How would single payer function in this country

[Bern80]

Just want to know how people think it would work in practice in this country. How would it be different than me paying my premiums. I don't want any assumption about what people think it will save, just how such a system would work.

 

[Immanuel]

Since it will have to be run by bureaucrats in Washington, there is only one answer to that question: Poorly.

Immie

 

[Political Junky]

Just want to know how people think it would work in practice in this country. How would it be different than me paying my premiums. I don't want any assumption about what people think it will save, just how such a system would work.

You may continue to pay your premiums to your private insurance company if it can compete.

 

[Oddball]

How would single payer function in this country

You give gubmint all your money.

They decide if you deserve to get medical treatment, how much of it and when.

Any more silly questions?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you get your healthcare through your employer, in effect you already have single payer.

 

[Morell]

If the healthcare is given by your employer then you have single payer.

 

[auditor0007]

If we had single payer through the government, then it would cover everything from doctor's visits to medication to major surgery. You would get treatment and you would not be billed. That is the ideal version of single payer by those who support it. Option two is the same thing except that everyone would have required deductibles. This is not an optimal system. Then again, the system we have is nowhere near optimal either.

 

[Bern80]

If the healthcare is given by your employer then you have single payer.

If that's your logic then technically everyone with an insurance plan already has single payer. Problem solved I guess.

 

[Bern80]

If we had single payer through the government, then it would cover everything from doctor's visits to medication to major surgery. You would get treatment and you would not be billed. That is the ideal version of single payer by those who support it. Option two is the same thing except that everyone would have required deductibles. This is not an optimal system. Then again, the system we have is nowhere near optimal either.

I assume since government is doing the reimbursing, this would be funded through tax revenue?

 

[Cuyo]

If the healthcare is given by your employer then you have single payer.

If that's your logic then technically everyone with an insurance plan already has single payer. Problem solved I guess.

They're mincing words. If you have HC through your employer, you already have socialized healthcare, not single payer. Single payer by definition suggests there's only one payer.

If you have Medicare on the other hand, you already have single payer, and it's generally accepted that it operates far more efficiently than private insurers - That is, if you're using the payout as a percentage of "Premium" model.

 

[Bern80]

If the healthcare is given by your employer then you have single payer.

If that's your logic then technically everyone with an insurance plan already has single payer. Problem solved I guess.

They're mincing words. If you have HC through your employer, you already have socialized healthcare, not single payer. Single payer by definition suggests there's only one payer.

If you have Medicare on the other hand, you already have single payer, and it's generally accepted that it operates far more efficiently than private insurers - That is, if you're using the payout as a percentage of "Premium" model.

Only one payer of all hospital bills. And again by that logic isn't anyone with an insurance plan participating in socialized health care?

I have a hard time believing that is true of medicare. It's just economically very counterintuitive. An organization that is less sensative to costs is going to be more efficient than an organization that is? I also seem to re-call a statistic that said medicare has more incorrect billings than all private insurance companies combined.

 

[Granny]

If the healthcare is given by your employer then you have single payer.

Wrong. Employer provided healthcare is not single payer coverage - not all employers have the same coverages, deductibles, or other options such as vision or dental included. Some employers pay 100% premiums, some pay 50% of premiums - whatever is realistic in their budget. You don't HAVE to participate in the employer's plan - your spouse may have a much better plan through his or her employer whether or not both employers have coverage with the same carrier or different carriers. In either case, you likely have the option to have PPO or HMO coverage - whatever suits your needs best. Most people choose HMO coverage because of lower premiums, lower deductibles and no further obligation to pay the balance of what is owed on the medical bill - and you have to choose from a network of doctors and hospitals specified by the carrier. With the PPO, you can go to any doctor you wish, pay a higher premium, higher deductibles and you are responsible for any costs over and above what the insurer will pay - that's usually an 80%/20% proposition.

"Single payer," as used in "Obamacare" is defined as the government being the only entity that offers coverage to all people - all wrapped up in a nice little lie that nobody will ever be denied coverage for any reason.

Under Obamacare EVERYBODY has to be covered - there's no choice in the matter. Fact is, bureaucrats and their "experts" will decide whether and when you receive medical treatment - it's not a matter of you WILL NOT be denied treatment - you WILL be denied treatments or surgeries based on a number of factors - "one size fits all" rules and regulations mentality as is currently practiced throughout all government controlled departments or agencies, your age, your general health situation and so on. You're going to have fewer choices of physicians because a lot of them will give up their practices leaving a smaller pool of doctors. It may take weeks or months before you will be seen by a doctor and will probably not see the same doctor twice because there will be a shortage of general practitioners, fewer surgeons, fewer specialists, fewer everything.

What America has today is a system where we can choose our doctors, can usually get an appointment within a week, we enjoy a personal relationship with the same doctor all the time - he or she has an intimate and informed history of our healthcare issues. Specialized physicians can be seen relatively quickly; surgeries can be scheduled within days; we can have elective surgeries just because we want it and can afford it. We can kiss all that goodbye under Obamacare.

