PDA

View Full Version : "Single Payer Healthcare" I keep hearing this mentioned as a good solution?




Reason
06-04-2009, 07:58 PM
"Single Payer Healthcare"

I keep hearing this mentioned as a good solution?

I don't know too much about it, anyone have thoughts or good resources?

Minarchy4Sale
06-04-2009, 07:58 PM
Um... sarcastic much?

TonySutton
06-04-2009, 08:03 PM
it is code for Universal Healthcare

all bad

priest_of_syrinx
06-04-2009, 08:20 PM
Single payer = one country pays for one healthcare system

Is that the literal meaning of it? :p

theoakman
06-04-2009, 08:20 PM
Single payer health care is code for lets create a multi trillion dollar piggy bank to pay for everyone's health care. It's also code for everyone to concoct a scheme to become rich at the expense of that trillion dollar piggy bank. If you have a single payer system, you can bet that you will be going through $20k in tests to see why your back hurts.

FSP-Rebel
06-04-2009, 08:54 PM
Single payer health insurance is dangerous to those who are likely to have illnesses. Since the government would be in charge, you can bet that one's insurance coverage would be a political maneuver. If someone develops a condition that requires significant care, the gov would decide if that person is worthwhile to society to care for. Next, if you were in need of an artificial limb for some reason, do you think the gov would expend the money for the best prosthetic or would they half-ass it or worse? How long would someone have to wait under this rationed care model to get the treatment they need? Since doctors would get paid by the number of patients they see, how could you ever get reliable personable care? Lastly, this would destroy the competition that is required to invent state-of-the-art treatments for serious diseases and such. Thus, we get to the concept of treatment instead of cures. More so, emergency rooms would look like Grand Central Station as people with chronic disease would be put behind those with sniffles and hang-nails, since each patient is worth the same amount of money that the government is prepared to equally pay for all. If you were the single payer of health insurance, would you take the tough scenarios first or shuffle through the easy ones?

If we think health care costs are through the roof now, just wait til the gov man's the entire ship. Don't forget about women having babies as this would take precedent over saving other lives since the state needs a steady supply of new tax slaves to keep the system going, and those who take more than their fair share of coverage will be put on a nice long waiting list.

Minarchy4Sale
06-04-2009, 08:56 PM
Civil... did you really not know what it means? I thought you were just fucking with us.

jkm1864
06-04-2009, 09:06 PM
Oh and the best part about it is I'll be taxed for healthcare and then I'll have to continue paying for insurance because I'll have to see a private doctor. Boy I love this scenario because our healthcare is going to go to crap and then We will have to pay extra if We wanted to be treated like a person instead of a number.

CUnknown
06-05-2009, 09:31 AM
I'd like to point out that single-payer is far more efficient than the system we have now. It removes the corporate HMO bureaucrat middlemen. It also allows for much more preventive care, which also lowers costs in the long-run.

Every country who has tried a system like this ends up with a healthier population than we have and spends far less money on healthcare per capita than we do.

Perhaps a free-market solution would be even better than single-payer, who knows, but the point is that single-payer would be a huge improvement over what we have now, which is a mix of government intervention and corporate greed, the worst of both worlds.

gls
06-05-2009, 10:18 AM
I'd like to point out that single-payer is far more efficient than the system we have now. It removes the corporate HMO bureaucrat middlemen. It also allows for much more preventive care, which also lowers costs in the long-run.

Every country who has tried a system like this ends up with a healthier population than we have and spends far less money on healthcare per capita than we do.

Perhaps a free-market solution would be even better than single-payer, who knows, but the point is that single-payer would be a huge improvement over what we have now, which is a mix of government intervention and corporate greed, the worst of both worlds.

More government is never the solution.

acptulsa
06-05-2009, 10:21 AM
Single payer means no competition in insurance coverage. Which, in turn, means the insurer gets complete control of the medical services, because if they don't pay the medical provider no one will.

ILUVRP
06-05-2009, 10:26 AM
I may have posted this before , can't remember , may need a doctor.

But here goes. I am not a big fan of a national health care system.

I do know we are paying the health care costs for ALL goverment employees, thats-- city --county--state--federal--military--medi care--defence workers working for the defence dept , NSA,CIA and other goverment dept's , plus all the retired people from these different goverment jobs , plus their dependents and survivers.

Don't forget our wonderfull elected people. I wish i had their insurance coverage.

I wonder how many people are on National Health Care already .

As a note , i heard the other day we were spending $ 5 billion a month on food stamps in IRAQ.

I wonder if we are paying their medical costs also.

Just something to ponder.

RonPaulR3VOLUTION
06-05-2009, 11:48 AM
Lowering the Cost of Health Care
by Ron Paul

As a medical doctor, I’ve seen first-hand how bureaucratic red tape interferes with the doctor-patient relationship and drives costs higher. The current system of third-party payers takes decision-making away from doctors, leaving patients feeling rushed and worsening the quality of care. Yet health insurance premiums and drug costs keep rising. Clearly a new approach is needed. Congress needs to craft innovative legislation that makes health care more affordable without raising taxes or increasing the deficit. It also needs to repeal bad laws that keep health care costs higher than necessary.

We should remember that HMOs did not arise because of free-market demand, but rather because of government mandates. The HMO Act of 1973 requires all but the smallest employers to offer their employees HMO coverage, and the tax code allows businesses – but not individuals – to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums. The result is the illogical coupling of employment and health insurance, which often leaves the unemployed without needed catastrophic coverage.

While many in Congress are happy to criticize HMOs today, the public never hears how the present system was imposed upon the American people by federal law. As usual, government intervention in the private market failed to deliver the promised benefits and caused unintended consequences, but Congress never blames itself for the problems created by bad laws. Instead, we are told more government – in the form of “universal coverage” – is the answer. But government already is involved in roughly two-thirds of all health care spending, through Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs.

For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high-quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of private charities provided health services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program.

Cont.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul339.html

Carole
06-05-2009, 01:39 PM
Kill the private competition and get everyone under the government healthcare umbrella..
Kill the private competition!
Kill the private competition!
Kill the private competition!
Kill the private competition!
Kill the private competition!

Brian Defferding
06-05-2009, 01:54 PM
For those who advocate Single Payer Health care, all one needs to do is look at Medicare and how more and more doctors are accepting less and less Medicare Patients.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/business/retirementspecial/02health.html) The reimbursements are low, the process is a headache at times. Single payer health care in America would most likely have the same problem, except doctors would be forced to deal with the process and grudgingly accept lower payments. Doctors already work tireless hours. Single payer health care would squeeze their operation even harder.

Compare this to the rise of doctors avoiding both insurance and medicare. (http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2009/may/17/doctors-find-no-insurance-practice-can-pay-off/) The patients pay the doctor directly, and that cut costs much lower. It's less stress on the doctors, less cost for the patient and allows for more customizable care. Everyone wins.

You don't necessarily need insurance to have health care. But for those more costly procedures, there are high-deductible HSA's (depending if your state allows it) which can cover that in the meantime. This typically works for younger men who are healthy and don't otherwise need a lot of care.

What we need instead is to have Congress push for interstate health care commerce. States have their own mandates for coverage, and while each service alone doesn't add much, when they add them altogether it can be a significant amount more than insurance compared to the next state over.

We also need to uplift the ban on imported prescription drugs. This should lower the cost significantly. Obama campaigned for this. Let's hope he sticks to his word on this one within his first term.