. Imagine having to be the doctor who informs you that the person in the next bed can get needed medical care, but your health care insurance doesn’t cover what you need because you are not privileged. Single Payer!
In Massachusetts $6 BILLION could be saved a year by going to a single payer system. Our Medicare for All Massachusetts — The Massachusetts Health Care Trust bill is H338. If we have to establish fairness in health
…In Massachusetts $6 BILLION could be saved a year by going to a single payer system. Our Medicare for All Massachusetts — The Massachusetts Health Care Trust bill is H338. If we have to establish fairness in health care one state at a time, so be it.
Single Payer — Medicare for All!
@SupportWeThePeopleKB BS. This is like watching trial lawyers protesting for more liability, and thus more lawsuits for themselves. Single payer coverage does absolutely nothing to address the core cost problem of worsening American health statistics. Socialized care in America would only leav the public liable for even MORE of other people’s stupid, irresponsible health choices. Socialize responsibility–not HC clerks and the obese, addicted baby boomers from whom they profit.
@booley US: 70% obese/overweight, 25% smoke, millions regularly abuse drugs and alcohol with general cultural acceptance, few/none exercise, the avg. American watches 4 hours of tv a day, and few/none eat a correct diet. Three of the most expensive diseases are heart disease, lung cancer, and diabetes. Name one country with similar stats. ONE. The claim that single payer is cheaper is based on the moronic notion that spreading liability reduces costs, rather than just diffusing them.
@thereinliestherib 25% of Americans smoke? But 40% of French smoke. And they drink even more then we do. Yet they live longer.
Not to say other factors don’t play apart but access to health care is a really big factor. Particularily when one can get to a doctor that will tell one they need to excercise more.
& spreading liability isnt’ moronic. It’s the basis of all insurance. Maybe you should look into what insurance is.
@thereinliestherib But hey, nice straw men. You sure managed to refute things that I never claimed and avoid my actual point.
@booley Social darwinism? You mean “reality”? The primary result of increasing institutional socialization in America has been a total relaxation of social standards and the near extinction of the concept of choice/responsibility. Case in point, you’re arguing for socialized health care in a country where a skyrocketing 74% of the population is obese/overweight, which also happens to be the primary reason for rising HC costs. Talk about ignorant. And oh look, mandates for the industry…
@thereinliestherib “you’re the one arguing that we should spread insurance liability among a population with direly disproportionate levels of individual risk. ”
Again that’s what insurance is to begin with. And private insurance does base it’s premiums on risk assesment.
Anyway, you seem to want to engage in social darwinism so on to the next reply…
@thereinliestherib “Social darwinism? You mean “reality”? ”
Yes social darwinism. Admittedly you seem unable to stand by a topic (you seem to have totally let go of other the “we cant’ compare ourselves sot other countries” thing)
But your posts do show a clear trend to social darwinism.
You consider those that are at higher risk as being “irresponsible”
But the only option you offer is either they somehow stop (w/o any idea what their situation is) or die.
At least be honest about it.
This will show that it can work and saves money. It’s the camel’s nose under the edge of the tent to the for-profit medical industry that is bankrupting so many and providing poorer results than most of the industrialized world.
Thank-you Vermont!
@booley People who are a higher risk are more irresponsible, that’s a mathematical FACT.. The majority of US HC expenditures don’t go to those who became ill through no fault of their own because of congenital disorders. The majority of US HC expenditures go to the treament of illnesses that are the direct result of obesity, smoking, poor diet, drugs, and other CHOICE-relevant conditions. So why should the healthy and responsible be forced to underwrite others irresponsibility?
@ozonetom Actually, the increased socialization of HC costs has only increased industrial profits, because increased socialization gives them greater and greater regulatory leverage to buy mandates, buying restrictions, and other regulations that increase costs for the healthy and responsible. The Obamacare mandate is a case-in-point, because it radically entrenches corporate revenue under the guises of a socially progressive program. Its total BS.
@thereinliestherib and this part is just dumb. Not only because the industry has fought the very regulations you claim they want but in that it’s been the industry that has decided costs rises.
Not to mention, as many have mentioned, actual socialized systems cost less. Much less and get better results over all.
@booley HA! Via PPACA the industry stands to greatly benefit from increased cost socialization and forced customers via the mandate. It’s in line with the historical model of industrial regulation, whereby industry’s acquire legal control over their own regulations, and use that to monopolize consumers rather than protect them. You honestly don’t smell the rot of corruption in a bill which requires everyone to buy a heavily monopolized product, just cuz its sold as “progressive”? WOW.
@booley “Circular logic”? Deductive, actually. The least healthy 5% consume 70% of all HC costs. Now correlate that with rates of 70% obese/overweight, 25% smoking, millions hooked on drugs/alcohol, and non-existent national exercise standards. Do the math, dumbass. Most politicians readily admit that the primary reason for the mandate is to force the healthy to subsidize the exceptionally unhealthy, rather than to address the core cost-source of an unhealthy country.
@booley The international comparison is apples to oranges. Other countries may effectively operate socialized care programs, but I dare you name a single country with as poor health stats as the US. Poor health = skyrocketing insurance risk, and thus cost. What our corrupt politicians aren’t telling you is the other half of the equation: rising health costs directly correlate with worsening health stats. Which of course, is why Obamacare forces that increasing liability onto the responsible.