• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Doctors Fed up with Insurance Companies - Ready for Single Payer

Media_Truth

Media_Truth

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
11,375
Reaction score
2,650
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Media_Truth said:
Polls show that doctors support Single Payer health plans. Polls from 2008, suggest that 55% of doctors support it. A more recent poll showed only 48%, however, of the remainder, 21% selected "don't know". Only 32% voted NO. Many of them are fed up with insurance companies. Link below.

View attachment 67221156

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/insurance-driving-physicians-mad-nearly-half-now-say-theyd-kutscher
Click to expand...

If you look at the behavior in systems with public coverage, you seem to find that doctors will either opt out of treating public services patients, service them on a time rationed system or treat more or less only public patients on a quick tact. Sought After specialists will tend to treat only private payers or severely limited numbers of publically insured with long waiting listed except in areas of a high density of doctors usually university cities. Even in such cities, however, the publically insured will not normally be treated by the better doctor.

This does not mean that NHS and such do not have a societal function. But it must be clear from the beginning that it is not "the best" healthcare available, but the average available at level of the dedicated tax. And here it is also necessary to from the beginning make clear, how the tax will be leveled, how much of GDP may be dedicated and made extremely difficult to have politicians dedicate more.
 
joG said:
If you look at the behavior in systems with public coverage, you seem to find that doctors will either opt out of treating public services patients, service them on a time rationed system or treat more or less only public patients on a quick tact. Sought After specialists will tend to treat only private payers or severely limited numbers of publically insured with long waiting listed except in areas of a high density of doctors usually university cities. Even in such cities, however, the publically insured will not normally be treated by the better doctor. This does not mean that NHS and such do not have a societal function. But it must be clear from the beginning that it is not "the best" healthcare available, but the average available at level of the dedicated tax. And here it is also necessary to from the beginning make clear, how the tax will be leveled, how much of GDP may be dedicated and made extremely difficult to have politicians dedicate more.
Click to expand...

I've called you out on peddling this myth before but I'll do it again. The situation you describe is how it currently is in the US, not in UHC countries. Many doctors in the US choose to only serve patients with private insurance and those on Medicare and Medicaid are often rejected. In countries with UHC, like Germany, almost everyone is on the public system so it would be completely irrational for doctors to reject them. You really think doctors can afford to reject 90-99% of the country?

Further, by having a strong public system, the doctors know they will get paid if they serve the patient and do not have to spend exorbitant amounts of time dealing with dozens of different insurance companies that may or may not decide to pay out.Single payer reduces costs across the board for everyone, it increases the number of people who can visit a doctor to near 100%, and in almost every situation provides net better care overall.

For everyone else:
USA is ranked:
Cost of healthcare per capita: #1 [1]
Life expectancy: #31 [2]
Survival rate after cancer: #5 [3]
Overall health system performance ranked by WHO: #37 [4]
Percentage of citizens insured: #33 [5]

We continue to pay more and more for less and less and have one of the most rationed healthcare systems in the world. The majority of the industrialized world has already figured out how to do this substantially more efficiently and provide better care while doing it. The first step to fixing it is admitting how ****ed up our system is so we can start addressing the problems.
 
Last edited:
RabidAlpaca said:
I've called you out on peddling this myth before but I'll do it again. The situation you describe is how it currently is in the US, not in UHC countries. Many doctors in the US choose to only serve patients with private insurance and those on Medicare and Medicaid are often rejected. In countries with UHC, like Germany, almost everyone is on the public system so it would be completely irrational for doctors to reject them. You really think doctors can afford to reject 90-99% of the country?

Further, by having a strong public system, the doctors know they will get paid if they serve the patient and do not have to spend exorbitant amounts of time dealing with dozens of different insurance companies that may or may not decide to pay out.Single payer reduces costs across the board for everyone, it increases the number of people who can visit a doctor to near 100%, and in almost every situation provides net better care overall.

For everyone else:
USA is ranked:
Cost of healthcare per capita: #1 [1]
Life expectancy: #31 [2]
Survival rate after cancer: #5 [3]
Overall health system performance ranked by WHO: #37 [4]
Percentage of citizens insured: #33 [5]

We continue to pay more and more for less and less and have one of the most rationed healthcare systems in the world. The majority of the industrialized world has already figured out how to do this substantially more efficiently and provide better care while doing it. The first step to fixing it is admitting how ****ed up our system is so we can start addressing the problems.
Click to expand...

