Why I’m finally ready to agree a single-payer healthcare system would be better for business

[KenH]

"I consider myself a smaller-government, fiscally right-of-center guy. I own a small business. I want lower taxes and less regulations. And yet, after watching and studying and writing about healthcare reform for going on 10 years I think I’m finally to the point of caving in and admitting that maybe, just maybe, a single-payer system would be what’s best for businesses, including businesses like mine.

A single-payer system is one in which the government or some quasi-government entity manages the financing and the care is still supplied by the private sector."

Why I’m finally ready to agree a single-payer healthcare system would be better for business | Physicians for a National Health Program

 

[Revmitchell]

Then he is not really a small government guy nor conservative.

 

[Reynolds]

Then he is not really a small government guy nor conservative.

Why do you get to decide what a Conservative is?
I support single payer as a the only viable option.
I much prefer a return of States Rights and neutering of the Federal monster. That will never happen, so I support the most viable option that can actually happen.

 

[Revmitchell]

Why do you get to decide what a Conservative is?
I support single payer as a the only viable option.
I much prefer a return of States Rights and neutering of the Federal monster. That will never happen, so I support the most viable option that can actually happen.

Those two positions are diometrically opposed. Holding to them both us a walking contradiction. It's like saying my car is both a jeep and a limousine. A onset atone would never support the taking not over of an industry by the government. The values and principles of conservatism are opposed to Marxist values.

 

[church mouse guy]

It is estimated that Medicare for all would cost 32 trillion for the next ten years. That is going to call for a massive tax increase. Throw in habitual government waste and soon you will have perpetual shortages in healthcare and low pay for doctors and nurses and even more money demanded for healthcare. The socialized medical system that is so worshipped by leftists has never worked anywhere in the world and Americans cannot make it work either.

The VA has constant scandals about their inability to deliver services. In Indiana many mental hospitals closed as the state found that they could not provide decent care for some patients and that privatization would be better. In the case of Medicaid, or medical welfare, we find that many doctors do not accept Medicaid patients because the rate of payment is too low. Medicare, medicine for those over 65, has never been on a sound fiscal basis since it was passed in the 1960s and once again is predicted to be bankrupt in just a few years.

So socialists cannot even show that the current socialistic programs in the medical field are working all that well.

 

[Reynolds]

Those two positions are diometrically opposed. Holding to them both us a walking contradiction. It's like saying my car is both a jeep and a limousine. A onset atone would never support the taking not over of an industry by the government. The values and principles of conservatism are opposed to Marxist values.

Nope. I want a 18 wheeler. I can't have one but I am offered a f350. The f350 rides as rough as an 18 wheeler, will not haul what I need it to haul, so it worthless. I get a limousine instead. It won't haul anythi,g, but it sure rides good. Sometimes, compromise is worthless.

 

[InTheLight]

It is estimated that Medicare for all would cost 32 trillion for the next ten years.

And where did you get that number from?

 

[James Flagg]

The "32 trillion" number comes from an analysis done by a think-tank called "The Urban Institute" about an entirely different bill introduced by John Conyers; It's not about Sanders' bill at all.

The Current National Healthcare Expenditure in the USA is 3.4 trillion dollars per year. 3.4 x 10 = 34 trillion assuming no yearly increase (impossible), so 32 trillion over the next 10 years would actually save 2 trillion dollars. A trillion here and a trillion there soon adds up to serious money.

When Democrats are asked, "How would you pay for single payer?" the answer is usually some kind of payroll tax. A 9% payroll tax would be about equal to my current health insurance deduction, but there would be no deductible and maybe some price-control for prescriptions.

 

[777]

Who knows, Bernie claims "Medicare for all" would cost 1.4T a year, but that sounds awfully low ball - the state of CA alone said this would end up costing 200B/yr, and that's low ball too.

This:

...Under the 'Medicare for all' initiative, Americans would have comprehensive coverage, which would include doctors' visits, hospital stays, preventative care, mental health services and prescription drugs. It would also pay for vision, dental, long-term care and hospice needs. All doctors would be in network..

Bernie Sanders' last 'Medicare for all' plan cost nearly $1.4 trillion

is not even "Medicare for all", Medicare is an acute health care program, doesn't cover vision, dental, long-term care, hospice needs and most mental health services. And it's not "free", patients pay deductibles and co-pays and most of them have supplemental plans as well. Bernie needs to address the doctor shortage, single-pay would make demand skyrocket and his plan is really "VA care for all" but that doesn't sound as salable.

 

[FollowTheWay]

It is estimated that Medicare for all would cost 32 trillion for the next ten years. That is going to call for a massive tax increase. Throw in habitual government waste and soon you will have perpetual shortages in healthcare and low pay for doctors and nurses and even more money demanded for healthcare. The socialized medical system that is so worshipped by leftists has never worked anywhere in the world and Americans cannot make it work either.

The VA has constant scandals about their inability to deliver services. In Indiana many mental hospitals closed as the state found that they could not provide decent care for some patients and that privatization would be better. In the case of Medicaid, or medical welfare, we find that many doctors do not accept Medicaid patients because the rate of payment is too low. Medicare, medicine for those over 65, has never been on a sound fiscal basis since it was passed in the 1960s and once again is predicted to be bankrupt in just a few years.

So socialists cannot even show that the current socialistic programs in the medical field are working all that well.

It works well in all other industrialized countries who spend much less for a far better healthcare system. This approach would basically be a large tax cut especially helping the middle class and poor.

"But the bigger problem with Trump’s comparison is that switching to a single-payer system would mean shifting the ultimate payer for health care services from the patient and the employer to the government. Why is that important? Because even as federal expenditures for health care rise under a single-payer system, the expenditures by individuals and companies would fall, potentially canceling each other out.

"Under single-payer, people would no longer have to pay for insurance," said Christine Eibner, a senior economist at the RAND Corp. "So even if it required new federal spending and commensurate tax increases, people would not necessarily be paying more for health care."

A single-payer system would take the insurance companies out of the process. They are getting rich on our current ineffective system. It would also allow the government to exercise heavy pressure on drug companies to give us drugs at the lower prices they charge in other countries. (That's why people go to Canada to refill prescriptions.)

 

[Revmitchell]

Interesting, people in Canada come here to avoid long needless cuts in services and overdue wait times.

 

[InTheLight]

A single-payer system would also allow the government to exercise heavy pressure on drug companies to give us drugs at the lower prices they charge in other countries.

Is that so? Explain how this would happen.


Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.

 

[Adonia]

It works well in all other industrialized countries who spend much less for a far better healthcare system. This approach would basically be a large tax cut especially helping the middle class and poor.

"But the bigger problem with Trump’s comparison is that switching to a single-payer system would mean shifting the ultimate payer for health care services from the patient and the employer to the government. Why is that important? Because even as federal expenditures for health care rise under a single-payer system, the expenditures by individuals and companies would fall, potentially canceling each other out.

"Under single-payer, people would no longer have to pay for insurance," said Christine Eibner, a senior economist at the RAND Corp. "So even if it required new federal spending and commensurate tax increases, people would not necessarily be paying more for health care."

A single-payer system would take the insurance companies out of the process. They are getting rich on our current ineffective system. It would also allow the government to exercise heavy pressure on drug companies to give us drugs at the lower prices they charge in other countries. (That's why people go to Canada to refill prescriptions.)

No, it is not a better healthcare system by a long shot. For example, in England they do not cover certain types of cancer care that is routinely covered here. Care is rationed and that is a fact!

Do the elites go stand in line at the NHS for their care? No and they never will. The same would happen here, in fact with over 300 million people to cover the quality of care would probably be worse.

 

[Reformed]

A single-payer system would take the insurance companies out of the process. They are getting rich on our current ineffective system. It would also allow the government to exercise heavy pressure on drug companies to give us drugs at the lower prices they charge in other countries. (That's why people go to Canada to refill prescriptions.)

You are living in a fantasy land. Insurance companies will not go out of business in a single-payer system. They will be incorporated into the system as administrators. They will still make plenty of money since they will taxpayer funded. In fact, it will be worse because they will be removed from the competition of the free market.

Drug companies? They will put more effort into areas like palliative care. The motivation for R&D will be removed.

Let me school you on economic 101. Once the free market has been removed from ANY industry segment that segment becomes part of the government bureaucracy and begins to atrophy. The federal government never does anything efficiently. NEVER. It does not even collect taxes efficiently.

Single-payer will also exasperate the economic divide between the rich and poor. Those with money will bypass single-payer and pay doctors and hospitals directly. In the quest for health care fairness, the American consumer will receive just the opposite.

Then there is the matter of availability. Once people are covered from soup-to-nuts, at zero cost, they will use health care more. The strain on medical professionals will be overwhelming. Medical professionals will have their earnings capped as a way of managing costs. The government will also try to cut costs by denying certain medical procedures. This will have the unwanted effect of denying essential services to certain people. Wait times will lengthen. Litigation will increase. Sure. Insurance companies try to cut costs too through "managed care". The difference is that consumers can sue health care providers, and often do (successfully). Try taking the government to court when they hold all the cards.

Instead of socialism, why not fix the free market solution? Allow Americans to purchase insurance across state lines. If taxpayer money must be spent, incentivize creative free-market health care solutions. Encourage more concierge or fee-based health care memberships where patients pay a flat fee to receive most primary care physician services. The free market can solve most of these problems if it is allowed to do so.

And what about those that are truly poor and cannot afford healthcare? We take care of them. That is right. We do not kick them to the curb. But we do not allow the minority to dictate to the majority. In other words, we do not adopt socialized medicine because a minority of people are uninsured. We adopt different solutions for those in need.

 

[James Flagg]

Interesting, people in Canada come here to avoid long needless cuts in services and overdue wait times.

