Will we ever have single payer health care in this country?

[dblack]

Medicare and Medicaid accounted for at least two-thirds of Anthem and Humana's growth since 2010.

Surely this is wrong. Maybe our resident health insurance experts can shed some light on this.

No, I'm sure that's right. A few of the big insurers jumped into this after the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, the market expanded (especially as the Baby Boomers were aging into the system), and the (considerable) risk paid off handsomely. Aetna, United, Humana and even Kaiser (regionally) have really nailed it.

No doubt other insurers now wish they had, too. And no doubt that opening up this system to all Americans would also create an explosion of new companies entering the industry, further increasing competition, choice and innovation. That would be outstanding! Single Payer would just be a bad memory.

The thread is about Single Payer and alternatives. Coming up with the best possible health care system for America. This is the obvious way to avoid Single Payer and maintain a strong and dynamic free market component. Perhaps you could explain to us why this conversation has instead gone down this road.

Because what you describe is worse than true single payer, not better. It's the classic story of privatized profits and socialized losses. Many Democrats seem to think that government colluding with business will please free market advocates because it's kinda-sorta like capitalism. But that's not a free market, and it's actually worse than socializing an industry outright.

This is why I've never been on board with your appeals for "moderation" and compromise. Sometimes it makes sense, but often it doesn't. Mixing the greed and profit motive of capitalism with the ubiquitous state of socialism combines the worst of both approaches.

 

[Mac1958]

Because what you describe is worse than true single payer, not better.

I don't think you know enough about how the system works to make that determination.

I do know this - all the momentum right now is in the direction of Single Payer, not pure free market. So the Right has a decision to make. It can compromise and help innovate or it can lose.
.
Collaboration creates innovation. Many just don't want to innovate.
.

 

[danielpalos]

would we need single payer if we solve simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

 

[dblack]

Because what you describe is worse than true single payer, not better.

I don't think you know enough about how the system works to make that determination.

Yeah? What am I missing? It seems like you're acknowledging, now, that I was right about Medicare being farmed out to private insurance companies. You've just switched to saying that it's a good thing. Where else is my understanding lacking?

I do know this - all the momentum right now is in the direction of Single Payer, not pure free market. So the Right has a decision to make. It can compromise and help innovate or it can lose.

Collaboration creates innovation. Many just don't want to innovate.

Not sure what you're suggesting here. What does corporatism have to do with collaboration or innovation?

 

[emilynghiem]

I think the very next time the dems the presidency and both chambers of Congress we’re headed for single payer healthcare.

Rocko
I'd say the only thing missing is
dividing the policy choices by party or by state.

Just let taxpayers check a box for how they want to manage their health care and social benefits.
Since parties or states don't all agree, let each one have their own plans and terms for members
who choose to pay their taxes there and be under that policy.

This would still allow statewide or national pools of people paying into centralized systems.
While respecting free exercise of beliefs where people don't agree on things like
abortion, same sex benefits, drug useage, and who should pay for what in general.

If you want a policy under certain terms, you set that up and you pay for it.
And respect the same rights beliefs and protections of other citizens to do the same!

 

[Mac1958]

Because what you describe is worse than true single payer, not better.

I don't think you know enough about how the system works to make that determination.

Yeah? What am I missing? It seems like you're acknowledging, now, that I was right about Medicare being farmed out to private insurance companies. Where else is my understanding lacking?

I do know this - all the momentum right now is in the direction of Single Payer, not pure free market. So the Right has a decision to make. It can compromise and help innovate or it can lose.

Collaboration creates innovation. Many just don't want to innovate.

Not sure what you're suggesting here. What does corporatism have to do with collaboration or innovation?

Farming Medicare out to private insurance companies is at the heart of Medicare Advantage. As I've been discussing all the way through this.

Gawd, I'm not going to keep saying the same freaking thing. Learn the system. I beg you. I'm done trying, since you don't want to know anyway.

If you're going to keep talking about "corporatism" and refuse to discuss a public/private partnership, you won't be part of a collaborative conversation.

Here, in case you ever get curious. I'm not here to educate you. Good luck.

 

[dblack]

Because what you describe is worse than true single payer, not better.