Completely giving up on libertarianism, are you? You need to edit your profile and turn in your card.

Not sure what you're referring to when you say the US has "the most rationed health care system". Sounds like hyperbole and crap to me.

Comparing nations' health care involves comparing a lot of apples, oranges, lemons and limes. A more meaningful comparison to any of the Scandinavian countries would be a suburb of a major US city, given the small population, ethnic homogenicity, and oil and technical wealth of some of those countries.

Having said that, I think if you could actually get US citizens to accept a single health care system it would be a good thing given where we are now. (We can't get back to anything like a free market in heath care; we haven't had that since the 1930s.) I just don't think there's any chance in hell of it. Not even in Vermont, not even in California, could they sell it.

In the UK the people don't care that cancer survival is half what it is in the US, or that they have to wait 2 years to get hip surgery (if at all) or that fat people are denied surgery. As long as everyone is in the same boat they're OK with it. But that's not the case in the US. In the US when a person's butt is on the line he or she wants the best medical care humanly possible, and to hell with everyone else, because that's what people have been taught is their right. If we do adopt single payer in the US the first time people with any juice come up against an arbitrary barrier to care they will tear the whole thing apart.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I've called you out on peddling this myth before but I'll do it again. The situation you describe is how it currently is in the US, not in UHC countries. Many doctors in the US choose to only serve patients with private insurance and those on Medicare and Medicaid are often rejected. In countries with UHC, like Germany, almost everyone is on the public system so it would be completely irrational for doctors to reject them. You really think doctors can afford to reject 90-99% of the country?

Further, by having a strong public system, the doctors know they will get paid if they serve the patient and do not have to spend exorbitant amounts of time dealing with dozens of different insurance companies that may or may not decide to pay out.Single payer reduces costs across the board for everyone, it increases the number of people who can visit a doctor to near 100%, and in almost every situation provides net better care overall.

For everyone else:
USA is ranked:
Cost of healthcare per capita: #1 [1]
Life expectancy: #31 [2]
Survival rate after cancer: #5 [3]
Overall health system performance ranked by WHO: #37 [4]
Percentage of citizens insured: #33 [5]

We continue to pay more and more for less and less and have one of the most rationed healthcare systems in the world. The majority of the industrialized world has already figured out how to do this substantially more efficiently and provide better care while doing it. The first step to fixing it is admitting how ****ed up our system is so we can start addressing the problems.
Click to expand...

Yet the main complaint you about all of the universal healthcare from the other countries is how ****ty the care actually is. The main complaint about the US healthcare system pre-ACA was how much it cost.
 
LowDown said:
Completely giving up on libertarianism, are you? You need to edit your profile and turn in your card.

Not sure what you're referring to when you say the US has "the most rationed health care system". Sounds like hyperbole and crap to me.

Comparing nations' health care involves comparing a lot of apples, oranges, lemons and limes. A more meaningful comparison to any of the Scandinavian countries would be a suburb of a major US city, given the small population, ethnic homogenicity, and oil and technical wealth of some of those countries.

Having said that, I think if you could actually get US citizens to accept a single health care system it would be a good thing given where we are now. (We can't get back to anything like a free market in heath care; we haven't had that since the 1930s.) I just don't think there's any chance in hell of it. Not even in Vermont, not even in California, could they sell it.

In the UK the people don't care that cancer survival is half what it is in the US, or that they have to wait 2 years to get hip surgery (if at all) or that fat people are denied surgery. As long as everyone is in the same boat they're OK with it. But that's not the case in the US. In the US when a person's butt is on the line he or she wants the best medical care humanly possible, and to hell with everyone else, because that's what people have been taught is their right. If we do adopt single payer in the US the first time people with any juice come up against an arbitrary barrier to care they will tear the whole thing apart.
Click to expand...

Anybody with juice would have private insurance.

In a much more "natural" market where insurance companies don't have the system by the balls Like they do here.
 
