Other Resources The Political Joe » What is single payer healthcare? Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 4
 
 
2013-10-31 4:56 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Pro
5361
50001001001002525
Subject: RE: What is single payer healthcare?

It's certainly not clear that 'single payer' health care is more expensive to our system, nor is it reasonable to assume that the government could not run it effectively.  some contries with single payer systems:

Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Switzerland, UK.  and hey, guess what?  their per capita health care spending is close to half of what ours is in this country?  Granted, there are a lot of factors that go into why these single payer systems are effectively so much cheaper than our current "system".  

That said, if the US where to go in this direction, it would need to be fairly draconian about what it would cover.  Should every 95 year old with an arthritic hip be given a free hip replacement?  it would put all the insurance companies out of business (but not the doctors).  Which is why the insurance companies lobbied so heavily for Romney/Obamacare instead of the Democrat plan of single payer/medicare for all coverage.

I don't know if the ACA is really the right/best solution.  but I'm pretty darn sure that the way we've been doing it in this country was lousy.



2013-10-31 5:30 PM
in reply to: morey000

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: What is single payer healthcare?

Originally posted by morey000

It's certainly not clear that 'single payer' health care is more expensive to our system, nor is it reasonable to assume that the government could not run it effectively.  some contries with single payer systems:

Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Switzerland, UK.  and hey, guess what?  their per capita health care spending is close to half of what ours is in this country?  Granted, there are a lot of factors that go into why these single payer systems are effectively so much cheaper than our current "system".  

That said, if the US where to go in this direction, it would need to be fairly draconian about what it would cover.  Should every 95 year old with an arthritic hip be given a free hip replacement?  it would put all the insurance companies out of business (but not the doctors).  Which is why the insurance companies lobbied so heavily for Romney/Obamacare instead of the Democrat plan of single payer/medicare for all coverage.

I don't know if the ACA is really the right/best solution.  but I'm pretty darn sure that the way we've been doing it in this country was lousy.

To be sure it's a complex issue and there are a lot of things with our healthcare that are comparable to other countries and a lot of things that are not.

I would phrase the old system a little different in that our old system was very good, but it was very expensive so not everyone had access to take advantage of the system.  Thereby, for many the system was good and for a lot more it wasn't so good.  (I should so be a politician)  lol

When you talk about end of life care type stuff it is a tough conversation because different people have different views on stuff like this.  Obviously if it's purely a financial issue then the answer is simple, deny the coverage.  However, how is that any different then treating somebody with a high mortality rate cancer that's 30 years old.  The 90 year old may only live another year or maybe 5 or 10 years, but the terminal 30 year old will likely only live one year.  If you cut one off, you would have to cut them both off from a financial standpoint and who gets to make those decisions?  
Based on the way our government gives out disability to anyone who says their fingernail hurts I'm guessing they won't be denying anybody anything, lol.  98 year old wants a new pair of bewbs... approved.  ;-)

I think the ultimate solution is probably some sort of hybrid model where we still have a free market system in place, but provide single payer type clinics for those in need.  I don't think it has to be an all or none approach.

2013-10-31 5:41 PM
in reply to: 0

New user
900
500100100100100
,
Subject: RE: What is single payer healthcare?
Originally posted by morey000

It's certainly not clear that 'single payer' health care is more expensive to our system, nor is it reasonable to assume that the government could not run it effectively.  some contries with single payer systems:

Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Switzerland, UK.  and hey, guess what?  their per capita health care spending is close to half of what ours is in this country?  Granted, there are a lot of factors that go into why these single payer systems are effectively so much cheaper than our current "system".  

That said, if the US where to go in this direction, it would need to be fairly draconian about what it would cover.  Should every 95 year old with an arthritic hip be given a free hip replacement?  it would put all the insurance companies out of business (but not the doctors).  Which is why the insurance companies lobbied so heavily for Romney/Obamacare instead of the Democrat plan of single payer/medicare for all coverage.

I don't know if the ACA is really the right/best solution.  but I'm pretty darn sure that the way we've been doing it in this country was lousy.




Earlier in the thread, I posted, based on 2012 medicare, medicaid, CHIP spending and the number of people covered, to have single payer healthcare would cost more than 2.562 TRILLION DOLLARS annually. As for the 95 year old, nothing is "free" someone, in this case, tax payers foot the bill. Besides the prohibitive cost, you now become a subject or ward of the state with no say in your healthcare. Doctors lose their independence and become Federal employees and practice however the state wishes. I don't know about you but I prefer a doc who will do whats best for me, not whats best for the state. If socialized medicine is so great I suggest that folks who like it just move to where it is already established instead of taking away the freedoms of others.

Edited by NXS 2013-10-31 5:42 PM
2013-10-31 7:19 PM
in reply to: morey000

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: What is single payer healthcare?

Originally posted by morey000

It's certainly not clear that 'single payer' health care is more expensive to our system, nor is it reasonable to assume that the government could not run it effectively.  some contries with single payer systems:

 

I don't know if the ACA is really the right/best solution.  but I'm pretty darn sure that the way we've been doing it in this country was lousy.

The Federal government produces a worse product, that is more expensive, and takes more time, than private sector. PERIOD. Give me one single instance this is not true. Hows Amtrak, USPS, US military, Tax code... give me one thing the Feds do better than private sector. Then tell me how in the world it is possible they will provide better health care cheaper.

 

The lousy way we have been doing it in this country is a product of government regulation. Period. It is mild regulation compared to ACA that got us here, and somehow ACA is supposed to fix it. How in the world is it possible for more legislation to fix a system regulation broke in the first place.