I don't think you know enough about how the system works to make that determination.

Yeah? What am I missing? It seems like you're acknowledging, now, that I was right about Medicare being farmed out to private insurance companies. Where else is my understanding lacking?

I do know this - all the momentum right now is in the direction of Single Payer, not pure free market. So the Right has a decision to make. It can compromise and help innovate or it can lose.

Collaboration creates innovation. Many just don't want to innovate.

Not sure what you're suggesting here. What does corporatism have to do with collaboration or innovation?

Farming Medicare out to private insurance companies is at the heart of Medicare Advantage. As I've been discussing all the way through this.

So you're still hanging your hat on equivocation?

Gawd, I'm not going to keep saying the same freaking thing. Learn the system. I beg you. I'm done trying, since you don't want to know anyway.

I'm trying. What am I missing? What do all the articles I've posted have wrong? They're not referring to Medicare Advantage. You keep trying to divert to that, but it's beside the point.

If you're going to keep talking about "corporatism" and refuse to discuss a public/private partnership, you won't be part of a collaborative conversation.

Believe it or not, collaboration is possible without government intervention. Public/private partnership is an abuse of government. It's corporations feeding on taxpayer money and it should be minimized, not embraced.

Here, in case you ever get curious. I'm not here to educate you. Good luck.

Are you just here to discount criticism with claims of superior knowledge? That doesn't make for much of a discussion.

 

[Mac1958]

Because what you describe is worse than true single payer, not better.

I don't think you know enough about how the system works to make that determination.

Yeah? What am I missing? It seems like you're acknowledging, now, that I was right about Medicare being farmed out to private insurance companies. Where else is my understanding lacking?

I do know this - all the momentum right now is in the direction of Single Payer, not pure free market. So the Right has a decision to make. It can compromise and help innovate or it can lose.

Collaboration creates innovation. Many just don't want to innovate.

Not sure what you're suggesting here. What does corporatism have to do with collaboration or innovation?

Farming Medicare out to private insurance companies is at the heart of Medicare Advantage. As I've been discussing all the way through this.

So you're still hanging your hat on equivocation?

Gawd, I'm not going to keep saying the same freaking thing. Learn the system. I beg you. I'm done trying, since you don't want to know anyway.

I'm trying. What am I missing? What do all the articles I've posted have wrong? They're not referring to Medicare Advantage. You keep trying to divert to that, but it's beside the point.

If you're going to keep talking about "corporatism" and refuse to discuss a public/private partnership, you won't be part of a collaborative conversation.

Believe it or not, collaboration is possible without government intervention. Public/private partnership is an abuse of government. It's corporations feeding on taxpayer money and it should be minimized, not embraced.

Here, in case you ever get curious. I'm not here to educate you. Good luck.

Are you just here to discount criticism with claims of superior knowledge? That doesn't make for much of a discussion.

Okay, I'm sure you're right.
.

 

[dblack]

Okay, I'm sure you're right.

??? Also, not much of a discussion. Why can't you actually address my points honestly?

 

[CowboyTed]

Because what you describe is worse than true single payer, not better.

I don't think you know enough about how the system works to make that determination.

I do know this - all the momentum right now is in the direction of Single Payer, not pure free market. So the Right has a decision to make. It can compromise and help innovate or it can lose.
.
Collaboration creates innovation. Many just don't want to innovate.
.

Mac as someone who lives in Europe I can give my perspective.

I live in a country(Ireland) which doesn't have full Single Payer but something very close.

• 68% have a Medical Card (Free Healthcare, Goes to Poor, Children under 6 and Seniors)
• Free healthcare or limited free healthcare for life long conditions
• Free Healthcare for the big 8 (i.e Cancer, Heart Diease, MS,...)(there more than 8 now)

I myself buy Healthcare Insurance which you can buy here and in any Single payer country. Why? Because I don't trust my government to give me healthcare and I want me and my family to able to access private at any time... Treatments here is given 50/50 Private and Public... Public for big stuff, Private for connivance(general rule)...
Cost $90 per person, $25 per child per month for a good plan... Excess is $250 per year for everything... No CoPay the Insurance company takes everything after that...
Health Insurer are not allowed to discriminate on anything, Age, Sex, Pre-Conditions, Smoking, Drinking... Nothing (Companies pay each other for risk equalisation, complex)

Also with Drugs and treatments. Everyone pays the same, no discounts... The negotiated Government price (which is the cheapest) is the price for everyone... This continues into over the counter medicines.... Rumours are the Europe is going to negotiate all together, looking for serious discounts...

