2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

Dude, sanitycheck, check YOUR facts, Britian doesn't have a single payer system, they have socialized medicine where the state owns the hospitals and just about all aspects of healthcare. Canadians love their system 89%, say so, it is single payer. Their government pays $300 per capita on healthcare whereas the US pays ~$1000. Single payer would actually lower the cost of what we pay now, and it will pay for everyone, even you.

posted 3 years, 8 months ago
view in context

Switzerland does not have a single payer system and is more similar to what the US wants to do with a mixture of private insurance and a public option. Single payer is different and may not have the same problems. Also, Germany, as a different example of things not working, has a multipayer system that is in a bit of a crisis, not because of the system itself, but because of population growth. Germany's population is projected to shrink in the future, which means there will be fewer people paying into the system to cover the elderly who generally have more health problems. The US population is growing, so we shouldn't have that problem for years to come under a single payer system (or multipayer for that matter).

posted 3 years, 8 months ago
view in context

It is a multipayer system. Works, but has more paperwork.

posted 3 years, 8 months ago
view in context

Universal health care will help people who don't take care of themselves to take care of themselves. It is very depressing to know you can't help yourself because you can't afford it. It makes you feel sick in fact.

posted 3 years, 8 months ago
view in context

With a single payer system, we will be more competitive in the global marketplace with Canada, Australia, and Taiwan who also have single payer systems. With the addition of German, Belgium, and the Netherlands who have Universal healthcare with multiple payers, but have some single payer features, and Japan, England, and France, who have other Universal healthcare systems that are of substantially lower cost to employers than the United States, we would be more competitive in the marketplace with most of our largest trade partners.

Single payer is the only system that I have seen that will lower costs, seems to be the only system that will help grow our economy, and provide healthcare based on need and not by ability to pay, which as it turns out is not only a financial burden to the US, but also a social burden as well. My father once told me that a healthy employee is a happy and more productive employee. Let's make America more productive.

Please join my facebook page about single payer (the not-for-profit option). I'm no doctor, and maybe a bit too passionate in my comments, but there are good links to read the things I have that made me so passionate about the single payer system.

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/group.php?gid=109758312985&ref=mf

posted 3 years, 8 months ago
view in context