Are You in Favor of a Single Payer Health Care System?

X Factor said:

Would you like to see single payer health care in the US?

Click to expand...

let's just say i think it would give us every advantage that food nationalization gave the Chinese.

Objective Voice said:

Now, the problem with both systems is the same: the U.S. Government. For some reason, most Americans don't trust their government, a concept I truly find...laughable...because our government is US. WE control it by electing people who WE believe are trustworthy to enact laws that wisely and efficiently manage all facets of OUR society. That's the problem I see with every American citizen who continues to argue against either a single-payer health care system or universal health care. If you truly don't believe government can be trusted to run either system effectively and efficiently, then WE have but one answer to resolve this problem: ELECT THE RIGHT PEOPLE TO CONGRESS WHO WILL DO RIGHT BY THE PEOPLE!

Click to expand...

The same government that is so despised by people right now was also elected them. And, it has managed to provide adequate medical care for military personnel for decades. My boyfriend has excellent medical coverage because of his affiliation as a Navy reservist. This coverage has allowed him to return to college to get his Ph.D. and start his own business without the worries that other people in these situations would face. And, Tricare has hardly bankrupted the system, in fact, it has been shown to be remarkably cost effective.

cpwill said:

let's just say i think it would give us every advantage that food nationalization gave the Chinese.

Click to expand...

You don't see any difference between the Chinese system of government and the U.S. system of government?

:roll:

Maybe retaking civics would help.

Catz Part Deux said:

The same government that is so despised by people right now was also elected them. And, it has managed to provide adequate medical care for military personnel for decades. My boyfriend has excellent medical coverage because of his affiliation as a Navy reservist. This coverage has allowed him to return to college to get his Ph.D. and start his own business without the worries that other people in these situations would face. And, Tricare has hardly bankrupted the system, in fact, it has been shown to be remarkably cost effective.

Click to expand...

Tricare is perhaps the best argument available for why a single-payer medical system wouldn't work. on top of having reimbursement rates close to medicaid (which means that your providers outside of military hospitals are limited), it's also a bureacratic nightmare.

it took me the better part of 2 years to convince those people that the woman on my marriage certificate who was also listed as the mother of my child was - in fact - my wife. because her father is a retiree... so she's already in the system under another sponsor who doesn't have us as a primary... and everyone knows that you can't be the daughter of one person and the wife of another. it was another two years after that that they finally got around to picking up the charge and I got a 15,000 unpaid medical bill off my credit report.

THEN they accused me of fraud. turns out when my son was born the Hospital sent the bill before we had filled out the Birth certificate / SS info; so in the place of first name they put "baby". as in "Baby Smith". but here I was claiming to have a child whose first name was not 'Baby'.

as for affordability... yes, when you are able to dump a significant portion of your costs into a provider network (military doctors, medics, corpsmen, hospitals, aid stations, etc), then it helps "make you profitable".

Catz Part Deux said:

You don't see any difference between the Chinese system of government and the U.S. system of government?

Click to expand...

no, nor do i think it heavily impacts this discussion. the centralization of the provision of food under a "single payer" is economically a very similar method of resource allocation as the centralization of the provision of healthcare under a "single payer".

I support a single payer healthcare system. Insurance companies do not have patients as their goal. I think for profit healthcare is wrong. The goal should be to help and heal those that are sick, not squeeze them for money and leave them to die if they can't afford it. I completely understand that doctors and staff need to be paid and that procedures cost money, but insurance companies aren't in it to help people or look out for their consumer. I'm sick of being dependent on insurance companies that can do whatever they want to and charge whatever they want to while we are the ones who lose in the long run.

TurtleDude said:

not a proper analogy In a private system, I pay my share based on risks as do others

In a single payer many people don't contribute their share

Click to expand...

Then design a single-payer system similar to Medicaid except instead of the partnership being between the federal government and the states, it's between the People and the federal government. Such a system could work like this:

The People pay a health care tax no more than we currently pay into Social Security. The federal government then contributes a percentage of funding based on Census data equal to the ratio of our national poverty rate, i.e., U.S. population is 300 million, number of those living in poverty is 47 millions = 14.1:1 ratio. Meaning that for every 14 people who pays into the single-payer health care system, the government would contribute 14% of the total taxes collected for the health care system to cover the poor. Now, where would this additional money come from - that 14%? Logically, you'd spread the tax liability across all aspects of the private health care system - pharmacueticals (5%), medical equipment (3%), medical supplies (1%), etc., etc., until that 14% is reached. This rate would be fixed until the next national Census data is published and the costs/taxes adjusted accordingly not on inflation alone but on total population PLUS the cost of medical care. So, if our nation's population decreases, medical care should also decrease because our nation should be healtier and their would be fewer people to service - healthy or unhealthy. Either way, the cost would be spread around equally to both the people and the government. The incentive for the government would be to "incentivise" the private sector to create job opportunities. But the tax burden for the poor wouldn't be on the People. It would be the medical industry in partnership with the federal government. Still, there would be a 3-tiered effect: the working-class paying into the single-payer health care system, the medical industry contributing via minimal taxation to aid the poor (since we keep hearing how the private sector should volunteer more aid to the poor) and the government doing it's part to help its citizens overall. A win-win-win scenario.