Media_Truth said:
Polls show that doctors support Single Payer health plans. Polls from 2008, suggest that 55% of doctors support it. A more recent poll showed only 48%, however, of the remainder, 21% selected "don't know". Only 32% voted NO. Many of them are fed up with insurance companies. Link below.

View attachment 67221156

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/insurance-driving-physicians-mad-nearly-half-now-say-theyd-kutscher
Click to expand...

I'd like to see a poll of physicians asking if they'd accept being paid substantially below current Medicare rates for all patients. I suspect their reaction would be a bit different.

30svjuf.png
 
Crovax said:
Yet the main complaint you about all of the universal healthcare from the other countries is how ****ty the care actually is. The main complaint about the US healthcare system pre-ACA was how much it cost.
Click to expand...

Health outcomes are better in single payer countries
 
vegas giants said:
Health outcomes are better in single payer countries
Click to expand...

Most single payer countries do not have the astronomical obesity rate and other health factors that impact outcomes, it's likely not due to quality of care and more likely has to do with personal choices of the patients.
 
digsbe said:
Most single payer countries do not have the astronomical obesity rate and other health factors that impact outcomes, it's likely not due to quality of care and more likely has to do with personal choices of the patients.
Click to expand...

I await your evidence. Obesity is a worldwide problem. Face it...they get better care at far less cost
 
vegas giants said:
Health outcomes are better in single payer countries
Click to expand...

Health outcomes in the United States are very different depending on where you look. Places like Minnesota, Massachusetts, Hawaii, etc have pretty good outcomes, quite possibly on par with the best cherrypicked nations one can select from around the world. But places like Mississippi, Louisiana, or Arkansas health outcomes are pretty bad. Thus dragging down our averages. The cause of the disparity, however, is not that our leading states have single-payer and our laggard states do not.
 
Greenbeard said:
Health outcomes in the United States are very different depending on where you look. Places like Minnesota, Massachusetts, Hawaii, etc have pretty good outcomes, quite possibly on par with the best cherrypicked nations one can select from around the world. But places like Mississippi, Louisiana, or Arkansas health outcomes are pretty bad. Thus dragging down our averages. The cause of the disparity, however, is not that our leading states have single-payer and our laggard states do not.
Click to expand...
Country comparisons round out the average in all places around the country. Our country is such a horrible mixed bag of healthcare systems that the whole average is dragged down
 
vegas giants said:
I await your evidence. Obesity is a worldwide problem. Face it...they get better care at far less cost
Click to expand...

You can get the best care on earth, but when you are morbidly obese there is only so much they can do. Obesity sets you up for all kinds of expensive and life-expectancy lowering conditions such as CVD, DM, CHF, and other conditions. Many people have multiple that compound their risk of stroke, heart attack, etc. We have an unhealthy culture, we are the world's leader in medical research and medical science but things are limited by our rampantly unhealthy culture.

gujPSzr.png


Why don't you cite me some foreign evidence based treatment guidelines other countries use and analyze the literature to show superiority over our standards of care.
 
vegas giants said:
Country comparisons round out the average in all places around the country. Our country is such a horrible mixed bag of healthcare systems that the whole average is dragged down
Click to expand...

What "mixed bag of health care systems" are you referring to? When I said "The cause of the disparity, however, is not that our leading states have single-payer and our laggard states do not," I assumed the point was obvious but perhaps it bears repeating.

What do you think is the cause of the disparity between states boasting good outcomes and states that have horrible outcomes in the U.S.? If a multi-payer vs single-payer structure explains all health outcomes, then we have a real explanatory problem on our hands trying to account for internal disparities since the entire U.S. is multi-payer.
 
digsbe said:
You can get the best care on earth, but when you are morbidly obese there is only so much they can do. Obesity sets you up for all kinds of expensive and life-expectancy lowering conditions such as CVD, DM, CHF, and other conditions. Many people have multiple that compound their risk of stroke, heart attack, etc. We have an unhealthy culture, we are the world's leader in medical research and medical science but things are limited by our rampantly unhealthy culture.

gujPSzr.png


Why don't you cite me some foreign evidence based treatment guidelines other countries use and analyze the literature to show superiority over our standards of care.
Click to expand...