US might be closer to this type of model... So instead of Medicare for all... It would be Medicare for young, old, life long conditions and major disease... This could break the back of it with out a complete overhaul...

Education of medical staff is way cheaper but they work longer to become qualified. America do try and rob the ones that are almost qualified...

Not perfect but a step in the right direction...

 

[Mac1958]

Because what you describe is worse than true single payer, not better.

I don't think you know enough about how the system works to make that determination.

I do know this - all the momentum right now is in the direction of Single Payer, not pure free market. So the Right has a decision to make. It can compromise and help innovate or it can lose.
.
Collaboration creates innovation. Many just don't want to innovate.
.

Mac as someone who lives in Europe I can give my perspective.

I live in a country(Ireland) which doesn't have full Single Payer but something very close.

• 68% have a Medical Card (Free Healthcare, Goes to Poor, Children under 6 and Seniors)
• Free healthcare or limited free healthcare for life long conditions
• Free Healthcare for the big 8 (i.e Cancer, Heart Diease, MS,...)(there more than 8 now)

I myself buy Healthcare Insurance which you can buy here and in any Single payer country. Why? Because I don't trust my government to give me healthcare and I want me and my family to able to access private at any time... Treatments here is given 50/50 Private and Public... Public for big stuff, Private for connivance(general rule)...
Cost $90 per person, $25 per child per month for a good plan... Excess is $250 per year for everything... No CoPay the Insurance company takes everything after that...
Health Insurer are not allowed to discriminate on anything, Age, Sex, Pre-Conditions, Smoking, Drinking... Nothing (Companies pay each other for risk equalisation, complex)

Also with Drugs and treatments. Everyone pays the same, no discounts... The negotiated Government price (which is the cheapest) is the price for everyone... This continues into over the counter medicines.... Rumours are the Europe is going to negotiate all together, looking for serious discounts...

US might be closer to this type of model... So instead of Medicare for all... It would be Medicare for young, old, life long conditions and major disease... This could break the back of it with out a complete overhaul...

Education of medical staff is way cheaper but they work longer to become qualified. America do try and rob the ones that are almost qualified...

Not perfect but a step in the right direction...

Interesting, thank you.

One idea that I haven't seen anywhere else is an age-graduated plan. So when people are younger, like 21, their Medicare coverage would be a lower percentage since private health insurance would be cheaper at that age. Then it just increases with time to offset the increasing cost of private health insurance.

48.6% of our health care costs in America are incurred after age 65, so I think a lot of people here are panicking out of ignorance because they just don't know any better. This would take a massive cost monkey off the backs of American business as well, since they wouldn't have to provide private health insurance.

This issue is now politicized, which means it's been dumbed down and no one wants to give an inch. That makes us more susceptible to Single Payer, which I don't want.
.

 

[bendog]

Because what you describe is worse than true single payer, not better.

I don't think you know enough about how the system works to make that determination.

I do know this - all the momentum right now is in the direction of Single Payer, not pure free market. So the Right has a decision to make. It can compromise and help innovate or it can lose.
.
Collaboration creates innovation. Many just don't want to innovate.
.

The last time, and it really will be the last time imo, that the "right" tried to compromise was on Hillarycare, that was actually torpedoed by the dem House. And I still think Hillarycare was our best option in a scheme whereby the politicians ONLY power was determine how much gnp was allocated to healthcare in a given year. From there on out, it was up to the center for Medicare and Medicaid services to determine how much medical providers could charge per procedure. And RATIONING was done by having people at places like Johns Hopkins and Hah-vahd rank what procedures actually cure stuff. Anti-biodics for strep, ok, stage 4 liver cancer. ... you get synthetic heroin.

HMO did all the claims admin and were allowing a max 3% fee to administer it. HMOs could compete for more patients by providing more "stuff."