Why is it GOP loves Walmart but hates single payer health care?

[Bandit]

GOP loves huge monopolies that keep prices controlled to their wishes. Why don't they want the same for the largest industry in America? What is different except that it would be government controlled kind of like the military industrial complex. :shrug: I don't get it. Is it because they really don't want Americans to be healthy? I would think they would jump on this in a heart beat.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

1. I think it's an issue of pure profits

I don't have figures or links handy, but it's my belief that we could have a single-payer healthcare system for a hell of a lot less than individuals and companies are paying for insurance premiums.

In short, the GOP wants the gravy train for its big backers.

[LoZoccolo]

2. You can't make profits...

...off of a government health insurance program.

[Bandit]

3. They sure make profits off a government controlled war industry

:shrug: I suppose you are right but I would think just the power of control would be enough for them. Just think, they would have total control opf your life. Education, healthcare, employment. What is not to like if you are a fascist?

[Brian Sweat]

8. Silly LoZoccolo

never challenge Republicans by saying that they canot make money off of a government program. They are the masters of milking the government for everything it has got and they have ways you cannot imagine.

[denverbill]

4. That's a good point, but someone else already said it.

There's no money to be made if it's a govt program. Privatize, privatize, privatize. Hell, even the US Army is privatizing, to save money, dontcha know. I'm sure it's MUCH cheaper to have Halliburton deliver mail to the Army than for the Army to do it. After all, those soldiers make about $30K/year. I'm sure there are thousands of private citizens that would gladly live in that Iraqi hellhole of 120 degree temps, no booze, no Tv, people shooting at you and trying to blow you up, etc, for $30K per year. I'm SURE the Army is saving LOTS of money.

[NewGuy]

5. I can't answer for the GOP...

However, my own reason for not wanting single payer health care is that it takes it out of my control. I would definitely prefer to have a diferent system than I have now. Right now I have health insurance with the company I am employed by. I haven't gotten past the deductable in three years. That means I can go to whoever I want for care. My plan does have a prefered provider netork, but outside of it they still pay a part of the cost so I have some choice even after the deductable level is met.

The diference between WalMart and single payer health care is that Target, K Mart, and other smaller department stores also exist to give us some competition. In a government single payer system, depending on who is running the govt and who is appointed to run health care, we could have bad or good, but only one choice either way.

[Bandit]

6. You have control. Ha Ha Ha ha LOL

That is a good one.

[StopThief]

10. Now that was a REALLY well reasoned. . .

response to a thoughtful answer. The poster explained EXACTLY where the control existed.

[Bandit]

11. He has health insurance provided by his employer

How is that having control? His employer has all the control. Hell he doesn't even have to provide coverage but yet you think he has control. I think you both are hilarious

[Lydia Leftcoast]

13. Not only that

he says he has control, but he hasn't ever met the deductible, either, which means that all his vaunted "health insurance," hasn't done him a bit of good.

[NewGuy]

30. I have total control

The only thing my insurance provider does is reduce their share of the cost if I go outside of the preferred provider network. I choose my own doctor and go if/when I want to. It is true that so far my health insurance has done no good, but I have the control over who I go to. If I were to get ill enough to require a great deal of care I would still have the control of who I see inside or outside the preferred provider group.

[StandWatie]

31. so what?

Don't use it, get a private doctor and pay out of your pocket.

[uptohere]

15. yes, it is the employer that holds the control

but that employer can switch from insurer to insurer to seek better rates (if it wishes).

While it will be great when they don't contribute anything at all to an employee's healthcare when the government picks up the tab, then noone will have any control at all.

I'm still looking for how this works, how it gets paid for.

[Bandit]

17. Clinton's plan was for the government to assume the role of employer

And pay for the insurance when the employer wouldn't or couldn't. It would have been exactly the same coverage as what IBM provides for their employees. We know what happened to that one.GOP shot it down. My idea is to make it similar to the military. Have government hospitals where no one gets turned away. Government doctors on salary and government buying in bulk would reduce inventory costs of drugs etc. In that scenerio there would be little choice if you chose to utilize the government hospital but you would still have the option of using a private source and paying the going rate.