As far as I know there has been only one study about this, and it found that of 18,000 Canadian respondents 20 had come to the USA specifically for medical treatment
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/21/3/19.full.html
Link: Phantoms In The Snow: Canadians’ Use Of Health Care Services In The United States.

Compare that to 1.5 million Americans leaving the USA for medical treatment in 2014 according to the OECD.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Is that so? Explain how this would happen.


Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.

The insurance companies charge 12-18% just to serve as the middle man.

"So if we are serious about moving to a cost-effective universal health care, yeah, we do have to take on the insurance companies. They do not play a role in providing health care. Our money should be going to doctors, to nurses, to hospitals, not to the insurance industry or, in fact, the drug industry, which is charging us by far the highest prices in the world."

If the U.S. went to a single payer system who else would the drug companies have to sell drugs to? They would have to treat the U.S. just like the U.K. or Canada and charge us lower prices.

 

[FollowTheWay]

You are living in a fantasy land. Insurance companies will not go out of business in a single-payer system. They will be incorporated into the system as administrators. They will still make plenty of money since they will taxpayer funded. In fact, it will be worse because they will be removed from the competition of the free market.

Drug companies? They will put more effort into areas like palliative care. The motivation for R&D will be removed.

Let me school you on economic 101. Once the free market has been removed from ANY industry segment that segment becomes part of the government bureaucracy and begins to atrophy. The federal government never does anything efficiently. NEVER. It does not even collect taxes efficiently.

Single-payer will also exasperate the economic divide between the rich and poor. Those with money will bypass single-payer and pay doctors and hospitals directly. In the quest for health care fairness, the American consumer will receive just the opposite.

Then there is the matter of availability. Once people are covered from soup-to-nuts, at zero cost, they will use health care more. The strain on medical professionals will be overwhelming. Medical professionals will have their earnings capped as a way of managing costs. The government will also try to cut costs by denying certain medical procedures. This will have the unwanted effect of denying essential services to certain people. Wait times will lengthen. Litigation will increase. Sure. Insurance companies try to cut costs too through "managed care". The difference is that consumers can sue health care providers, and often do (successfully). Try taking the government to court when they hold all the cards.

Instead of socialism, why not fix the free market solution? Allow Americans to purchase insurance across state lines. If taxpayer money must be spent, incentivize creative free-market health care solutions. Encourage more concierge or fee-based health care memberships where patients pay a flat fee to receive most primary care physician services. The free market can solve most of these problems if it is allowed to do so.

And what about those that are truly poor and cannot afford healthcare? We take care of them. That is right. We do not kick them to the curb. But we do not allow the minority to dictate to the majority. In other words, we do not adopt socialized medicine because a minority of people are uninsured. We adopt different solutions for those in need.

"So if we are serious about moving to a cost-effective universal health care, yeah, we do have to take on the insurance companies. They do not play a role in providing health care. Our money should be going to doctors, to nurses, to hospitals, not to the insurance industry or, in fact, the drug industry, which is charging us by far the highest prices in the world."

 

[FollowTheWay]

No, it is not a better healthcare system by a long shot. For example, in England they do not cover certain types of cancer care that is routinely covered here. Care is rationed and that is a fact!

Do the elites go stand in line at the NHS for their care? No and they never will. The same would happen here, in fact with over 300 million people to cover the quality of care would probably be worse.

American Health Care System Kills People but It Does not have to Be This Way

Those who argue that the US government should directly pay hospitals and doctors for everyone's care are always met with the same rebuke: It's simply impossible to move the country to such a system. But it's really our current system, not single-payer health care that should evoke incredulous reactions. Health care in the United States consistently ranks last among wealthy countries, despite being the most expensive by far.

America's Health Care System Kills People—But It Doesn't Have to Be This Way | Physicians for a National Health Program

 

[InTheLight]

The insurance companies charge 12-18% just to serve as the middle man.

If the U.S. went to a single payer system who else would the drug companies have to sell drugs to? They would have to treat the U.S. just like the U.K. or Canada and charge us lower prices.

I want to know HOW the government would achieve this end result. Tell us.

A single payer system would also allow the government to exercise heavy pressure on drug companies to give us drugs at the lower prices...

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[FollowTheWay]

I want to know HOW the government would achieve this end result. Tell us.



Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

A good example is the way states could save money through negotiation with Drug companies.

States Could Save $73 Billion by Negotiating Medicare Drug Prices

States Could Save $73 Billion by Negotiating Medicare Drug Prices

State governments could save as much as $73 billion cumulatively over the next ten years if the federal government were to negotiate Medicare prescription drug prices, according to a new issue brief by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). As policy makers across the nation consider various state and federal budget options, they and the American public should be made aware of these significant potential savings.

Each state’s individual substantial savings are cataloged in “State Savings with an Efficient Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit.” The authors draw from a previous CEPR report that focuses on potential savings to the federal government if Medicare drug costs were negotiated.