I could show you the WHO ratings but you have read them already. What is clear is that other countries LOVE their single payer systems and would NEVER switch back to what we have
 
Media_Truth said:
Polls show that doctors support Single Payer health plans. Polls from 2008, suggest that 55% of doctors support it. A more recent poll showed only 48%, however, of the remainder, 21% selected "don't know". Only 32% voted NO. Many of them are fed up with insurance companies. Link below.

View attachment 67221156

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/insurance-driving-physicians-mad-nearly-half-now-say-theyd-kutscher
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm sure doctors are YUGE advocates of, more work for less pay.

:bs
 
Greenbeard said:
What "mixed bag of health care systems" are you referring to? When I said "The cause of the disparity, however, is not that our leading states have single-payer and our laggard states do not," I assumed the point was obvious but perhaps it bears repeating.

What do you think is the cause of the disparity between states boasting good outcomes and states that have horrible outcomes in the U.S.? If a multi-payer vs single-payer structure explains all health outcomes, then we have a real explanatory problem on our hands trying to account for internal disparities since the entire U.S. is multi-payer.
Click to expand...

States where virtually everyone is covered have much better health outcomes than states with poor coverage
 
vegas giants said:
I could show you the WHO ratings but you have read them already. What is clear is that other countries LOVE their single payer systems and would NEVER switch back to what we have
Click to expand...

And I'm telling you just looking at WHO ratings doesn't cut it, you have to understand why numbers are the way they are and properly analyze data to make a claim. Do you think we have slightly lower life expectancy because of the quality of care in the US compared to other countries, or is it due to negative public health factors independent of the US healthcare system? Why not compare those factors to other countries too?

As I said before, which nation is leading the world in healthcare research and innovation? When it comes to quality and improvements who is pioneering or discovering them in the highest number? Don't let your bias for single payer influence reason.
 
vegas giants said:
States where virtually everyone is covered have much better health outcomes than states with poor coverage
Click to expand...

That's a great point! And states that have achieved virtually universal coverage have done so in a multi-payer context, suggesting single-payer is not the One True Path it's portrayed as (which, of course, should've already been obvious since there are successful multi-payer countries with universal coverage in Europe). We can build on what we have now to make it better.

That said, coverage alone does not dictate outcomes. Which means we still need to explain all of the interstate disparity if we ever hope to address it.
 
digsbe said:
And I'm telling you just looking at WHO ratings doesn't cut it, you have to understand why numbers are the way they are and properly analyze data to make a claim. Do you think we have slightly lower life expectancy because of the quality of care in the US compared to other countries, or is it due to negative public health factors independent of the US healthcare system? Why not compare those factors to other countries too.

As I said before, which nation is leading the world in healthcare research and innovation? When it comes to quality and improvements who is pioneering or discovering them in the highest number? Don't let your bias for single payer influence reason.
Click to expand...
We do lead in research and innovation. That is true. But the real question is if you get heart disease, diabetes, cancer....in which country are you most likely to survive? The answer is clearly single payer countries
 
Greenbeard said:
That's a great point! And states that have achieved virtually universal coverage have done so in a multi-payer context, suggesting single-payer is not the One True Path it's portrayed as (which, of course, should've already been obvious since there are successful multi-payer countries with universal coverage in Europe). We can build on what we have now to make it better.

That said, coverage alone does not dictate outcomes. Which means we still need to explain all of the interstate disparity if we ever hope to address it.
Click to expand...

I never said it the only path. I just think it is the best path. It greatly reduces costs and gives better outcomes
 
vegas giants said:
We do lead in research and innovation. That is true. But the real question is if you get heart disease, diabetes, cancer....in which country are you most likely to survive? The answer is clearly single payer countries
Click to expand...

You've made a claim now, show me the study that contrasts incidence of heart attack to treatment outcome comparing the US to others and why there is a disparity (if there is one).
 
vegas giants said:
Health outcomes are better in single payer countries
Click to expand...

I'm not disputing you claim. I don't know enough about international outcomes.

However, I do know that outcomes are usually based on published statistics and that the stats don't always reflect identical data gathered.

Infant death is a great one to examine. It affects life expectancy and all other forms of the average age of death in a society. In the US, a dead infant is a dead infant assuming it was birthed previously.

In some other countries, a dead infant is only a dead infant if it died inside the hospital or had past a certain threshold of age.

Not a disagreement, just a caveat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom