Problems With Socialized Medicine & Government Healthcare

[sangha]

bern will continue to claim that the nations with UHC are more expensive than the US, even though that has been proven to be untrue. For some reason that bern refuses to explain, he continues to argue that we can't afford to pay less for better health care

And he has to lie again about the premiums in UHC nations (ie "They let the citizens pay what they think is fair")

You keep saying I continue to claim. So please cite for me where I EVER claimed that other nations health care is more expensive than ours.

You have claimed that Frances health care system is "unsustainable" due to the cost, while arguing that more expensive systems (such as ours) are less expensive.

I am debating a wingnut. You are incoherent. One minute you're complaining that people are getting health care they can't pay for because they govt pays for it. Now you're complaining that people aren't getting free health care. That's what happens when you argue both for and against "govt solutions"

And I'm debating someone who is clearly not interested in what someone is saying. You would rather attribute positions to people for the convenience of your argument. In UHC countries it is true that people are not paying what the resource actually costs. If they were there would be no deficits.

That's hilarious. After I repeatedly proved that a budget deficit is not debt, you're going back to your nonsense that the DoD had to borrow money to cover its costs.

UHC nations pay for the care in full because, as you pointed out, doctors don't do it for free.

That's a little vague and misleading. When you say nation, do you meant the nations's government, it's citizens, who EXACTLY is paying less?

The answer is "Everyone".

If you don't understand this answer, tell me which word you don't understand, and I'll post a link to dictionary.com

So your contention then is that every free market option has been tried and failed? Can't wait to see proof that.

No, my contention is that you're such a liar that I won't believe anything you say unless you can prove it.

So prove there are other free market options that haven't been tried by posting one example.

Yes, everyone. By reducing the profit of health insurers

I am very sorry you don't understand basic economics and business relationships. This is just plain wrong and shows you just don't know your facts. FACT health insurance profits margins are in the single digits, so lets' pretend for a second those profits went down. Given they're in the single digits already you honestly believe that the builder of an x-ray maching is going to see that, charge a hospital less to buy one, so a doctor can bill the insurance company less to use it? You really are smoking some good stuff, aren't you. It's a lot of fun watching the ridicilous crap you're forced to tell yourself to make your argument fly.

So what if their margins are low? You seem to think that executive pay and advertising are free.

Ahh, love the way you promote "govt solutions" to provide care to the poor. Just a minute ago, you were all for that. But now, once again, you're against "govt solutions"

There's nothing funnier than a liar who can't keep track of his lies

I have never claimed it's an all or nothing solution. I have never claimed every aspect of health care must only be provided by the free market. NEWSLFASH dip shit, a lack of reading comprhension on your part does not translate to flip flopping on my part.

Actually, if you were honest, you'd admit that you have argued that private solutions are ALWAYS better than govt solutions. I'll even quote you saying it:

Private business is simply more efficient at effectively deliverying service than government is.

 

[sangha]

Yes, everyone. By reducing the profit of health insurers

From Factcheck, in referring to an ad trying to push the public option. I think this applies here. Pushing for a Public Plan | FactCheck.org

In 2007, national health care expenditures totaled $2.2 trillion. Health insurance profits of nearly $13 billion make up 0.6 percent of that. CEO compensation is a mere 0.005 percent of total spending.

So, how much will be saved by taking out the health insurance profits? My clarification for context is in brackets and bold font.

What if that [referring to health insurance profits] was stripped away? Well, it wouldn’t amount to a whole lot of savings for the health care system.

As a comparison, Factcheck went on:

The Government Accountability Office reported that in 2008 half of improper payments made by the federal government came from Medicare and Medicaid. The Medicare fee-for-service program had an estimated $10.4 billion in improper payments, plus Medicare Advantage doled out $6.8 billion that it shouldn’t have. Medicaid’s improper payments totaled $18.6 billion for the year. Those figures surpass the profits reaped by insurance companies and the pay their CEOs took home.

Do you honestly believe, after reading this from Factcheck, that taking away insurer's profits will help to fix our health care system? The amount savings we would get would maybe pay for a few days over an entire year.

Umm, the Medicare programs that are reporting the improper payments are the programs pushed by the right, who want to privatize Medicare.

In addition, by having the govt be the ultimate insurer, we also eliminate health care costs associated with

1) executive pay
2) advertising for health insurance
3) lobbying by health ins corps
4) duplicative and confusing procedures for doctors and hospitals who have to deal with the duplicative and confusing procedures the various ins corps have put in place for reimbursement
5) valid claims being rejected in order to increase profits

And Factcheck is not a credible source of info.

 

[sangha]

The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems

U.S.= 37; Cuba = 39 according to the World Health Organization....

Thank you

I was wrong. The US is not #32; It's #37

And it's not one spot behind Cuba; It's two spots ahead

The wingnuts must be proud. We're #37!!!! (and we only have to pay 50% more than anyone else)

I didn't post that to be proud. I just wanted to make sure we had the right numbers...and it's ridiculous that we're two spots ahead of Cuba. On the same note, Cuba is a socialist nation with far fewer people to support. I think their population is a little over 11 million. I think there's roughly 8 million people in New York City.

And while size certainly is an important factor, I'd say their poverty is a more important one. It's a shame that the wealthiest nation in the history of the universe can't afford health care thats much better than Cuba, a third world nation.

 

[Bern80]

Umm, Cuba rates #31 internationally. The US is #32. Ergo, Cuba's care is about the same or slightly better than the US. I'll let you choose which you prefer (ie "the same" or "better") I'm not a nitpicker like you, so I'll keep referring to it as I choose.

And international comparisons of health care systems is not an impossible task, contrary to the limited understanding you demonstrate in your last paragraph

IF you actually think it's credible to cite that bogus WHO report I suppose..........

I know, I know...the cites you post are 100% accurate. The cites I post are "bogus"

It isn't that their numbers are bogus. It's because the WHO, like you, seems to weigh cost to the consumer more than other variables and saying we have a poor health care system based mainly on the fact that it's expensive, is not an accurate reflection of quality as it ignores things like responsiveness and quality of resources.

 

[Christopher]

Umm, the Medicare programs that are reporting the improper payments are the programs pushed by the right, who want to privatize Medicare.

What does this have to do with our discussion? It is obviously a deflection on your part. The point still stands that improper Medicare and Medicaid payments exceeded health insurance profits. You completely ignored the $18.6 billion in improper payments for Medicaid, which alone exceeds health insurance profits.

In addition, by having the govt be the ultimate insurer, we also eliminate health care costs associated with

1) executive pay
2) advertising for health insurance
3) lobbying by health ins corps
4) duplicative and confusing procedures for doctors and hospitals who have to deal with the duplicative and confusing procedures the various ins corps have put in place for reimbursement
5) valid claims being rejected in order to increase profits

Please provide credible evidence which shows the net savings we would have for each of these items, and then we can talk.

And Factcheck is not a credible source of info.

Yep, attacking the source is your only option at this point. Unfortunately for you, Factcheck wasn’t the source for the $13 billion in profits number in this case, so you can’t attack them as a source. Perhaps if you would have read the source I provided (not that I expected it), you would have made that connection.

The liberal group pushing for the public option provided this number; Factcheck didn’t dispute it. Here, for the real source of the $13 billion number: Health Care for America NOW - What if . . .

If anything, the liberal group would be inflating the number. We do know what the total amount spent on health care is each year, so we can easily take the profit number (even if it might be inflated) and calculate the percentage we would theoretically save if we removed health care insurer’s profits. It is a very small drop in the bucket.

 

[Christopher]

Thank you

I was wrong. The US is not #32; It's #37

And it's not one spot behind Cuba; It's two spots ahead

The wingnuts must be proud. We're #37!!!! (and we only have to pay 50% more than anyone else)

I didn't post that to be proud. I just wanted to make sure we had the right numbers...and it's ridiculous that we're two spots ahead of Cuba. On the same note, Cuba is a socialist nation with far fewer people to support. I think their population is a little over 11 million. I think there's roughly 8 million people in New York City.

And while size certainly is an important factor, I'd say their poverty is a more important one. It's a shame that the wealthiest nation in the history of the universe can't afford health care thats much better than Cuba, a third world nation.

Now that you have been shown to make stuff up with regards to ranking, I will ask you again to provide some evidence to your claim that we can make apples to apples comparisons between Cuba’s and America’s health care systems.

Please provide a list of items that makes Cuba's system "better" than America's. Then describe how we can implement these "better" things in America.

 

[sangha]

How funny is it that you have to ask what a monopoly is, only to give an answer and get it wrong?

A monopoly is when one company controls the supply of a good or service to such an extent that they can set the price. In SP systems, medical care (ie the "service") is provided by thousands of "providers" (ie doctors and other health care professionals) so there is no monopoly and SP system allow for private for profit insurers, so there's no monopoly on insurance either.

So no, you idiot. There is no monopoly

Your intellectual dishonesty know no boundaires does it?

Yes moron it is. You're intellectual dishonesty is boundless. The peopel aren't purchasing services directly from doctors and hospitals so your contention that there are many providers is irrelevant. What people are purchasing is a coverage policy from an insurance company. Then the insurance company pays the providers. So idiot, just as it would be a monopoly if there was just one company that owned every hospital in the country, it would also be a monopoly if there is only one entity being paid by the consumers to cover their health care costs and it doesn't matter if that entity is a private business or government. A monopoly on coverage is a monopoly on coverage.

bern has repeatedly claimed that he isn't a wingnut, yet he continues to spout wingnuttery at every opportunity. Like a wingnut, bern believes that a SP system means that the govt will be the only insurer. And like a wingnut, bern will continue to believe this even after he has been given examples that prove him wrong.

France has a SP system where private insurers provide coverage. There is no monopoly, except in the minds of wingnuts

 

[Bern80]

How funny is it that you have to ask what a monopoly is, only to give an answer and get it wrong?

A monopoly is when one company controls the supply of a good or service to such an extent that they can set the price. In SP systems, medical care (ie the "service") is provided by thousands of "providers" (ie doctors and other health care professionals) so there is no monopoly and SP system allow for private for profit insurers, so there's no monopoly on insurance either.

So no, you idiot. There is no monopoly

Your intellectual dishonesty know no boundaires does it?

Yes moron it is. You're intellectual dishonesty is boundless. The peopel aren't purchasing services directly from doctors and hospitals so your contention that there are many providers is irrelevant. What people are purchasing is a coverage policy from an insurance company. Then the insurance company pays the providers. So idiot, just as it would be a monopoly if there was just one company that owned every hospital in the country, it would also be a monopoly if there is only one entity being paid by the consumers to cover their health care costs and it doesn't matter if that entity is a private business or government. A monopoly on coverage is a monopoly on coverage.

bern has repeatedly claimed that he isn't a wingnut, yet he continues to spout wingnuttery at every opportunity. Like a wingnut, bern believes that a SP system means that the govt will be the only insurer. And like a wingnut, bern will continue to believe this even after he has been given examples that prove him wrong.

France has a SP system where private insurers provide coverage. There is no monopoly, except in the minds of wingnuts

b
It's semantics Sangha when only one entity is actually paying the bills. Though we know whether bills get paid or not isn't all that important to you.

 

[Tank]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRgB2eeHZEw&feature=related[/ame]

 

[sangha]

Your intellectual dishonesty know no boundaires does it?

Yes moron it is. You're intellectual dishonesty is boundless. The peopel aren't purchasing services directly from doctors and hospitals so your contention that there are many providers is irrelevant. What people are purchasing is a coverage policy from an insurance company. Then the insurance company pays the providers. So idiot, just as it would be a monopoly if there was just one company that owned every hospital in the country, it would also be a monopoly if there is only one entity being paid by the consumers to cover their health care costs and it doesn't matter if that entity is a private business or government. A monopoly on coverage is a monopoly on coverage.

bern has repeatedly claimed that he isn't a wingnut, yet he continues to spout wingnuttery at every opportunity. Like a wingnut, bern believes that a SP system means that the govt will be the only insurer. And like a wingnut, bern will continue to believe this even after he has been given examples that prove him wrong.

France has a SP system where private insurers provide coverage. There is no monopoly, except in the minds of wingnuts

b
It's semantics Sangha when only one entity is actually paying the bills. Though we know whether bills get paid or not isn't all that important to you.

I predicted that bern would not change his mind, even if I proved him wrong, and sure enough, bern still believes that SP must be a monopoly even though France has a SP plan and no monopoly.

 

[idb]

Under the new healthcare regime will you still be able to have private insurance?

 

[sangha]

Under the new healthcare regime will you still be able to have private insurance?

yes

 

[Bern80]

bern has repeatedly claimed that he isn't a wingnut, yet he continues to spout wingnuttery at every opportunity. Like a wingnut, bern believes that a SP system means that the govt will be the only insurer. And like a wingnut, bern will continue to believe this even after he has been given examples that prove him wrong.

France has a SP system where private insurers provide coverage. There is no monopoly, except in the minds of wingnuts

b
It's semantics Sangha when only one entity is actually paying the bills. Though we know whether bills get paid or not isn't all that important to you.

I predicted that bern would not change his mind, even if I proved him wrong, and sure enough, bern still believes that SP must be a monopoly even though France has a SP plan and no monopoly.

Since you won't change your mind, how does that make you any better than me? If people can supposedly 'purchase' any private insurance plan they want and government will pay for it, why wouldn't everyone just pick the best plan out there? THAT is why it's semantics.

 

[sangha]

b
It's semantics Sangha when only one entity is actually paying the bills. Though we know whether bills get paid or not isn't all that important to you.

I predicted that bern would not change his mind, even if I proved him wrong, and sure enough, bern still believes that SP must be a monopoly even though France has a SP plan and no monopoly.

Since you won't change your mind, how does that make you any better than me?

Simple. I'm right and I have proven it. You're wrong and you have failed to back up anything you've claimed with proof. For example

I said that deficits do not have to be financed with debt, and then proved it by showing that they can be financed with savings.

You say that dedicits can only be financed with debt, but you not only failed to back that up, you also have yet to acknowledge your idiotic mistake.

I say that SP system do not require any monopoly, and then posted an explanation of how a SP can work without creating a monopoly AND provided an example of a nation with a SP but no monopoly

You say that SP requires a monopoly, but provide no proof of your claim.

If people can supposedly 'purchase' any private insurance plan they want and government will pay for it, why wouldn't everyone just pick the best plan out there? THAT is why it's semantics.

In that case, I guess it's good that no SP system allows people to purchase any private insurance they want and has the govt pay for it.

Do you have any other lies you'd like to share with us about SP systems? Maybe you want to ask about SP systems that sneak into peoples' houses, steals their babies and drains their blood to make bread? You could ask something along the lines of:

"If SP plans are going to sneak into peoples houses, steal their babies and drain their blood to make bread, why would anyone have babies?"

After all, it's just "semantics", right?

("semantics" is what wingnuts whine about when they really don't have a clue how to respond. They don't even know what the word means)

 

[Bern80]

Simple. I'm right and I have proven it. You're wrong and you have failed to back up anything you've claimed with proof. For example

I said that deficits do not have to be financed with debt, and then proved it by showing that they can be financed with savings.

Well other than the showing us where this fabled U.S. government savings account is with all this money that they've decided to just store there rather than start paying our 14 trillion dollar debt.

You say that dedicits can only be financed with debt, but you not only failed to back that up, you also have yet to acknowledge your idiotic mistake.

Sorry, Sangha. I'm not going to acknwoledge I'm wrong every time you put words in mouth, like you've done here yet again. I never said deficits can only be funded by going into debt. I agreed with you that they can be paid through savings or the sale of assets. The problem is the U.S. government isn't doing that. If it were, it would not be 14 trillion dollars in debt.

I say that SP system do not require any monopoly, and then posted an explanation of how a SP can work without creating a monopoly AND provided an example of a nation with a SP but no monopoly

You say that SP requires a monopoly, but provide no proof of your claim.

Actually I did. You didnt' refute it.

In that case, I guess it's good that no SP system allows people to purchase any private insurance they want and has the govt pay for it.

Ya think? OF COURSE if the government is the single payer it's going to have to restrict people options. There is no point in choice when money is no object. YOU are the one who started out saying in an SP system an individual can purchase from any private insurance company of their choosing. Now you're saying the can't. Which is it?

 

[sangha]

Simple. I'm right and I have proven it. You're wrong and you have failed to back up anything you've claimed with proof. For example

I said that deficits do not have to be financed with debt, and then proved it by showing that they can be financed with savings.

Well other than the showing us where this fabled U.S. government savings account is with all this money that they've decided to just store there rather than start paying our 14 trillion dollar debt.

Bern can't be honest. He said that deficits are ALWAYS financed with debt. Now he wants to pretend that he said govt deficits are always financed with debt.

Like I said, wingnuts like bern run away from their own words when challenged

You say that dedicits can only be financed with debt, but you not only failed to back that up, you also have yet to acknowledge your idiotic mistake.

Sorry, Sangha. I'm not going to acknwoledge I'm wrong every time you put words in mouth, like you've done here yet again. I never said deficits can only be funded by going into debt. I agreed with you that they can be paid through savings or the sale of assets. The problem is the U.S. government isn't doing that. If it were, it would not be 14 trillion dollars in debt.

Sure you did. You claimed that financing deficits with savings was "unsustainable" even though the policy has made the US the worlds greatest and wealthiest superpower.

You also said the US can't continue to run up debt with paying it off, even though history shows that exactly what we did when we became the worlds greatest and wealthiest superpower.

I say that SP system do not require any monopoly, and then posted an explanation of how a SP can work without creating a monopoly AND provided an example of a nation with a SP but no monopoly

You say that SP requires a monopoly, but provide no proof of your claim.

Actually I did. You didnt' refute it.

No you didn't. You made up lies and claimed it proved your point. Like I said, even when shown a real world example of a SP system without a monopoly, you will continue to insist that SP requires a monopoly.

In that case, I guess it's good that no SP system allows people to purchase any private insurance they want and has the govt pay for it.

Ya think? OF COURSE if the government is the single payer it's going to have to restrict people options. There is no point in choice when money is no object. YOU are the one who started out saying in an SP system an individual can purchase from any private insurance company of their choosing. Now you're saying the can't. Which is it?

Wrong again. The govt doesn't restrict any options. They only limit what options the govt will pay for. People can still choose whatever options they want; they just have to pay for them with their own out of pocket money.

Too bad you have to lie and claim I said people can't purchase insurance from a private comp under SP when I said the opposite.

So tell me where I said that SP systems don't allow people to purchase any private insurance they want, and do it without editing out half the sentence.

 

[boofhead]

We already have a single payer system. It is called Medicare.
There would not be arguments about the type of health care, or the methods of paying for it, if the cost was reasonable. We only have this argument because our costs are too high.
The CATO Institute stated that about a third of the cost was caused by unneccessary regulations. Such as those that force people who have good private insurance to give it up and go onto Medicare when they turn 65. What is the point of that? Who does it help? And good luck to even find a doctor who will take you as a patient if you are on Medicare, some states have a critical problem there. Ask any health care professional what he/she spends her money on and you will find compliance with regulations (not regulations supporting good medicine, just those affecting how they do business) is a major part. And like corporate taxes, we the long-suffering users pay all these costs. Most of the country has one or two companies able to offer health insurance in any State, stifling competition and driving costs up.
Probably another third of the costs associated with health care is driven by the insane malpractice insurance and legal threats. Once again the total cost of this is paid by us, not by the companies or doctors. Obviously if they don't make enough money to cover costs they go out of business. Who wins? The lawyers and the insurance companies. Did you know there are now investment programs you can get involved with that support legal actions against doctors and hospitals, with the aim of making enough money to pay back the investors handsomely? If that does not disgust you, you are not human.
There are many other reasons why we pay more for less in the US, but these two are obvious. Yet hardly ever talked about. Why? The lobbyists make sure this never comes up for discussion amongst the only people who can do anything about it. Look at what is being given to our fearless leaders in Congress by the health insurance industry, in order to maintain the present system? And we, the great uneducated, are doing their work for them, as if anyone is satisfied with what we have now, or like what is being proposed to replace it.
We deserve what we get because we are too stupid to even know what is going on.