[DocSavage]

27. Military Health Care?

I take it you have not spent a lot of time in a military health care facility. Now, do not get me wrong, the level of care is very good, but access is not. People DO get turned away. There are levels of priority in military health care. Active Duty #1. Families of Active Duty #2. Retired personel on a space available basis. Pharmacy is Laboratory servies are usually not limited like that but not all military pharmacies carry all of the medicines that Walgreens does.

What makes you think that doctors are going to want to work at goverment rates. Isn't that just like nationalizing an industry or somthing? If I were a provider, I would just hang a shingle out and take cash only patients. Once people find out that they are going to wait weeks for an appointment, I would be rolling in the dough.

[Bandit]

28. I was in the military and NEVER waited two weeks for service

Many doctors would be glad to aid their country. Just look at the military for proof. How many of those doctors were dragged kicking and screaming into the military? I wasn't even aware that the military system was available to dependents. It wasn't set up to provide care for the whole population but that doesn't mean it couldn't be. There would still be private practice but it would have to be extremely good to make people pay when they could get the same for free from a government clinic.

[DocSavage]

35. You are correct

Active Duty gets priority, and very rarely, such as waiting for a specialist that comes once per month are appoints tough to get. But, there will be priorities in a heath care system as you describe. Docs will work 8 hours per day. no late appointments. What about working weekends? These docs will not be like military docs and have to work when told. How many 40 hour work weeks did you do in the military?

Docs entering the military are different than docs working in a government clinic for pay. Look at any Indian Health Clinic. All of them need more physicains, nurses and other health team providers. Where are the doctors beating down the doors to work there? Look at the VA. Not enough staff to take care of the patient load. Where are the docs beating down the door to work at the VA?

You are suggesting nationalizing the heath care industry. The DOD runs one of the biggest health care systems in the world. Look at the cost and look at the problems associated with that. Multiply that by 1 thousand and you will see what you get. I will scrimp on things, I will do without before I am forced to use a system like that.

[pnb]

16. He indeed does have control

He can choose his employer, thus having some control over what plan he has...and that is not even necessary if his employer offers more than one healthcare option. He also has control over whether or not he even WANTS the insurance from his employer.

Also, depending upon the plan, he may very well have significant control over which doctors he sees. I know I sure have that.

If you don't think of that as control, that's your own issue. What do you think control would be then?

[Bandit]

19. Have you ever had a health problem and had to deal with insurance ?

If you have ever had to deal with an insurance company then you must know what I'm saying about having control. You only have control when you pay 100% out of your pocket. There are umpteen million things not covered by insurance.

[pnb]

23. Control over what exactly?

How to pay for healthcare or the healthcare process itself?

I have dealt quite a few times with my insurance company and previous companies and have had no problems doing pretty much what I want. Is it 100% freedom? No. But I have never had any procedure not payed for either. As far as things not covered, as far as I am concerned, I pay more for health insurance because of coverages the government insists companies offer that I have no use for so I'll grant you some lack of control in that area.

If you were referring to lack of control in the first area, I stand by my original statement.

[NewGuy]

32. I think we are confusing free care and control of your care.

My care is not free but I have total control over it. My insurer will pay for some things and I have to pay for the rest. The amount that each of us pays is determined by whether I see a physician on the preferred provider list or not, but I make that choice.

There has not been any plan that I am aware of that has been proposed that pays for whatever you want and allows you to choose who you go to.

[FlaGranny]

25. That's funny.

How about if his company does what mine does? Trying to find cheaper plans, they sock you with a new one every year or two. Makes you have to look for a new primary care provider nearly every time. He can choose his own employer, but his employer can also choose not to employ him any more. He can choose which plan he wants, but how will he pay for it if his employer decides to drop the plan or to drop him as an employee?

Me thinks that smug folks who have had employer provided health care plans should get ready for a very rude awakening. They are about to find out what its like for the rest of the people.

[NewGuy]

33. The greatest threat that we will have to...

find out what it is like for those who do not have company provided health care comes from those who advocate the single payer system. If we have a single payer, that payer will have the control. It may bring costs down as it has in Canada and England, but the folks there have very little control of their health care.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

41. U.K. and Canada have different systems

In the U.K., which has National Health, the government controls all medical facilities and doctors are government employees. People are supposed to go to the local GP for their area first (sort of like the primary physician in an HMO).

In Canada, doctors are private practitioners (not sure about the hospitals), and patients have free choice, even the right to consult a specialist without prior approval (which I didn't have in my previous HMO).

You may like or not like one or the other system, but please don't lump them together. They are NOT the same.

[FlaGranny]

43. Control of health care?

I have very little to say about my health care, because the only insurance I can afford is an HMO. The bureaucrats at the HMO get to tell me what doctors I can see and even if I can get care. So I don't feel very much in control. Most people have the same kind of "insurance" as I do. The only control I have is to buy insurance or not buy insurance. I can't see the doctors I've seen for years because I can't afford the deductible and the co-pay for doctors who don't participate in the particular policy I'm stuck with now (the policy/company that my employer chose this year). The insurance stinks, the lack of insurance stinks. The amount of control I have over the situation stinks.

You will definitely understand what I'm talking about one day. I have no doubts about it.

Edit: The single payer system is not threatening. Making profit on sick people is what's disgusting.

[Terwilliger]

20. We'll have a good choice

because we'll MAKE it self-correcting, self-analyzing, and self-sustaining. We put the right regulations in place and keep up with oversight, there's no reason this system couldn't work.

[rock]

7. I think it's because they whistle out their ass

[StopThief]

9. Ummmm. . . . . .

Walmart is a lot of things, including being sickeningly successful, but a "monopoly" is not one of them.

[Hanuman]

12. I challenge your core point...

that the GOP loves monopolies. I will grant that large industries are protected to varying degrees under GOP leadership, but the concept of "monopoly" is ultimately bad for business and even republicans in general understand that concept.

Businesses test the monoploistic bounds under both republican and democratic administrations- witness Microsoft under Clinton. Also witness the breakup of AT&T in 1984 during the Reagan administration.

I can't think of a single true monopoly that has been allowed to exist in recent days.

True- the GOP won't lift a finger when the company is huge and dominant, but huge and dominant does not necessarily meet the definition of monopoly.

So, I reject the basic notion of this comparison.

[Bandit]

14. I admit the stretch to monopoly is a bit but it's very very close

Look at media consolidation, or energy consolidation. Look at what happened to California. They were victim of an energy fraud that was monopolistic in nature. An actual monopoly is not the case but when two or more get together and fix prices what's the difference? On edit: Relief only came to California when the Senate came into Democratic control and investigations were going to be launched . Prices suddenly dropped the very next day. Funny how all energy companies involved got the same notion at precisely the same moment.

[JanMichael]

18. Oligopoly.

Which isn't Monopoly but still an action of the Oligarchy. Seems there are quite a few DU'ers that are Oligarchy defenders too.

Go figure:shrug:

Main Entry: ol·i·gar·chy
Pronunciation: 'ä-l&-"gär-kE, 'O-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -chies
Date: 1542
1 : government by the few
2 : a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control
3 : an organization under oligarchic control

[Hanuman]

21. Well, I don't want to defend republicans but...

Enron could have occured under any administration. Enron is an example of fraud- not of a political philosophy.

I grant you that GOP administrations do create an environment where more consolidation is possible and PERHAPS gives collusion a boost in the arm. But this is a far cry from your original point that "republicans love monopolies."

I know a lot of republicans and libertarians and to a man/woman, none of them even slightly LIKE monopolies.

If you allow your enemy (the GOP) the concession of having a 3-dimensional intellect on the issue, you will realize that they simply don't like much government interference in matters of business and industry, and they believe this not only to enrich the owners but also to provide jobs to more workers. And I'm talking about the rank and file republicans. Believe me, a lot of these common pubs are just as dumbfounded and pissed when, for instance, a guy like Lay goes unprosecuted.

[Bandit]

24. provide jobs to more workers.

The evidence of this is overwhelming.....not. It is the sound-bites they like. The reality is exact opposite. Clinton Admistration oversaw the creation of twenty two million jobs. What is the Republican (Bush*) talley?