Are some people in the position of not being able to afford medical care? Sure their are - it's sad, but true. We currently have Medicare and Medicaid to cover those people - and look where that's gotten us financially. Emergency rooms are not going to turn anyone away because of inability to pay. If we think emergency room waits are irritating and a pain in the ass now - just wait - under Obamacare it's going to be even worse.

Government has no business whatsoever being involved in making healthcare decisions for us - that should be a decision between a patient and his or her physician. Period.

 

[Cuyo]

If that's your logic then technically everyone with an insurance plan already has single payer. Problem solved I guess.

They're mincing words. If you have HC through your employer, you already have socialized healthcare, not single payer. Single payer by definition suggests there's only one payer.

If you have Medicare on the other hand, you already have single payer, and it's generally accepted that it operates far more efficiently than private insurers - That is, if you're using the payout as a percentage of "Premium" model.

Only one payer of all hospital bills. And again by that logic isn't anyone with an insurance plan participating in socialized health care?

I have a hard time believing that is true of medicare. It's just economically very counterintuitive. An organization that is less sensative to costs is going to be more efficient than an organization that is? I also seem to re-call a statistic that said medicare has more incorrect billings than all private insurance companies combined.

Well, yes I suppose depending on how you want to define "Socialized" it could apply to about anything except handing the doctors the money personally. Certainly, any insurance product could be viewed as "Socalist."

The reason I make the jump when it's employer based is because now your rate is combined with everyone else in the group and your employer interfaces with the insurance company on your behalf.

I don't think there's any question that a national plan could be more efficient. The question is whether or not it would be.

 

[Cuyo]

If the healthcare is given by your employer then you have single payer.

Wrong. Employer provided healthcare is not single payer coverage - not all employers have the same coverages, deductibles, or other options such as vision or dental included. Some employers pay 100% premiums, some pay 50% of premiums - whatever is realistic in their budget. You don't HAVE to participate in the employer's plan - your spouse may have a much better plan through his or her employer whether or not both employers have coverage with the same carrier or different carriers. In either case, you likely have the option to have PPO or HMO coverage - whatever suits your needs best. Most people choose HMO coverage because of lower premiums, lower deductibles and no further obligation to pay the balance of what is owed on the medical bill - and you have to choose from a network of doctors and hospitals specified by the carrier. With the PPO, you can go to any doctor you wish, pay a higher premium, higher deductibles and you are responsible for any costs over and above what the insurer will pay - that's usually an 80%/20% proposition.

"Single payer," as used in "Obamacare" is defined as the government being the only entity that offers coverage to all people - all wrapped up in a nice little lie that nobody will ever be denied coverage for any reason.

Under Obamacare EVERYBODY has to be covered - there's no choice in the matter. Fact is, bureaucrats and their "experts" will decide whether and when you receive medical treatment - it's not a matter of you WILL NOT be denied treatment - you WILL be denied treatments or surgeries based on a number of factors - "one size fits all" rules and regulations mentality as is currently practiced throughout all government controlled departments or agencies, your age, your general health situation and so on. You're going to have fewer choices of physicians because a lot of them will give up their practices leaving a smaller pool of doctors. It may take weeks or months before you will be seen by a doctor and will probably not see the same doctor twice because there will be a shortage of general practitioners, fewer surgeons, fewer specialists, fewer everything.

What America has today is a system where we can choose our doctors, can usually get an appointment within a week, we enjoy a personal relationship with the same doctor all the time - he or she has an intimate and informed history of our healthcare issues. Specialized physicians can be seen relatively quickly; surgeries can be scheduled within days; we can have elective surgeries just because we want it and can afford it. We can kiss all that goodbye under Obamacare.

Are some people in the position of not being able to afford medical care? Sure their are - it's sad, but true. We currently have Medicare and Medicaid to cover those people - and look where that's gotten us financially. Emergency rooms are not going to turn anyone away because of inability to pay. If we think emergency room waits are irritating and a pain in the ass now - just wait - under Obamacare it's going to be even worse.

Government has no business whatsoever being involved in making healthcare decisions for us - that should be a decision between a patient and his or her physician. Period.

What the hell are you rambling about? 'Obamacare' does no such things. Single payer was never even on the table, and under the current law there's not even a public option. What exactly do you think is in 'Obamacare?'
Truth be told, it's little more than regulatory reform.

 

[auditor0007]

If we had single payer through the government, then it would cover everything from doctor's visits to medication to major surgery. You would get treatment and you would not be billed. That is the ideal version of single payer by those who support it. Option two is the same thing except that everyone would have required deductibles. This is not an optimal system. Then again, the system we have is nowhere near optimal either.

I assume since government is doing the reimbursing, this would be funded through tax revenue?

It would have to be through a tax of one form or another. There would be many options; a regressive payroll tax, a progressive payroll tax, a VAT tax, a national sales tax, a combination of some sort?

While I would like to see some type of national healthcare plan, I would rather it only cover major medical rather than every single thing. But that's just me.