 

[Bern80]

Bern can't be honest. He said that deficits are ALWAYS financed with debt. Now he wants to pretend that he said govt deficits are always financed with debt.

Like I said, wingnuts like bern run away from their own words when challenged

And weasels like you have to put words in people's mouth just to win an argument. You'd be right a lof the time Sang, IF the person you were arguing against actually had the position you attributed to them. I understand it's far easier for you to do this then actually defend an idea.

For the record I never, EVER claimed the only way to pay a deficit was to go into debt. There are obviously other ways to pay for a defecit then by borrowing. What IS true however is that our government is indeed borrowing to pay it's deficits. That is an immutable fact. YOU have claimed that the government has the option to pay for this 14 trillion dollar debt right now if it wanted to by dipping into the mythic U.S. government savings account and selling of it's assets. YOU have shown ZERO evidence that either of these things are being used to pay the debt or if they even exist.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Sure you did. You claimed that financing deficits with savings was "unsustainable" even though the policy has made the US the worlds greatest and wealthiest superpower.

You also said the US can't continue to run up debt with paying it off, even though history shows that exactly what we did when we became the worlds greatest and wealthiest superpower.

The faulty premises abound here. You're right we are the wealthiest. The collective wealth of the people of this nation is greater than any other. But our people are not our government, which is in debt to the tune of 14 trillion dollars. For you to be right here I'm going to need you to show how government deficit spending is linked to an individuals ability to attain wealth.

Wrong again. The govt doesn't restrict any options. They only limit what options the govt will pay for. People can still choose whatever options they want; they just have to pay for them with their own out of pocket money.

Too bad you have to lie and claim I said people can't purchase insurance from a private comp under SP when I said the opposite.

So tell me where I said that SP systems don't allow people to purchase any private insurance they want, and do it without editing out half the sentence.

Well because it kind of does, smart guy. If people have other options than what government will pay for it isn't single payer in the first place. That sounds more like a public option.

 

[sangha]

Bern can't be honest. He said that deficits are ALWAYS financed with debt. Now he wants to pretend that he said govt deficits are always financed with debt.

Like I said, wingnuts like bern run away from their own words when challenged

And weasels like you have to put words in people's mouth just to win an argument. You'd be right a lof the time Sang, IF the person you were arguing against actually had the position you attributed to them. I understand it's far easier for you to do this then actually defend an idea.

For the record I never, EVER claimed the only way to pay a deficit was to go into debt. There are obviously other ways to pay for a defecit then by borrowing. What IS true however is that our government is indeed borrowing to pay it's deficits. That is an immutable fact. YOU have claimed that the government has the option to pay for this 14 trillion dollar debt right now if it wanted to by dipping into the mythic U.S. government savings account and selling of it's assets. YOU have shown ZERO evidence that either of these things are being used to pay the debt or if they even exist.

You seem to be unable to tell the difference between being able to do something and actually doing it. The US govt, like many successful business, has chosen to not pay off all of it's debt at one time and use the money to fund investments in future productivity. Nearly every single Fortune 500 company carries some debt and invest the money because they believe they can get a return that is higher than the interest rate the debt carries. It's called "growing out of debt", and it's how we have handled the national debt for centuries.

So yes, the US Govt does have sufficient assets to pay off it's entire national debt immediately (there's $12T in SS alone) but since I never claimed it has done so, I have ZERO OBLIGATION to provide any evidence that it has done so.

Sure you did. You claimed that financing deficits with savings was "unsustainable" even though the policy has made the US the worlds greatest and wealthiest superpower.

You also said the US can't continue to run up debt with paying it off, even though history shows that exactly what we did when we became the worlds greatest and wealthiest superpower.

The faulty premises abound here. You're right we are the wealthiest. The collective wealth of the people of this nation is greater than any other. But our people are not our government, which is in debt to the tune of 14 trillion dollars. For you to be right here I'm going to need you to show how government deficit spending is linked to an individuals ability to attain wealth.

Sure. All you have to do is be able to get a return that is higher than the interest rate you're paying on your debt. Let's say I have

1) $1,000 dollars of debt at 4% interest
2) $1,000 dolllars of cash
3) I have an opportunity to loan the money to someone who will pay 10% interest and put up his house as collateral

Should I pay off my debt, or should I loan my $1000 to the homeowner?

The govt does the same thing. The borrow money, and they spend it on things that will result in the US being more productive. This is what we have done throughout our history as a nation, which from it's very beginning, was saddled with debt.

Wrong again. The govt doesn't restrict any options. They only limit what options the govt will pay for. People can still choose whatever options they want; they just have to pay for them with their own out of pocket money.

Too bad you have to lie and claim I said people can't purchase insurance from a private comp under SP when I said the opposite.

So tell me where I said that SP systems don't allow people to purchase any private insurance they want, and do it without editing out half the sentence.

Well because it kind of does, smart guy. If people have other options than what government will pay for it isn't single payer in the first place. That sounds more like a public option.

No, it doesn't in any way. The govt provides a certain level of funding (which varies depending on factors such as income, family size, etc) for each individual/family. If the individual buys a plan (either from the govt or a private insurer) that cost more, the additional cost is borne by the individual. Individuals can buy any plan they want from either a public insurer or a private insurer. They are not in any way limited by the govt. The only limit the govt places is how much money they will provide to subsidize an individuals insurance.

So basically, France has a SP system that provides Universal coverage through a combination of private options and public options.

 

[sangha]

We already have a single payer system. It is called Medicare.
There would not be arguments about the type of health care, or the methods of paying for it, if the cost was reasonable. We only have this argument because our costs are too high.
The CATO Institute stated that about a third of the cost was caused by unneccessary regulations. Such as those that force people who have good private insurance to give it up and go onto Medicare when they turn 65. What is the point of that? Who does it help? And good luck to even find a doctor who will take you as a patient if you are on Medicare, some states have a critical problem there. Ask any health care professional what he/she spends her money on and you will find compliance with regulations (not regulations supporting good medicine, just those affecting how they do business) is a major part. And like corporate taxes, we the long-suffering users pay all these costs. Most of the country has one or two companies able to offer health insurance in any State, stifling competition and driving costs up.
Probably another third of the costs associated with health care is driven by the insane malpractice insurance and legal threats. Once again the total cost of this is paid by us, not by the companies or doctors. Obviously if they don't make enough money to cover costs they go out of business. Who wins? The lawyers and the insurance companies. Did you know there are now investment programs you can get involved with that support legal actions against doctors and hospitals, with the aim of making enough money to pay back the investors handsomely? If that does not disgust you, you are not human.
There are many other reasons why we pay more for less in the US, but these two are obvious. Yet hardly ever talked about. Why? The lobbyists make sure this never comes up for discussion amongst the only people who can do anything about it. Look at what is being given to our fearless leaders in Congress by the health insurance industry, in order to maintain the present system? And we, the great uneducated, are doing their work for them, as if anyone is satisfied with what we have now, or like what is being proposed to replace it.
We deserve what we get because we are too stupid to even know what is going on.

Nearly all of your claims are untrue

Medicare is not a SP system. There are dozens of private insurers that are providing coverage for millions of medicare beneficiaries.

The burdensome regulations and paperwork that doctors complain about are the insurance companies rules and paperwork, not the govt.

Medical malpractice costs account for less than 1% of all medical costs