What is single payer healthcare? (Page 3)

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.

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.

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.

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.

 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.....

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. 

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.

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. 

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. 

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. 

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'.

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'.