If as a country, we say we do not want poor and needy to go without HC, then fine... implement a tax and we will just pay for it. The government will give it to them.... but to say the U.S. Federal government... with all it's history to prove otherwise... is going to fix America's HC problem... is pure fantasy.

2013-10-31 9:13 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: What is single payer healthcare?

Originally posted by powerman

Originally posted by morey000

It's certainly not clear that 'single payer' health care is more expensive to our system, nor is it reasonable to assume that the government could not run it effectively.  some contries with single payer systems:

 

I don't know if the ACA is really the right/best solution.  but I'm pretty darn sure that the way we've been doing it in this country was lousy.

The Federal government produces a worse product, that is more expensive, and takes more time, than private sector. PERIOD. Give me one single instance this is not true. Hows Amtrak, USPS, US military, Tax code... give me one thing the Feds do better than private sector. Then tell me how in the world it is possible they will provide better health care cheaper.

 

The lousy way we have been doing it in this country is a product of government regulation. Period. It is mild regulation compared to ACA that got us here, and somehow ACA is supposed to fix it. How in the world is it possible for more legislation to fix a system regulation broke in the first place.

If as a country, we say we do not want poor and needy to go without HC, then fine... implement a tax and we will just pay for it. The government will give it to them.... but to say the U.S. Federal government... with all it's history to prove otherwise... is going to fix America's HC problem... is pure fantasy.

That should be the end of that.... the ONLY thing the govt. can do better than the private sector is defense.....and that's only because they can do it cheaper because they don't pay well.



Edited by Left Brain 2013-10-31 9:14 PM
2013-11-01 8:07 AM
in reply to: 0

User image

Member
465
1001001001002525
Subject: RE: What is single payer healthcare?
Originally posted by morey000

It's certainly not clear that 'single payer' health care is more expensive to our system, nor is it reasonable to assume that the government could not run it effectively.  some contries with single payer systems:

Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Switzerland, UK.  and hey, guess what?  their per capita health care spending is close to half of what ours is in this country?  Granted, there are a lot of factors that go into why these single payer systems are effectively so much cheaper than our current "system".  

That said, if the US where to go in this direction, it would need to be fairly draconian about what it would cover.  Should every 95 year old with an arthritic hip be given a free hip replacement?  it would put all the insurance companies out of business (but not the doctors).  Which is why the insurance companies lobbied so heavily for Romney/Obamacare instead of the Democrat plan of single payer/medicare for all coverage.

I don't know if the ACA is really the right/best solution.  but I'm pretty darn sure that the way we've been doing it in this country was lousy.




Excluding taxes, current regulations and so on, the cost of healthcare is at a level that the market will bear. In another words the cost of health care is at the market equilibrium in that at the current price supply meets demand. It is an economic law...so there is no arguing this fact. (you might argue that taxes and regulatory cost places the price point above equilibrium thus prices some of the demand out of the market but that is not a discussion for this thread)

In a single payor system it is absolutely clear on what the cost of health care will be. That is because cost is determined by the government. If the government wants cost to be less then it will be less. This is mandated by installing a price ceiling on the market. For example, we spend 16% of our GDP on healthcare. The government can say we will only spend 12% and it will be so.

That sounds wonderful right? everyone want lower healthcare cost.

It is great until you looked at the affect of a price ceiling below the equilibrium price has on the market. Artificially lowering price increases demand and lowers supply. So the end result is you have less available supply. The difference between the quantity supplied and the demand creates an inefficiency in the market which has to be managed by rationing demand and/or reducing quality.

(The demand curve for elective procedures is elastic and will increase as price decreases. The demand curve for life saving procedures is almost absolutely inelastic meaning that the quantity demand doesn't change when price changes. So in my example on the effect of the price ceiling you can say that demand is a constant and only supply is a variable. Therefore the inefficiency in market that requires rationing is less.)



Edited by Jackemy1 2013-11-01 8:08 AM


2013-11-01 8:28 AM
in reply to: Jackemy1

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: What is single payer healthcare?

Originally posted by Jackemy1
Originally posted by morey000

It's certainly not clear that 'single payer' health care is more expensive to our system, nor is it reasonable to assume that the government could not run it effectively.  some contries with single payer systems:

Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Switzerland, UK.  and hey, guess what?  their per capita health care spending is close to half of what ours is in this country?  Granted, there are a lot of factors that go into why these single payer systems are effectively so much cheaper than our current "system".  

That said, if the US where to go in this direction, it would need to be fairly draconian about what it would cover.  Should every 95 year old with an arthritic hip be given a free hip replacement?  it would put all the insurance companies out of business (but not the doctors).  Which is why the insurance companies lobbied so heavily for Romney/Obamacare instead of the Democrat plan of single payer/medicare for all coverage.

I don't know if the ACA is really the right/best solution.  but I'm pretty darn sure that the way we've been doing it in this country was lousy.

Excluding taxes, current regulations and so on, the cost of healthcare is at a level that the market will bear. In another words the cost of health care is at the market equilibrium in that at the current price supply meets demand. It is an economic law...so there is no arguing this fact. (you might argue that taxes and regulatory cost places the price point above equilibrium thus prices some of the demand out of the market but that is not a discussion for this thread) In a single payor system it is absolutely clear on what the cost of health care will be. That is because cost is determined by the government. If the government wants cost to be less then it will be less. This is mandated by installing a price ceiling on the market. For example, we spend 16% of our GDP on healthcare. The government can say we will only spend 12% and it will be so. That sounds wonderful right? everyone want lower healthcare cost. It is great until you looked at the affect of a price ceiling below the equilibrium price has on the market. Artificially lowering price increases demand and lowers supply. So the end result is you have less available supply. The difference between the quantity supplied and the demand creates an inefficiency in the market which has to be managed by rationing demand and/or reducing quality. (The demand curve for elective procedures is elastic and will increase as price decreases. The demand curve for life saving procedures is almost absolutely inelastic meaning that the quantity demand doesn't change when price changes. So in my example on the effect of the price ceiling you can say that demand is a constant and only supply is a variable. Therefore the inefficiency in market that requires rationing is less.)