Now, former President Reagan was right when he said, "The best social program is a job." And surely creating avenues whereby the poor can attain full employment is the ideal goal, but let's be real here. There will always be poor people. The trick is to do whatever is necessary in partnership between the private sector and the federal government to keep unemployment as close to ZERO as possible. That hasn't happened in this country for a while even before our economic crisis. We have alot of work still left to do yet, but one day WE will come to our collective senses and realize, much as the People of the Orient do today and have for generations, that we're all connected, in the same boat. We sink or swim, live or die together. (And no, this is not a Kumbiyah momemt but it would be nice if we could all just get along.)

cpwill said:

Tricare is perhaps the best argument available for why a single-payer medical system wouldn't work. on top of having reimbursement rates close to medicaid (which means that your providers outside of military hospitals are limited), it's also a bureacratic nightmare.

it took me the better part of 2 years to convince those people that the woman on my marriage certificate who was also listed as the mother of my child was - in fact - my wife. because her father is a retiree... so she's already in the system under another sponsor who doesn't have us as a primary... and everyone knows that you can't be the daughter of one person and the wife of another. it was another two years after that that they finally got around to picking up the charge and I got a 15,000 unpaid medical bill off my credit report.

THEN they accused me of fraud. turns out when my son was born the Hospital sent the bill before we had filled out the Birth certificate / SS info; so in the place of first name they put "baby". as in "Baby Smith". but here I was claiming to have a child whose first name was not 'Baby'.

as for affordability... yes, when you are able to dump a significant portion of your costs into a provider network (military doctors, medics, corpsmen, hospitals, aid stations, etc), then it helps "make you profitable".

Click to expand...

Because this could never happen with a private insurance provider, right? Do you understand, at all, that isolated anectdotal experiences do not equal evidence?

Apparently not.

digsbe said:

I support a single payer healthcare system. Insurance companies do not have patients as their goal. I think for profit healthcare is wrong. The goal should be to help and heal those that are sick, not squeeze them for money and leave them to die if they can't afford it. I completely understand that doctors and staff need to be paid and that procedures cost money, but insurance companies aren't in it to help people or look out for their consumer. I'm sick of being dependent on insurance companies that can do whatever they want to and charge whatever they want to while we are the ones who lose in the long run.

Click to expand...

You are starting to sound moderate. I like it.

cpwill said:

no, nor do i think it heavily impacts this discussion. the centralization of the provision of food under a "single payer" is economically a very similar method of resource allocation as the centralization of the provision of healthcare under a "single payer".

Click to expand...

It's hugely different, in that if you express public discontent with the Chinese system, you go to jail. Thus, there is ZERO means for the average citizen to change or impact the system. That makes a huge difference. In the American political system, WE ARE THE SYSTEM, and you have multiple means, at your disposal, to correct a problem. The system is DIRECTLY answerable to the people, not vice versa (the Chinese system).

Catz Part Deux said:

It's hugely different, in that if you express public discontent with the Chinese system, you go to jail. Thus, there is ZERO means for the average citizen to change or impact the system. That makes a huge difference. In the American political system, WE ARE THE SYSTEM, and you have multiple means, at your disposal, to correct a problem. The system is DIRECTLY answerable to the people, not vice versa (the Chinese system).

Click to expand...

That's not true at all, even under the last health care bill, cost effectiveness is placed under control of an unelected board.

For any UHC/Single player system to work, you're going to have to have a NICE (U.K.'s cost effective board) type council regulating who does and doesn't get care.

Harry Guerrilla said:

That's not true at all, even under the last health care bill, cost effectiveness is placed under control of an unelected board.

For any UHC/Single player system to work, you're going to have to have a NICE (U.K.'s cost effective board) type council regulating who does and doesn't get care.

Click to expand...

And the unelected board answers to elected officials. Why is this so hard for you people?

Catz Part Deux said:

And the unelected board answers to elected officials. Why is this so hard for you people?

Click to expand...

It doesn't if they're jobs are insulated with some sort of tenure.
That's par for the course with these type of things.

They are seated, typically for life (or the duration of their career) and they are free to "judge" unmolested.

Nor do pretentious poses of superiority....UHC cannot not work on a macro scale, demand ALWAYS outpaces supply.

Catz Part Deux said:

Because this could never happen with a private insurance provider, right? Do you understand, at all, that isolated anectdotal experiences do not equal evidence?

Apparently not.

Click to expand...

Amazed said:

Nor do pretentious poses of superiority....UHC cannot not work on a macro scale, demand ALWAYS outpaces supply.

Click to expand...

It can if we make it more cost effective and efficient. With UHC the cost of profit does not factor, as it is a service and not a for profit enterprise. Even so, we could allow states to manage their own healthcare system if we had to. A large part of the demand is people coming in for routine physical maintenance, something that doesn't necessarily require an MD. Certain states and countries allow clinical pharmacists to see patients and write prescription for maintenance drugs while MDs can use their time in more serious areas (like the ER or complicated diagnosis). There are cost cutting measures that we can take, taking profit out of the equation can lower costs, and it is feasible.

That is not how the current bill is structured.

digsbe said:

It can if we make it more cost effective and efficient. With UHC the cost of profit does not factor, as it is a service and not a for profit enterprise. Even so, we could allow states to manage their own healthcare system if we had to. A large part of the demand is people coming in for routine physical maintenance, something that doesn't necessarily require an MD. Certain states and countries allow clinical pharmacists to see patients and write prescription for maintenance drugs while MDs can use their time in more serious areas (like the ER or complicated diagnosis). There are cost cutting measures that we can take, taking profit out of the equation can lower costs, and it is feasible.

Click to expand...

Amazed said:

That is not how the current bill is structured.

Click to expand...

The current bill also does not have any protocol for UHC. I do not like Obama's healthcare bill and I want it repealed and replaced with something real.

Harry Guerrilla said:

It doesn't if they're jobs are insulated with some sort of tenure.
That's par for the course with these type of things.

They are seated, typically for life (or the duration of their career) and they are free to "judge" unmolested.

Click to expand...

That's a big if that you're resting your assumptions on here.

Why do you think it contains the following provisions?

1) No pre-existing condition exclusions
2) Mandated uniform coverages.
3) Mandated uniform premiums .
4) Mandated, Federally funded exchanges to CONTROL these practices.

QUOTE=digsbe;1059355657]The current bill also does not have any protocol for UHC. I do not like Obama's healthcare bill and I want it repealed and replaced with something real.[/QUOTE]

Amazed said:

Why do you think it contains the following provisions?

1) No pre-existing condition exclusions
2) Mandated uniform coverages.
3) Mandated uniform premiums .
4) Mandated, Federally funded exchanges to CONTROL these practices.

QUOTE=digsbe;1059355657]The current bill also does not have any protocol for UHC. I do not like Obama's healthcare bill and I want it repealed and replaced with something real.

Click to expand...

That is not the same as a single payer universal healthcare system. What it is is forcing insurance companies to cover people, and forcing individuals to buy insurance. Essentially it allows insurance companies to charge as much as they want to because you are not forced to buy their product. This isn't a single payer system, and it's only universal because they have made it mandatory to buy a product from a company.

I have been saying this since Obama signed this monstrosity.

EVERYONE (except for the writers) have been guilty of shortsightedness....this affliciton serves those who WANT the single payor system.

Those provisions are DESIGNED to drive Private Carriers out of the Market place.

digsbe said:

That is not the same as a single payer universal healthcare system. What it is is forcing insurance companies to cover people, and forcing individuals to buy insurance. Essentially it allows insurance companies to charge as much as they want to because you are not forced to buy their product. This isn't a single payer system, and it's only universal because they have made it mandatory to buy a product from a company.

Click to expand...

Amazed said:

Those provisions are DESIGNED to drive Private Carriers out of the Market place.

Click to expand...

You say that like cutting out the middlemen would be a bad thing.

Amazed said:

I have been saying this since Obama signed this monstrosity.

EVERYONE (except for the writers) have been guilty of shortsightedness....this affliciton serves those who WANT the single payor system.

Those provisions are DESIGNED to drive Private Carriers out of the Market place.

Click to expand...

Regardless of how it's designed, it doesn't provide for a single payer universal healthcare system. I want a single payer healthcare system and this doesn't serve me at all (nor do I agree with it). I'm not defending Obama's healthcare bill.

Catz Part Deux said:

You say that like cutting out the middlemen would be a bad thing.

Click to expand...

Depends who's cutting and what the result would be....

You say that like cutting out the middlemen would be a bad thing.

I have a full understanding that the Gov is in no way capable of administering anything like this.
SSI.
Medicare.
Medicaid....and on and on and on...

Regardless of how it's designed, it doesn't provide for a single payer universal healthcare system. I want a single payer healthcare system and this doesn't serve me at all (nor do I agree with it). I'm not defending Obama's healthcare bill.

I mean absolutely no offense, thats EXACTLY the view I am talking about...this stes the STAGE for your single payor system....they knew they could NOT get it all immediately.

I am not acuusing you of defending this thing, I am telling you that the plan is set in motion for what you want.