 

[Bern80]

They're mincing words. If you have HC through your employer, you already have socialized healthcare, not single payer. Single payer by definition suggests there's only one payer.

If you have Medicare on the other hand, you already have single payer, and it's generally accepted that it operates far more efficiently than private insurers - That is, if you're using the payout as a percentage of "Premium" model.

Only one payer of all hospital bills. And again by that logic isn't anyone with an insurance plan participating in socialized health care?

I have a hard time believing that is true of medicare. It's just economically very counterintuitive. An organization that is less sensative to costs is going to be more efficient than an organization that is? I also seem to re-call a statistic that said medicare has more incorrect billings than all private insurance companies combined.

Well, yes I suppose depending on how you want to define "Socialized" it could apply to about anything except handing the doctors the money personally. Certainly, any insurance product could be viewed as "Socalist."

The reason I make the jump when it's employer based is because now your rate is combined with everyone else in the group and your employer interfaces with the insurance company on your behalf.

I don't think there's any question that a national plan could be more efficient. The question is whether or not it would be.

Of cousre the possibility exists. But again you have to admit the market variables that normally keep costs down aren't present in government spending, so it's unreasonable to expect that would be a likely outcome.

 

[auditor0007]

Only one payer of all hospital bills. And again by that logic isn't anyone with an insurance plan participating in socialized health care?

I have a hard time believing that is true of medicare. It's just economically very counterintuitive. An organization that is less sensative to costs is going to be more efficient than an organization that is? I also seem to re-call a statistic that said medicare has more incorrect billings than all private insurance companies combined.

Well, yes I suppose depending on how you want to define "Socialized" it could apply to about anything except handing the doctors the money personally. Certainly, any insurance product could be viewed as "Socalist."

The reason I make the jump when it's employer based is because now your rate is combined with everyone else in the group and your employer interfaces with the insurance company on your behalf.

I don't think there's any question that a national plan could be more efficient. The question is whether or not it would be.

Of cousre the possibility exists. But again you have to admit the market variables that normally keep costs down aren't present in government spending, so it's unreasonable to expect that would be a likely outcome.

Unfortunately, market variables that normally keep costs down are not present in the private insurance industry either. I still don't know what the real answer is, but it is obvious that it lies somewhere outside the box of conventional thinking from either the private or public side.

 

[Bern80]

Well, yes I suppose depending on how you want to define "Socialized" it could apply to about anything except handing the doctors the money personally. Certainly, any insurance product could be viewed as "Socalist."

The reason I make the jump when it's employer based is because now your rate is combined with everyone else in the group and your employer interfaces with the insurance company on your behalf.

I don't think there's any question that a national plan could be more efficient. The question is whether or not it would be.

Of cousre the possibility exists. But again you have to admit the market variables that normally keep costs down aren't present in government spending, so it's unreasonable to expect that would be a likely outcome.

Unfortunately, market variables that normally keep costs down are not present in the private insurance industry either. I still don't know what the real answer is, but it is obvious that it lies somewhere outside the box of conventional thinking from either the private or public side.

Right on on both counts. Personally I think outside the box means, as wild and crazy as it sounds, people pay hospitals and physicians directly. We just need to work on the costs of services to make that more feasible for people.

 

[The Rabbi]

Of cousre the possibility exists. But again you have to admit the market variables that normally keep costs down aren't present in government spending, so it's unreasonable to expect that would be a likely outcome.

Unfortunately, market variables that normally keep costs down are not present in the private insurance industry either. I still don't know what the real answer is, but it is obvious that it lies somewhere outside the box of conventional thinking from either the private or public side.

Right on on both counts. Personally I think outside the box means, as wild and crazy as it sounds, people pay hospitals and physicians directly. We just need to work on the costs of services to make that more feasible for people.

Yes, the issue is that the people getting service are not the ones paying for it. So there is no incentive to save money anywhere.
Stop deductibility of health insurance premiums by companies. Allow people to pool together (like AARP, NRA, church groups etc) to buy group health insurance. Allow sales across state lines. All of these would help lower costs.
How woudl single payer work? Considering that every place it has been tried it becomes an expensive nightmare the answer would seem to be poorly.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

If that's your logic then technically everyone with an insurance plan already has single payer. Problem solved I guess.

They're mincing words. If you have HC through your employer, you already have socialized healthcare, not single payer. Single payer by definition suggests there's only one payer.

If you have Medicare on the other hand, you already have single payer, and it's generally accepted that it operates far more efficiently than private insurers - That is, if you're using the payout as a percentage of "Premium" model.

Only one payer of all hospital bills. And again by that logic isn't anyone with an insurance plan participating in socialized health care?

I have a hard time believing that is true of medicare. It's just economically very counterintuitive. An organization that is less sensative to costs is going to be more efficient than an organization that is? I also seem to re-call a statistic that said medicare has more incorrect billings than all private insurance companies combined.

95 cents of every dollar that goes into Medicare goes towards medical costs.

Compare that to the 60 cents of each dollar with private insurance.