Well stated

2013-11-01 8:36 AM
in reply to: morey000

User image

Expert
1240
100010010025
Columbia, MO
Subject: RE: What is single payer healthcare?

Originally posted by morey000

 nor is it reasonable to assume that the government could not run it effectively.  

 

Once again I will bring up the point that our government could not effectively run a whorehouse.....

2013-11-01 8:48 AM
in reply to: bsjracing

User image

Extreme Veteran
3025
2000100025
Maryland
Subject: RE: What is single payer healthcare?

Originally posted by bsjracing

Originally posted by morey000

 nor is it reasonable to assume that the government could not run it effectively.  

 

Once again I will bring up the point that our government could not effectively run a whorehouse.....

idk, the representatives seem to themselves out to the highest bidder regularly.....

2013-11-01 9:19 AM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: What is single payer healthcare?

Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by bsjracing

Originally posted by morey000

 nor is it reasonable to assume that the government could not run it effectively.  

 

Once again I will bring up the point that our government could not effectively run a whorehouse.....

idk, the representatives seem to themselves out to the highest bidder regularly.....

that's funny even with the word bleeped out.  

2013-11-01 9:53 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Pro
5361
50001001001002525
Subject: RE: What is single payer healthcare?

Originally posted by tuwood

Well stated

 

well stated.  but not applicable  to the way healthcare is purchased in the US.  Healthcare isn't a market like pizza or televisions.  People don't get up one morning and think.  hey, I think I'd like to buy some healthcare today.  Instead, they get extremely ill or injured and need to purchase the service regardless of cost.  And then when they do- there is no opportunity to negotiate on price.  Also, we treat people that cannot pay, and that cost is currently born by those of us who do pay. (really- you're paying for these people anyway.  these people who you want to give the 'freedom' not to have to buy insurance)

As for the other opinions on here that the government can't run anything well.  That's more emotional than realistic.  Hey- General Motors has been in business for like 90 years and most of that time, it wasn't run well.  And it seems that every other country somehow has figured out how to provide healthcare for their citizens at half the cost and with better outcomes. 

It really sounds as if many of you here with the libertarian bent need a civics lesson.  One function of government is to do things for the populous of the country that they cannot do or will not get done individually.  Like- build national infrastructure (or did you think the interstate highway system would have gotten build by private contractors?) or keep america safe from our friends (the NSA seems to be doing an effective job these days ).  The second major function is to protect its citizens from the worst offenses of the elite and powerful.  This makes for a better country for all, and reason why we have organizations like the FAA and EPA.  

in the case of our prior national healthcare system- too many people were being close out of it.  either due to cost, or due to insurance companies making a business decision.  (ya' know, that preexisting condition thing).  People were getting screwed over by the millions.  You pay your health insurance premiums for 30 years, and then when you finally need them- the insurance company says 'sorry, your cancer is too expensive'.  70% of personal bankruptcies in the US were due to medical reasons... most of who had previously had insurance.

there is a tremendous amount of misinformation on this thread. 



2013-11-01 10:28 AM
in reply to: morey000

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: What is single payer healthcare?

Originally posted by morey000

Originally posted by tuwood

Well stated

 

well stated.  but not applicable  to the way healthcare is purchased in the US.  Healthcare isn't a market like pizza or televisions.  People don't get up one morning and think.  hey, I think I'd like to buy some healthcare today.  Instead, they get extremely ill or injured and need to purchase the service regardless of cost.  And then when they do- there is no opportunity to negotiate on price.  Also, we treat people that cannot pay, and that cost is currently born by those of us who do pay. (really- you're paying for these people anyway.  these people who you want to give the 'freedom' not to have to buy insurance)

As for the other opinions on here that the government can't run anything well.  That's more emotional than realistic.  Hey- General Motors has been in business for like 90 years and most of that time, it wasn't run well.  And it seems that every other country somehow has figured out how to provide healthcare for their citizens at half the cost and with better outcomes. 

It really sounds as if many of you here with the libertarian bent need a civics lesson.  One function of government is to do things for the populous of the country that they cannot do or will not get done individually.  Like- build national infrastructure (or did you think the interstate highway system would have gotten build by private contractors?) or keep america safe from our friends (the NSA seems to be doing an effective job these days ).  The second major function is to protect its citizens from the worst offenses of the elite and powerful.  This makes for a better country for all, and reason why we have organizations like the FAA and EPA.  

in the case of our prior national healthcare system- too many people were being close out of it.  either due to cost, or due to insurance companies making a business decision.  (ya' know, that preexisting condition thing).  People were getting screwed over by the millions.  You pay your health insurance premiums for 30 years, and then when you finally need them- the insurance company says 'sorry, your cancer is too expensive'.  70% of personal bankruptcies in the US were due to medical reasons... most of who had previously had insurance.

there is a tremendous amount of misinformation on this thread. 

I think the bolded pretty much sums up your post. 

Your very first statement about healthcare not being a market is completely untrue.  If I need a civics lesson then I think somebody else in this thread needs an economics lesson.  

A Doctor can charge whatever they want for their services and patients/insurance companies get to decide if they want to pay them or not.  Just because somebody needs healthcare doesn't change this dynamic.  If the Doctor charges $5k per visit then he will get no patients, so he has to reduce his price to the level the market will bare.  If he charges $5 per visit then he will be so busy he can't see straight and he can't pay his rent so he will have to raise his rates.  He will achieve an equilibrium point where he can still get patients and pay the bills.  His service being needed by everyone is irrelevant, other than that he'll always have demand at some level.

If somebody doesn't have insurance or money to afford the Doctor then they utilize free programs or go to the emergency room.  In those cases the supply cost is free to the individual, so the demand is higher.  We the taxpayers end up footing that bill or it's spread as part of the supply costs to paying patients.

Everything that is purchased is driven by supply and demand.  period.  There are things that can influence the supply and demand such as pricing controls, wage controls, and regulation, but it just skews the equilibrium point for the market.  The market still does what it does based on supply and demand even with Healthcare.

I can point out hundreds of companies that fail, but that doesn't mean by default the government is therefore better.  The government simply appears "better" because they have an unlimited supply of money and most of what they do is cloaked in secrecy.  I have a business with 8 employees and I have to sell enough to pay for everyone every single month.  If I ran my business like the government I would just go hire 100 people and not even care what it cost.  It's impossible to be efficient when you have a near unlimited budget.

The government does really stupid things that just make things cost more and they have no reason to do otherwise.  We typically don't get to see the waste because it's hidden behind imperial sized buildings with thousands of employees.  The ACA website debacle is a great example of how many government projects go, but the end product is something we all can see.  When other agencies take 6 weeks to turn something around we just chalk it off as government being over worked, but it's really because their process is just a bureaucratic equivalent of the ACA website full of inefficiencies on unnecessary steps that slow everything down and cost us more money.

Even with our awesome Defense there are tons of extra costs.  I spent 6 years in the Navy back in the 90's and did my division's purchasing.  I was force to buy PC's for $10k that I could go to the store and buy for $1k, but some "bidder" way back win won some contract that tied my hands.  This is where you get the $1k toaster stories.

2013-11-01 10:41 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: What is single payer healthcare?

What govt. does best is make itself bigger.....and that includes every agency within the govt.

2013-11-01 11:14 AM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Pro
5361
50001001001002525
Subject: RE: What is single payer healthcare?

Originally posted by Left Brain

What govt. does best is make itself bigger.....and that includes every agency within the govt.

I don't mind paying taxes.  Because with them, I buy civilization.

I know that many of those dollars are wasted and inefficient.  that doesn't mean I still don't want the functions of a government.

2013-11-01 11:29 AM
in reply to: 0

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: What is single payer healthcare?

Originally posted by morey000

Originally posted by Left Brain

What govt. does best is make itself bigger.....and that includes every agency within the govt.

I don't mind paying taxes.  Because with them, I buy civilization.

I know that many of those dollars are wasted and inefficient.  that doesn't mean I still don't want the functions of a government.

I get that....and I feel the same to a very large degree.  There will always be people that we have to pay for......one way or another....so yeah, keeping it civilized is preferable.  Still, the waste is tremendous......and we should demand better.



Edited by Left Brain 2013-11-01 11:29 AM
2013-11-01 11:29 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Pro
5361
50001001001002525
Subject: RE: What is single payer healthcare?

Originally posted by tuwood

A Doctor can charge whatever they want for their services and patients/insurance companies get to decide if they want to pay them or not. It's not a free market. Hospitals/doctors don't post their prices!  Just because somebody needs healthcare doesn't change this dynamic. The dynamic you refer to - pretty much doesn't exist (outside of face lifts and LASIK, etc)  If the Doctor charges $5k per visit then he will get no patients, so he has to reduce his price to the level the market will bare.   If he charges $5 per visit then he will be so busy he can't see straight and he can't pay his rent so he will have to raise his rates.  He will achieve an equilibrium point where he can still get patients and pay the bills.  His service being needed by everyone is irrelevant, other than that he'll always have demand at some level.

you are describing a free market economy which doesn't exist in healthcare.

If somebody doesn't have insurance or money to afford the Doctor then they utilize free programs or go to the emergency room.  In those cases the supply cost is free to the individual, so the demand is higher.  We the taxpayers end up footing that bill or it's spread as part of the supply costs to paying patients.  yes- we agree on this.  So- don't you wanna' do something about that?  like cut down on the number of people who aren't paying for their healthcare and making us pay?

Everything that is purchased is driven by supply and demand.  period. in a free market where there is a choice. There are things that can influence the supply and demand such as pricing controls, wage controls, and regulation, but it just skews the equilibrium point for the market.  The market still does what it does based on supply and demand even with Healthcare.

I can point out hundreds of companies that fail, but that doesn't mean by default the government is therefore better. (agreed- but that wasn't my point.  my point was that the the government does have a role in regulating, setting the fair play rules and running things for the greater good where business isn't in a position to do it) The government simply appears "better" because they have an unlimited supply of money and most of what they do is cloaked in secrecy. Apparently- even what the most secret parts of the gov't do isn't secret anymore.  So, Ed Snowdon has proven that statement incorrect. I have a business with 8 employees and I have to sell enough to pay for everyone every single month. yeah, I run a business too.   If I ran my business like the government I would just go hire 100 people and not even care what it cost.  It's impossible to be efficient when you have a near unlimited budget.

The government does really stupid things that just make things cost more and they have no reason to do otherwise.  yeah, it really sucked when they did stupid things like make car manufacturers install emissions control systems.  didn't that just suck?  I remember how much the car companies and libertarians complained.  Personally, I like breathing.  We typically don't get to see the waste because it's hidden behind imperial sized buildings with thousands of employees. Agreed- there's lot's of waste. The ACA website debacle is a great example of how many government projects go, but the end product is something we all can see.  When other agencies take 6 weeks to turn something around we just chalk it off as government being over worked, but it's really because their process is just a bureaucratic equivalent of the ACA website full of inefficiencies on unnecessary steps that slow everything down and cost us more money.  We both have already agreed that the finale chapter of the ACA is far from written.  The right wing should hope it works, as they like the other solution even less.

Even with our awesome Defense there are tons of extra costs.  I spent 6 years in the Navy back in the 90's and did my division's purchasing.  I was force to buy PC's for $10k that I could go to the store and buy for $1k, but some "bidder" way back win won some contract that tied my hands.  This is where you get the $1k toaster stories.

I spent 15 years as an aerospace engineer.  So, as a person on the other side, I had a different view of why toilet seats cost $600.  It's because they were custom designed, needed to be proven to a team of civil servants that they met a boat load of requirements... oh, and the government wanted to help design the seat, not just buy one off the shelf.  Yeah- not efficient at all, but it was generally the fair price for process that was desired.  In fact, defense contractors were typically limited on the amount of profit they were allowed to take.  Often negotiated fees. 



2013-11-01 11:40 AM
in reply to: morey000

User image

Member
465
1001001001002525
Subject: RE: What is single payer healthcare?
Originally posted by morey000

Originally posted by tuwood

Well stated

 

well stated.  but not applicable  to the way healthcare is purchased in the US.  Healthcare isn't a market like pizza or televisions.  People don't get up one morning and think.  hey, I think I'd like to buy some healthcare today.  Instead, they get extremely ill or injured and need to purchase the service regardless of cost.  And then when they do- there is no opportunity to negotiate on price.  Also, we treat people that cannot pay, and that cost is currently born by those of us who do pay. (really- you're paying for these people anyway.  these people who you want to give the 'freedom' not to have to buy insurance)

As for the other opinions on here that the government can't run anything well.  That's more emotional than realistic.  Hey- General Motors has been in business for like 90 years and most of that time, it wasn't run well.  And it seems that every other country somehow has figured out how to provide healthcare for their citizens at half the cost and with better outcomes. 

It really sounds as if many of you here with the libertarian bent need a civics lesson.  One function of government is to do things for the populous of the country that they cannot do or will not get done individually.  Like- build national infrastructure (or did you think the interstate highway system would have gotten build by private contractors?) or keep america safe from our friends (the NSA seems to be doing an effective job these days ).  The second major function is to protect its citizens from the worst offenses of the elite and powerful.  This makes for a better country for all, and reason why we have organizations like the FAA and EPA.  

in the case of our prior national healthcare system- too many people were being close out of it.  either due to cost, or due to insurance companies making a business decision.  (ya' know, that preexisting condition thing).  People were getting screwed over by the millions.  You pay your health insurance premiums for 30 years, and then when you finally need them- the insurance company says 'sorry, your cancer is too expensive'.  70% of personal bankruptcies in the US were due to medical reasons... most of who had previously had insurance.

there is a tremendous amount of misinformation on this thread. 




[Snarky font]

My college economics professors are going to be extremely disappointed that they gave me a degree in misinformation. I always wondered if the BS before Economics meant something other than Bachelors of Science.....

But anyways, you didn't read my post thoroughly. If you did you would have saw that the laws of the market hold true even with non-elective procedures and regulatory mandates such as non refusal of medical care for emergencies. The laws of supply and demand are true as the sun rising in the east and gravity. No matter what you say or think.

Now you can't just anecdotally say other countries have figured out how to provide health care at half the cost with better out comes without proving the economic laws behind it. And until you can do that, you have no way to support your opinion as fact. Prove to me through economic laws that your statement is correct. It is a simple math problem. However, you will be extremely challenged to show that what you are saying is fact. But If you can do it, I am betting there is a Nobel prize in Economics waiting for you....

BTW, You are aware that building national roads is an enumerated power of the federal government. It is right there in the Constitution. Health care management is not. (Yeah I know...those silly Libertarian types always quoting their dumb Constitution).

I was also unaware that the role of the government was to stick it to the rich and powerful. How dare those pesky capitalist make a profit off the proletariat's back!!! Let's use the hammer of government to go get them....hmmm...not quite my interpretation on the role of federalist government.

But maybe you are right, Tuwood and I need to make an appointment to the local politburo office for our re-education class. I think we are long overdue as the Kool-aid has clearly worn off.

In the meantime, I need to get back to being a capitalist and go screw the proletariat and steal some profit....[Snarky off]















2013-11-01 11:44 AM
in reply to: NXS

Member
169
1002525
Subject: RE: What is single payer healthcare?
Originally posted by NXS

Originally posted by morey000

It's certainly not clear that 'single payer' health care is more expensive to our system, nor is it reasonable to assume that the government could not run it effectively.  some contries with single payer systems:

Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Switzerland, UK.  and hey, guess what?  their per capita health care spending is close to half of what ours is in this country?  Granted, there are a lot of factors that go into why these single payer systems are effectively so much cheaper than our current "system".  

That said, if the US where to go in this direction, it would need to be fairly draconian about what it would cover.  Should every 95 year old with an arthritic hip be given a free hip replacement?  it would put all the insurance companies out of business (but not the doctors).  Which is why the insurance companies lobbied so heavily for Romney/Obamacare instead of the Democrat plan of single payer/medicare for all coverage.

I don't know if the ACA is really the right/best solution.  but I'm pretty darn sure that the way we've been doing it in this country was lousy.




Earlier in the thread, I posted, based on 2012 medicare, medicaid, CHIP spending and the number of people covered, to have single payer healthcare would cost more than 2.562 TRILLION DOLLARS annually. As for the 95 year old, nothing is "free" someone, in this case, tax payers foot the bill. Besides the prohibitive cost, you now become a subject or ward of the state with no say in your healthcare. Doctors lose their independence and become Federal employees and practice however the state wishes. I don't know about you but I prefer a doc who will do whats best for me, not whats best for the state. If socialized medicine is so great I suggest that folks who like it just move to where it is already established instead of taking away the freedoms of others.


I remember seeing this earlier in the thread. I don't think a single payer would just add on to the deficit to the tune of $2.6trillion with getting new revenue. I would imagine companies would pay a new tax with money that they are now using to pay for their portion of employee plans. Is that perfect and will it add up to exactly $2.6trillion? I don't know. But there is certainly money there to be re-directed. (Or to interpret to conservative jargon, spread the wealth).
2013-11-01 12:42 PM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

Master
2802
2000500100100100
Minnetonka, Minnesota
Bronze member
Subject: RE: What is single payer healthcare?
Healthcare delivery and insurance is about my least favorite topic and makes my head hurt, but the economic discussion had me googling a bit and I found this aritcle which seemed a good laymans overview. Enjoy!

http://faculty.winthrop.edu/stonebrakerr/book/medicalcare.htm
2013-11-01 1:08 PM
in reply to: morey000

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: What is single payer healthcare?

Originally posted by morey000

 

As for the other opinions on here that the government can't run anything well.  That's more emotional than realistic.  Hey- General Motors has been in business for like 90 years and most of that time, it wasn't run well.  And it seems that every other country somehow has figured out how to provide healthcare for their citizens at half the cost and with better outcomes. 

It really sounds as if many of you here with the libertarian bent need a civics lesson.  One function of government is to do things for the populous of the country that they cannot do or will not get done individually.  Like- build national infrastructure (or did you think the interstate highway system would have gotten build by private contractors?) or keep america safe from our friends (the NSA seems to be doing an effective job these days ).  The second major function is to protect its citizens from the worst offenses of the elite and powerful.  This makes for a better country for all, and reason why we have organizations like the FAA and EPA.  

in the case of our prior national healthcare system- too many people were being close out of it.  either due to cost, or due to insurance companies making a business decision.  (ya' know, that preexisting condition thing).  People were getting screwed over by the millions.  You pay your health insurance premiums for 30 years, and then when you finally need them- the insurance company says 'sorry, your cancer is too expensive'.  70% of personal bankruptcies in the US were due to medical reasons... most of who had previously had insurance.

there is a tremendous amount of misinformation on this thread. 

The point of government is to provide stuff that the private sector can't. Like national defense. But don't even get me started on the enormous amount of waste in the ND budget. But, nobody else can do that function, so we pay taxes to pay for it.

But TONS of other people can do HC, so don't tell me the Federal government is going to do it better.

One simple single law... you can not be denied coverage from prexisiting conditions, or condition... period. Problem solved... one page. Not 12,000 pages of legislation. ONE.

And your examples given are emotional ones too, not realistic... I just cost my insurance company about $250K this year. Not even a peep out of them. Everything paid for just like they agreed to. I did not worry about a thing.

If the government would have STAYED out of the way... you would still have family practice. If companies wanted a bigger share, and realized it is more cost effective to do preventitive medicine then they would have offered. Individuals would have shopped for catastrophic insurance no different than they shop for auto home and life insurance. Employers, in order to attract good employees could have helped pay for that, or pool resources to get better rates... naturally, not out of legislation. There is any hundreds of ways healthcare providers could supply the demands of the market place.

But there is no way to do that now. Because suppliers are just waiting around to see what they will be made to do next. And in order to ensure they are not caught revenue negative, they are going to do what is necessary to stay in front of regulation. And why should they supply anything... when it's mandated, then nobody will have a choice.

Prime example... my utility already was on track for installing green power with plenty of projects... but then the voters mandated they do 20%, and all preexisting projects did not count. So what they invested did not count and they had to invest more at a substantial disadvantage in the market because they had to. So now my utility will not do anything until told to... this actually happened all over the country. It was a very chilling effect over something that was happening because the customers just wanted it to. I'm not saying all companies act out of the goodness of their heart... but maniplulating the market through regulation most certainly has a cost.

People complain about "free markets" and if you ever hear that the person saying it is taken as a anti-government kook. But we have not had free markets since the ink dried on the Constitution... and no,I have no desire to go back to 1800. What I am saying is the government rigs the game everyday. The government intervenes and ruins it everyday. It is all done to sound good... we need to do it for the poor, we need to do it to look out for the little guy... but all that happens is thousands of pages of legislation is thrown in to rig the game to benefit the wealthy and powerful. ACA has nothing to do with "affordable". You have over 200 years worth of legislation to see your proof.

2013-11-01 1:15 PM
in reply to: burhed

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: What is single payer healthcare?

Originally posted by burhed
Originally posted by NXS
Originally posted by morey000

It's certainly not clear that 'single payer' health care is more expensive to our system, nor is it reasonable to assume that the government could not run it effectively.  some contries with single payer systems:

Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Switzerland, UK.  and hey, guess what?  their per capita health care spending is close to half of what ours is in this country?  Granted, there are a lot of factors that go into why these single payer systems are effectively so much cheaper than our current "system".  

That said, if the US where to go in this direction, it would need to be fairly draconian about what it would cover.  Should every 95 year old with an arthritic hip be given a free hip replacement?  it would put all the insurance companies out of business (but not the doctors).  Which is why the insurance companies lobbied so heavily for Romney/Obamacare instead of the Democrat plan of single payer/medicare for all coverage.

I don't know if the ACA is really the right/best solution.  but I'm pretty darn sure that the way we've been doing it in this country was lousy.

Earlier in the thread, I posted, based on 2012 medicare, medicaid, CHIP spending and the number of people covered, to have single payer healthcare would cost more than 2.562 TRILLION DOLLARS annually. As for the 95 year old, nothing is "free" someone, in this case, tax payers foot the bill. Besides the prohibitive cost, you now become a subject or ward of the state with no say in your healthcare. Doctors lose their independence and become Federal employees and practice however the state wishes. I don't know about you but I prefer a doc who will do whats best for me, not whats best for the state. If socialized medicine is so great I suggest that folks who like it just move to where it is already established instead of taking away the freedoms of others.
I remember seeing this earlier in the thread. I don't think a single payer would just add on to the deficit to the tune of $2.6trillion with getting new revenue. I would imagine companies would pay a new tax with money that they are now using to pay for their portion of employee plans. Is that perfect and will it add up to exactly $2.6trillion? I don't know. But there is certainly money there to be re-directed. (Or to interpret to conservative jargon, spread the wealth).

The true irony is that the people who have companies paying for their insurance aren't the problem.  Those people have insurance, so to take the money those companies are paying today would just lateral that revenue/expense over to the government and provide nothing new to anyone.

The bigger issue is how to pay for everyone else, which is the issue everyone's trying to solve.  As I mentioned before, if everyone is going to get insurance then everyone is going to have to pay for the insurance.  If half the country doesn't have insurance and you only charge the people who currently have insurance a tax then you're going to effectively double the cost of their insurance, with all other things being equal.



2013-11-01 1:36 PM
in reply to: ejshowers

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: What is single payer healthcare?

Originally posted by ejshowers Healthcare delivery and insurance is about my least favorite topic and makes my head hurt, but the economic discussion had me googling a bit and I found this aritcle which seemed a good laymans overview. Enjoy! http://faculty.winthrop.edu/stonebrakerr/book/medicalcare.htm

That was a really good read about the problems that ill our current system.  I felt the author got a little biased at the end towards the single payer system, but overall an excellent piece.

As we're debating back and forth about other countries having single payer systems, this line stuck out to me in the article:

Although countries vary widely in the way medical care is provided, they share one important characteristic: discontent.  Citizens throughout the world are increasingly frustrated with their respective health care systems. 

2013-11-01 1:39 PM
in reply to: Jackemy1

User image

Pro
5361
50001001001002525
Subject: RE: What is single payer healthcare?

Originally posted by Jackemy1 ...Now you can't just anecdotally say other countries have figured out how to provide health care at half the cost with better out comes without proving the economic laws behind it...

It's probably not necessary to get deep into the economic laws of healthcare vs commodities- because ultimately it will diverge when we differ on the belief that there is an inherent right to basic health care for everyone, or not.  If a person can't afford to get essential medical care- should someone else pay?

And- I agree with the statement bolded (emboldend?) above.  A person can find an anecdote that supports any hypothesis.  For instance, for an estimated 3 % of the population- their insurance rates are legitimately going to go up under the ACA.  Even 3% is a lot of anecdotes to work with!

But I think that we all agree in this:  In the US we spend way too much money on healthcare, and we get poor outcomes.  

here's a good short summary with some charts that PBS put together:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/10/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries.html

 

The question is- what to do about it.  As is suggested above- just adding the pre-existing conditions requirement would put our insurance companies out of business...or, raise everyone else's rates... without getting more people into the system.  That's the beauty of the Heritage Foundation's plan that they put forward in 1989, and has been the bastion of the GOP position on healthcare right up through the negotiations in 2009 until the moment Obama acquiesced to the GOP.

The ACA is a free market plan where capitalistic insurance companies compete on the open market for business, and the government offers help to those who can least afford it to purchase this insurance.  The costs of this assistance are "paid for" via a variety of means in the bill, that were all agreed to and fought for by the insurance companies.

anyway- I really have other things I should be doing.  I accept that we just don't agree.  Romneycare didn't work perfectly in the first few years.  Took a while for them to adjust the laws and the process. Works now tho'.

 

2013-11-01 2:07 PM
in reply to: morey000

User image

Member
465
1001001001002525
Subject: RE: What is single payer healthcare?
Originally posted by morey000

Originally posted by Jackemy1 ...Now you can't just anecdotally say other countries have figured out how to provide health care at half the cost with better out comes without proving the economic laws behind it...

It's probably not necessary to get deep into the economic laws of healthcare vs commodities- because ultimately it will diverge when we differ on the belief that there is an inherent right to basic health care for everyone, or not.  If a person can't afford to get essential medical care- should someone else pay?

And- I agree with the statement bolded (emboldend?) above.  A person can find an anecdote that supports any hypothesis.  For instance, for an estimated 3 % of the population- their insurance rates are legitimately going to go up under the ACA.  Even 3% is a lot of anecdotes to work with!

But I think that we all agree in this:  In the US we spend way too much money on healthcare, and we get poor outcomes.  

here's a good short summary with some charts that PBS put together:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/10/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries.html

 

The question is- what to do about it.  As is suggested above- just adding the pre-existing conditions requirement would put our insurance companies out of business...or, raise everyone else's rates... without getting more people into the system.  That's the beauty of the Heritage Foundation's plan that they put forward in 1989, and has been the bastion of the GOP position on healthcare right up through the negotiations in 2009 until the moment Obama acquiesced to the GOP.

The ACA is a free market plan where capitalistic insurance companies compete on the open market for business, and the government offers help to those who can least afford it to purchase this insurance.  The costs of this assistance are "paid for" via a variety of means in the bill, that were all agreed to and fought for by the insurance companies.

anyway- I really have other things I should be doing.  I accept that we just don't agree.  Romneycare didn't work perfectly in the first few years.  Took a while for them to adjust the laws and the process. Works now tho'.

 




The ACA is about the furthest thing from a free market system.

Because of the existing insurance infrastructure, the simplest way for the government to implement however many thousands of pages of regulations in to the system and control the market is through the current insurance network.

Off course you are still talking to a Blue Cross/Blue Shield rep and the rep is getting a BC/BS paycheck but that plan you are getting has every dotted i and crossed t stamped and approved by the federal government. The insurance companies are just the front man for the government. I get that the progressives want to still tag the ACA as a "free-market" system controlled by private insurance companies because they will need a scapegoat when this fails. But in reality, that is just not the case.

I just want to add also, many states already had laws requiring coverage of pre-existing conditions and community rating before Obamacare. The rally cry of "pre-existing condition coverage" was just red meat for the people. I mean who could be against little Johnny getting cancer treatement?

2013-11-01 2:17 PM
in reply to: morey000

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: What is single payer healthcare?

Originally posted by morey000

Originally posted by Jackemy1 ...Now you can't just anecdotally say other countries have figured out how to provide health care at half the cost with better out comes without proving the economic laws behind it...

It's probably not necessary to get deep into the economic laws of healthcare vs commodities- because ultimately it will diverge when we differ on the belief that there is an inherent right to basic health care for everyone, or not.  If a person can't afford to get essential medical care- should someone else pay?

And- I agree with the statement bolded (emboldend?) above.  A person can find an anecdote that supports any hypothesis.  For instance, for an estimated 3 % of the population- their insurance rates are legitimately going to go up under the ACA.  Even 3% is a lot of anecdotes to work with!

But I think that we all agree in this:  In the US we spend way too much money on healthcare, and we get poor outcomes.  

here's a good short summary with some charts that PBS put together:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/10/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries.html

 

The question is- what to do about it.  As is suggested above- just adding the pre-existing conditions requirement would put our insurance companies out of business...or, raise everyone else's rates... without getting more people into the system.  That's the beauty of the Heritage Foundation's plan that they put forward in 1989, and has been the bastion of the GOP position on healthcare right up through the negotiations in 2009 until the moment Obama acquiesced to the GOP.

The ACA is a free market plan where capitalistic insurance companies compete on the open market for business, and the government offers help to those who can least afford it to purchase this insurance.  The costs of this assistance are "paid for" via a variety of means in the bill, that were all agreed to and fought for by the insurance companies.

anyway- I really have other things I should be doing.  I accept that we just don't agree.  Romneycare didn't work perfectly in the first few years.  Took a while for them to adjust the laws and the process. Works now tho'.

 

I've seen a lot of different spin about how many people's rates are going up and how many people are getting canceled, etc.  Carney was downplaying the people getting cancellations as only the 5% of population that had private policies, so they were a minority.  However, I have a corporate policy and my insurance was canceled and the rates for any replacement plan are considerably higher.  So, both the 3% and the 5% are very misleading and I'm going to say grossly wrong.

I have no idea what the real percentages are, and you're correct that I can go find sites posting everything from 3% of the population going up to 80% of people having rates increase.  Personally I'm thinking rates go up every year for 100% of people with insurance so with or without the ACA everyone's rates are going ot go up, it's just a matter of quantifying how much of an increase.

Anecdotally (there I go again) 100% of the small business owners I know all had their insurance canceled and are scrambling to find replacement policies.  Also, everyone I know on private policies all had their policies canceled and are scrambling to find replacement policies.  In both cases the replacement policies are significantly more expensive.  So, in my opinion the 3% and 5% estimates are horribly low, but hey I'm just another anecdote.  :0)

New Thread
Other Resources The Political Joe » What is single payer healthcare? Rss Feed  
 
 
of 4
 
 
RELATED POSTS

Healthcare.gov

Started by tuwood
Views: 1444 Posts: 13

2013-10-15 5:36 PM tuwood

So much for keeping my companies current healthcare plan

Started by tuwood
Views: 1634 Posts: 13

2013-07-31 8:43 AM chirunner134
RELATED ARTICLES
date : July 2, 2013
author : mikericci
comments : 0
Although a computrainer can be a great asset to any athlete, it’s not the only way to improve your pedal stroke. I’ll list a number of pedaling drills below and how you can incorporate them.
 
date : February 15, 2013
author : XLAB Hydration
comments : 0
XLAB Launches the Latest Rear Single Bottle System, the DELTA 300
date : November 9, 2009
author : Nancy Clark
comments : 1
What can you do? You can implement small but sustainable changes that you can happily maintain for the rest of your life. The changes might have more to do with lifestyle than food.
 
date : April 23, 2009
author : Team BT
comments : 0
The single arm drill ensures that you are getting the rotation you need throughout your stroke.
date : May 5, 2008
author : TriPainter
comments : 1
I went into the pool area (as this was a pool swim) and got body marked. That's when it hit me that I was there to race - this was not a clinic.
 
date : September 24, 2007
author : mrakes1
comments : 0
Discussions on salt tablets, AM workout nutrition, coffee, post workout nutrition, whey powder, recovery nutrition, losing weight, Recoverite usage, the necessity of sugars and snack ideas.
date : September 11, 2007
author : Team BT
comments : 0
Bosu ball single leg squats stability exercise with picture and video.
 
date : September 11, 2007
author : Team BT
comments : 0
Bosu Ball Hip Abduction - single leg stability exercise with picture and video.