Single Payer Too Exspensive, No Way?

Apparently VT has been trying to get single payer healthcare for years and is just now coming to the conclusion that it's too exspensive. They could have saved s lot of time if they would've just asked me.
http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/18/vermont-kills-single-payer-health-care-p

Did you forget to read the article before posting? Here's the explanation as to why it's too expensive:

Single payer won't work in the U.S.

"But it works in Sweden!"

Not real well, actually.

(Now let's watch as Leftforge ignored that thoroughly researched summary just because it shoots a hole in their idol's signature boondoggle.)

As rightforge likes to point out, the US isn't Sweden.

Ah, yes, the beloved "No True Scotsman" -- the go-to defense for the atrocities that are the real-world legacies of Islam and Communism, too, by the way.

Precisely, which is why the complications that make it a failure there (and in Vermont) would make it an even more entertaining clusterfuck if implemented on a national scale here. Increasing complexity does not improve the odds of success.

You can't have it both ways, Castle. Either renounce ever again using such a statement, or accept it as valid.

I can have whatever I want because I'm special and you're not and your a doody-head and your dad smells like arugula.

More seriously: It's not a case of having it both ways. Sweden isn't the U.S. -- the U.S. is bigger. Single payer is shitty in Sweden, and they won't even bother trying it in Vermont.

Implementing single payer would be orders of magnitude more complex on the scale of a country as large and populous as the U.S., as proved by implementing even the intermediate step in that direction that is Obamacare.

Now, you can concede that, or concede that Obamacare was actually designed to fail in order to excuse jumping from it to single payer.

Because once government gets its toes into the door of something, it never gets the fuck back out again. Obamacare was never intended to make health insurance better. It was intended to exploit the negative impact of existing government meddling in health insurance.

Eliminate interstate health insurance competition -- now health insurance sucks ass. Now we can "reform" it with Obamacare. Now it sucks ass even more. Now we can "reform" it with single payer. That's how it was intended to go, from the beginning.

Well, either that or they've been fucking it up because they're inept morons, but that still doesn't speak well of what we can expect in the future, does it.

Since you're too poor to afford a spell-checker, you're probably eligible for Medicaid.

I don't need to concede anything. Your article regards escalating cost which is likely explained by an aging population. Further, it clearly shows in the chart that cost escalation accelerated after the introduction of market reforms. So there are conflicting trend data and correlation does not equal causation.

Is Sweden's immigration policy as strict as Japan's? Countries that are aging out often don't appreciate the value of welcoming young, able workers from other countries. Although in Sweden it could be that they have an open policy and it's the weather and those long dark winters that discourage immigration.

Not even close. Escalating cost is directly corollary to a captive market. When people have to pay, guess what happens -- providers charge whatever the fuck they want, without regard to the risk of losing revenue to competition or consumer disengagement.

There's your explanation, and the reason why single payer has been failing in Sweden, wasn't even viable in Vermont, and would leap down the shitter if implemented on a national scale here.

The justification of Obamacare, in part, has been that insurers are "greedy"? Well, how does handing them a captive consumer base fix that?

It hasn't been working so far, and it won't when they tighten the manacles on us with single payer.

Crony capitalism is what single payer is. It doesn't work. It never will.

We now interrupt The Usual Bullshit for a link to 20 women in wet t-shirts. (And if you need to be told that's NSFW, gods help you.)

Sweden is so open that they're having a backlash against the immigrants, with an anti-immigrant party surging in last September's elections. Arabic is going to be their first language if they don't do something about it.

Liar.

Settle that jerking knee down, woman. He's right.

Nice of you to do the Propaganda King's homework for him but, like your Biggest Fan, you might want to actually read the article instead of just grabbing the headline.

Also, a tidbit: "Populist" means "we do what the people who elect us want us to do."

That's how legitimate government is supposed to work.

Test me and see if I didn't. But I just might treat you like a census taker if you do.

You mean a state with only 600,000 people doesn't have the tax base for everyone to have healthcare?

Then maybe you should move to Sweden, because clearly no one's doing things your way where you're living.

I've got a better idea -- how 'bout you move to Venezuela.

You may have read the individual words, but they do not mean what you think they mean.

Because you're so miserable in America?

Easily disproved by the history of cost escalation in the US pre PPACA.

The history of cost escalation in the U.S. pre-PPACA is not the same thing as the history of cost escalation in the U.S. pre-government interference. Remember where I mentioned the government meddling in interstate insurance commerce? Course ya don't, that would be inconvenient, wouldn't it.

From the NY Times article, "As a result, 15 percent of Sweden’s population today was born abroad." They don't need more foreigners moving there, unless perhaps they were Danes, Finns, or Germans. As it is, one day their nationalized health care system will be forced to provide clitorectamies.

Did I say ramble some bullpuckey, or did I say test me?

No I didn't forget that part. I don't think it matters that much. If the state thinks it's too expensive without it being "true" single payer, just imagine real single payer. Did you see the part where California believed it to be too expensive as well?

Because America is gonna stay America. If you want the "progress" you're so enamored with, go where it's already happened. Venezuela. If you want that for yourself, fine. It exists, and it's a magical little kingdom. Go live there. Talk about "fuck you, I've got mine" -- it's only ever the trust fund kids and the comfortably set up who are all about this "progressive" / "liberal" / "socialist" bullshit. Just a bunch of elitist bastards who've got theirs howling for everybody else to accept a system that stomps everybody but the upholstered leather set into the mud. If you want a system where people are on breadlines, it exists. Go live in it and shut up.