[Hanuman]

26. They certainly MAY be the typical soundbites...

but rank and file GOP believe this. And this idea of creating a more facile environment for business and a subsequent strengthening of the economy is their prime motivation for voting republican.

And really, what's the difference between the soundbites of the left vs. the soundbites of the right? They exist and are spoken to give the general population who don't like to excersize their brains too hard a grasp of what their party believes and strives for.

[Bandit]

29. Rank and file GOP believe Bush* is a great intellectual and solid leader

but it doesn't make any of it true. It only proves they are less dim than Bush* himself. Exactly what sound-bites of the left are you referring? IMHO any sound-bites of the left are based upon truth where as the exact opposite applies from the right.

[Hanuman]

34. You're a true believer...

Good for our side. That's the kind of thinking that wins.

I can't believe in political parties in the same way I can't believe in god, but I admire those that can, because at least they have comfort in that one belief.

Perhaps a good excersize would be to take any democratic soundbite you prefer and write a refutation to it from a right-wingers point of view. I'll help you with one soundbite:

"AB 60 is going to make our streets and highways safer for all motorists."

I am not going to argue this soundbite with you. But if you are interested in understanding your enemy and committed to intellectual honesty and critical thinking, you might consider my suggestion. I'd be interested in reading your refutation if you choose to write it.

[Bandit]

36. First tell me what AB 60 is and I will tell you my opinion of it

I don't believe just because a bill is sponsored by a Democrat that it is necessarily a good bill. What I am saying is that most sound-bites coming from the left are based on fact while most from the right are out and out lies. This is a matter of opinion and you know what they say about opinions. They are like assholes, everyone has one.

[Hanuman]

39. AB 60 is:

The new California bill that Davis recently signed giving drivers licenses to people who immigrate illegally to the state.

And, I actually don't care what your opinion of this bill is. What I was interested in is if you could actually conduct the research and articulate a reasoned and comprehensive response to this bill from a reich-wingers point of view.

[VermontDem2004]

38. Ken Lay is a republican

and like republicans they cannot manage money or treat employees, customers like they should be treated.

[leftyandproud]

22. single payer is SOCIALISM..

and we know how those righties hate socialism..

unless it benefits wal-mart

[nbsmom]

37. Something funny about this thread...

It's my understanding that one of the ways WalMart keeps costs down is that they rarely, if ever, provide employer-sponsored health care.

IOW, you can be working darn near full time at WalMart and still be trying to figure out how you pay for health insurance out of your measly earnings.

Net result: bunch of employed people have no insurance, and when they need care, they typically end up in an emergency room where it costs a LOT more to get them better.

This is one of the reasons why some states are trying to bring all employers to the table (McDonalds is another notable opt-out employer) so that people who work for them are also insured.

No, it's not single-payer. But getting every body into the pool holds the cost down for all of us, and that compromise (and more easily achievable solution) might actually work until we can figure out how to make another system work.

[DocSavage]

40. Mandate benefits

How can you mandate that a company provide benefits to an employee. What is to stop the company from just closing up shop in your state and moving elsewhere, therby increasing the unemplyment and leaving the person in a worse situation then when they started.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

42. That's why you need national healthcare rules

Oh, and besides that, the folks in government should use their bully pulpit to shame that particular company for its selfishness and make sure that it gets no further government contracts, if it has any.

Seriously, though, I can't see McDonald's closing down all its outlets in an entire state.

The corporate giants are among the worst skinflints. Pillsbury once claimed that it couldn't afford to provide health insurance for the servers at the Olive Garden (it may not own the Olive Garden now, but it did at the time). (I've met some of the higher ups in Pillsbury. They could probably provide health insurance on the cost of their three-piece suits alone. Well, maybe I'm exaggerating, but you get the idea.)

There were small businesses (10 or fewer employees) in Portland that either provided or subsidized health insurance for their employees. At the same time, a major regional chain of convenience stores not only didn't provide health insurance but didn't even provide sick leave for full-time employees.

We need politicians (on the national level, so that individual states don't get hurt) who will come out and say it: companies, especially large ones, that don't provide their rank-and-file workers with health insurance of any sort are greedy and heartless and we're sick of their lame excuses.