Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Sometimes described as Medicare for all, single-payer is a system in which a public agency handles health care financing while the delivery of care remains largely in private hands.
Discussions of the California measure have stalled, however, in the wake of preliminary estimates pegging the cost of the program as greater than the entire state government budget. Similar cost concerns derailed single-payer proposals in Colorado and Vermont.
Voters need to understand that this cost objection is specious. That’s because, as experience in many countries has demonstrated, the total cost of providing health coverage under the single-payer approach is actually substantially lower than under the current system in the United States. It is a bedrock economic principle that if we can find a way to do something more efficiently, it’s possible for everyone to come out ahead.
By analogy, suppose that your state’s government took over road maintenance from the county governments within it, in the process reducing total maintenance costs by 30 percent. Your state taxes would obviously have to go up under this arrangement.
But if roads would be as well maintained as before, would that be a reason to oppose the move? Clearly not, since the resulting cost savings would reduce your county taxes by more than your state taxes went up. Likewise, it makes no sense to oppose single-payer on the grounds that it would require additional tax revenue. In each case, the resulting gains in efficiency would leave you with greater effective purchasing power than before.
Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money
By ROBERT H. FRANK at the NY Times
Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money
"SNIP............
Sometimes described as Medicare for all, single-payer is a system in which a public agency handles health care financing while the delivery of care remains largely in private hands.
Discussions of the California measure have stalled, however, in the wake of preliminary estimates pegging the cost of the program as greater than the entire state government budget. Similar cost concerns derailed single-payer proposals in Colorado and Vermont.
Voters need to understand that this cost objection is specious. That’s because, as experience in many countries has demonstrated, the total cost of providing health coverage under the single-payer approach is actually substantially lower than under the current system in the United States. It is a bedrock economic principle that if we can find a way to do something more efficiently, it’s possible for everyone to come out ahead.
By analogy, suppose that your state’s government took over road maintenance from the county governments within it, in the process reducing total maintenance costs by 30 percent. Your state taxes would obviously have to go up under this arrangement.
But if roads would be as well maintained as before, would that be a reason to oppose the move? Clearly not, since the resulting cost savings would reduce your county taxes by more than your state taxes went up. Likewise, it makes no sense to oppose single-payer on the grounds that it would require additional tax revenue. In each case, the resulting gains in efficiency would leave you with greater effective purchasing power than before.
And it saves lives..It is the moral and right thing to do.
In 2016 the U.S. spent 17.2% of its GDP on healthcare. The other OECD countries were around 10 to 11%.
Health expenditure and financing
Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money
By ROBERT H. FRANK at the NY Times
Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money
"SNIP............
Sometimes described as Medicare for all, single-payer is a system in which a public agency handles health care financing while the delivery of care remains largely in private hands.
Discussions of the California measure have stalled, however, in the wake of preliminary estimates pegging the cost of the program as greater than the entire state government budget. Similar cost concerns derailed single-payer proposals in Colorado and Vermont.
Voters need to understand that this cost objection is specious. That’s because, as experience in many countries has demonstrated, the total cost of providing health coverage under the single-payer approach is actually substantially lower than under the current system in the United States. It is a bedrock economic principle that if we can find a way to do something more efficiently, it’s possible for everyone to come out ahead.
By analogy, suppose that your state’s government took over road maintenance from the county governments within it, in the process reducing total maintenance costs by 30 percent. Your state taxes would obviously have to go up under this arrangement.
But if roads would be as well maintained as before, would that be a reason to oppose the move? Clearly not, since the resulting cost savings would reduce your county taxes by more than your state taxes went up. Likewise, it makes no sense to oppose single-payer on the grounds that it would require additional tax revenue. In each case, the resulting gains in efficiency would leave you with greater effective purchasing power than before.
And it saves lives..It is the moral and right thing to do.
Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money
By ROBERT H. FRANK at the NY Times
Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money
"SNIP............
Sometimes described as Medicare for all, single-payer is a system in which a public agency handles health care financing while the delivery of care remains largely in private hands.
Discussions of the California measure have stalled, however, in the wake of preliminary estimates pegging the cost of the program as greater than the entire state government budget. Similar cost concerns derailed single-payer proposals in Colorado and Vermont.
Voters need to understand that this cost objection is specious. That’s because, as experience in many countries has demonstrated, the total cost of providing health coverage under the single-payer approach is actually substantially lower than under the current system in the United States. It is a bedrock economic principle that if we can find a way to do something more efficiently, it’s possible for everyone to come out ahead.
By analogy, suppose that your state’s government took over road maintenance from the county governments within it, in the process reducing total maintenance costs by 30 percent. Your state taxes would obviously have to go up under this arrangement.
But if roads would be as well maintained as before, would that be a reason to oppose the move? Clearly not, since the resulting cost savings would reduce your county taxes by more than your state taxes went up. Likewise, it makes no sense to oppose single-payer on the grounds that it would require additional tax revenue. In each case, the resulting gains in efficiency would leave you with greater effective purchasing power than before.
And it saves lives..It is the moral and right thing to do.
/---- Single payer in Britain is pulling the plug on the sick baby rather than let Pres Trump bring him here for treatment. Now if that was your child.......
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money
By ROBERT H. FRANK at the NY Times
Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money
"SNIP............
Sometimes described as Medicare for all, single-payer is a system in which a public agency handles health care financing while the delivery of care remains largely in private hands.
Discussions of the California measure have stalled, however, in the wake of preliminary estimates pegging the cost of the program as greater than the entire state government budget. Similar cost concerns derailed single-payer proposals in Colorado and Vermont.
Voters need to understand that this cost objection is specious. That’s because, as experience in many countries has demonstrated, the total cost of providing health coverage under the single-payer approach is actually substantially lower than under the current system in the United States. It is a bedrock economic principle that if we can find a way to do something more efficiently, it’s possible for everyone to come out ahead.
By analogy, suppose that your state’s government took over road maintenance from the county governments within it, in the process reducing total maintenance costs by 30 percent. Your state taxes would obviously have to go up under this arrangement.
But if roads would be as well maintained as before, would that be a reason to oppose the move? Clearly not, since the resulting cost savings would reduce your county taxes by more than your state taxes went up. Likewise, it makes no sense to oppose single-payer on the grounds that it would require additional tax revenue. In each case, the resulting gains in efficiency would leave you with greater effective purchasing power than before.
And it saves lives..It is the moral and right thing to do.
Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money
By ROBERT H. FRANK at the NY Times
Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money
"SNIP............
Sometimes described as Medicare for all, single-payer is a system in which a public agency handles health care financing while the delivery of care remains largely in private hands.
Discussions of the California measure have stalled, however, in the wake of preliminary estimates pegging the cost of the program as greater than the entire state government budget. Similar cost concerns derailed single-payer proposals in Colorado and Vermont.
Voters need to understand that this cost objection is specious. That’s because, as experience in many countries has demonstrated, the total cost of providing health coverage under the single-payer approach is actually substantially lower than under the current system in the United States. It is a bedrock economic principle that if we can find a way to do something more efficiently, it’s possible for everyone to come out ahead.
By analogy, suppose that your state’s government took over road maintenance from the county governments within it, in the process reducing total maintenance costs by 30 percent. Your state taxes would obviously have to go up under this arrangement.
But if roads would be as well maintained as before, would that be a reason to oppose the move? Clearly not, since the resulting cost savings would reduce your county taxes by more than your state taxes went up. Likewise, it makes no sense to oppose single-payer on the grounds that it would require additional tax revenue. In each case, the resulting gains in efficiency would leave you with greater effective purchasing power than before.
And it saves lives..It is the moral and right thing to do.
I don't understand how giving the government that much control over your life is the "moral and right" thing to do.
What kind of person puts that kind of faith in government?
In 2016 the U.S. spent 17.2% of its GDP on healthcare. The other OECD countries were around 10 to 11%.
Health expenditure and financing
I don't understand how giving the government that much control over your life is the "moral and right" thing to do.
What kind of person puts that kind of faith in government?
Here's the difference.
If I have a single payer system, I don't need to go out and find health insurance. I don't need to worry that the insurance company will decide I don't have the right type of cancer to be insured, I don't have to worry if I was born with a illness that I'll never be able to afford to treat what I was born with.
Essentially who would want to put their trust in insurance companies?
If I have a US system, I have to go out and find health insurance. Do i go for the one I can afford which won't cover most things? Will I pay more than I can realistically afford? What if I lose my job? Suddenly I'm not covered, which means I have to be more of a slave to my job that would otherwise be so.
You can choose to put your faith in people who have been elected to serve, or you can put your faith in insurance companies who are somewhere down the bottom of the pile with lawyers in the trustworthy stakes.
Be careful what you wish for.
I lived under the single payer/single source GOVERNMENT health care in the military. It sucked. Totally incompetent. I lost a significant range of hearing over the years I flew in the AF. It was documented every year by hearing tests. Guess what? On my discharge physical, my hearing was miraculously restored to perfect WITHOUT A HEARING TEST. What happened to the hearing tests in my files showing significant hearing loss? Gone. So much for the integrity of the doctors, nurses and staff when they are unaccountable. So no disability claim.
I could tell you story after story of long waiting lines and misdiagnosed patients that ended up dying. Screwed up prescriptions. Operations that went wrong. And NO ONE HELD ACCOUNTABLE BECAUSE IT'S THE GOVERNMENT. On every base, we had a wood hobby shop and an auto hobby shop. We called going to see the doctor or dentist as going to the medical hobby shop. They practiced on us and didn't give a hoot if they helped us or not.
You want the health care the military gets? You want the health care the VA gets?
You got to be crazy.
Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money
By ROBERT H. FRANK at the NY Times
Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money
"SNIP............
Sometimes described as Medicare for all, single-payer is a system in which a public agency handles health care financing while the delivery of care remains largely in private hands.
Discussions of the California measure have stalled, however, in the wake of preliminary estimates pegging the cost of the program as greater than the entire state government budget. Similar cost concerns derailed single-payer proposals in Colorado and Vermont.
Voters need to understand that this cost objection is specious. That’s because, as experience in many countries has demonstrated, the total cost of providing health coverage under the single-payer approach is actually substantially lower than under the current system in the United States. It is a bedrock economic principle that if we can find a way to do something more efficiently, it’s possible for everyone to come out ahead.
By analogy, suppose that your state’s government took over road maintenance from the county governments within it, in the process reducing total maintenance costs by 30 percent. Your state taxes would obviously have to go up under this arrangement.
But if roads would be as well maintained as before, would that be a reason to oppose the move? Clearly not, since the resulting cost savings would reduce your county taxes by more than your state taxes went up. Likewise, it makes no sense to oppose single-payer on the grounds that it would require additional tax revenue. In each case, the resulting gains in efficiency would leave you with greater effective purchasing power than before.
And it saves lives..It is the moral and right thing to do.
Exactly!
Ration care, create long lines, snuff the old and the sick, ignore the newest technology and newest drugs, we'll save trillions.
