CDZ Could (actual) Conservatives support this kind of single payer?

[YoursTruly]

Doesn't it keep the middle man?
Instead of for-profit insurance companies paying the medical bills, its just (presumably) not for profit consortium?
How is this an advantage?

Yes, it's still "for profit." Why shouldn't the MP's profit from helping people. It's a free market trade off. The doctors treat and cure people. And the people pay THEM. And not the money brokering insurance companies.

^^^
This is why medical costs are so high.
Insulating the consumer from the actual costs of the goods and services he receives leads to consumers not caring how much those goods and services cost, as they just pay a small monthly premium.

With MP's insurance, I can't see why the premiums would go up. With a system like this, they'd be eliminating billions of dollars in overhead (the entire health insurance industry).
Sure, the MP's could get greedy. And will probably do so in time. But we're already getting greedy insurance companies. Every time they've went before congress and asked for a raise, they got it.
They get a raise and premiums go up.

Want to drive down costs and improve quality of care?
Get rid of insurance altogether.

Great idea. Then anyone who can't afford healthcare, can just die. C'mon man. That's no good.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes, it's still "for profit." Why shouldn't the MP's profit from helping people. It's a free market trade off. The doctors treat and cure people. And the people pay THEM. And not the money brokering insurance companies.

So, all you do here is change the people making a profit.
Destroys the entire concept

 

[YoursTruly]

So, all you do here is change the people making a profit.
Destroys the entire concept

Yeah bro, I'm not a socialist. But I think people that do good things for people should be rewarded for it. Everyone from the dog walker to Bezos.

 

[Staidhup]

I have yet to meet a Doctor that agrees with the concept of a single payer structure.

 

[YoursTruly]

I have yet to meet a Doctor that agrees with the concept of a single payer structure.

Because up til now, single payer has always meant government ran healthcare.
The next time you see your doc, ask him/her "why don't the medical professionals start selling health insurance themselves?"

 

[Staidhup]

Actually Three established European style medical concierge service. Another said he had enough with fighting the government and insurance companies and elected to teach than continue in private practice. Another will only treat existing patients he has had over the years and refuses to accept new patients.

 

[Staidhup]

After my experience with the VA wouldn’t trust the government to walk my dog.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Tort reform.
Most insurance increases are the result of frivolous incessant malpractice suits.
Used to be a one-time, one page fill-out for a Dr visit.
Now it’s a repeated book full of disclaimer forms. Gee, I wonder why that is?

 

[Staidhup]

Tort reform.
Most insurance increases are the result of frivolous incessant malpractice suits.
Used to be a one-time, one page fill-out for a Dr visit.
Now it’s a repeated book full of disclaimer forms. Gee, I wonder why that is?

Think about who you elect to Congress, worthless lying lawyers that couldn’t practice law in the public sector.

 

[dblack]

Because up til now, single payer has always meant government ran healthcare.

That's inevitable.

The next time you see your doc, ask him/her "why don't the medical professionals start selling health insurance themselves?"

That's what Blue Cross/Blue Shield started out as. And there's nothing at all stopping them from doing that again. But what you seem to be calling for is some kind of legal mandate requiring it. That's where you jump the shark. At least from a 'conservative' point of view.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Think about who you elect to Congress, worthless lying lawyers that couldn’t practice law in the public sector.

I live in Maryland. I don’t elect anyone.

 

[Independentthinker]

I don't understand why republicans and most conservatives can't support a single payer system, ran by medical professionals. Although I do understand them not wanting it ran by our government. That's understandable. For the simple fact that the government can't run most things that benefit most of "we the people." A good example of this is the USD value. Now, $10hr is a poverty wage. Where as just south of the border, $10hr is an upper class wage.
But I digress. Fighting against a single payer system is nothing more than fighting in favor of health insurance companies. Who constantly screw the medical professionals out of a lot of money.
Healthcare has to be paid for, no matter who you are. Everyone is going to need medical help. And those that help you, will have to get paid. Insurance companies get paid by us. And they pay the MP (Medical professionals). But where they screw the MP's, is how much they pay the MPs for your care.
Example: When I was with Blue Cross Blue shield, I had an osteotomy on my knee. The hospital and doctor billed the insurance company over $100,000. That included all the doctor visits, surgeon visits, physical therapy & drugs. Blue Cross paid a little less than $3,000 in total. My doctor said that Medicare pays them better than Blue Cross. How sick is that?
Counting my premiums, the insurance company got paid a LOT more than the MP's that actually fixed my knee problem. Thousands more.
Let's be honest about this. Health insurance companies (or all of them) are nothing more than money brokers. We pay them and they pay the MP's what they want to pay them. Then they keep the rest for profits.
As a conservative, I'm always in support of cutting out the middle man.
I think the BEST way to solve this problem, is the MP's starting their own nationwide health insurance company. That way, they can own and operate within their own guidelines, with minimum government oversight. Of course, because there's trillions of dollars and millions of Americans involved, there'd have to be some oversight and regulations. But the ultimate decisions, providing there's no fraud or corruption involved, would remain with the MP's.
But in the end, the MP's (medical professionals) would be able to set their own rules, regs and policies. No more running tests that aren't actually necessary. No more endless doctor visits, being treated for something the doctors knows isn't going to be effective. (so they can get more money) No more fighting with the insurance companies as to why the doctor can't run a certain test.
Example: When my gaul stones were causing a lot of pain, the ER doctor wasn't allowed to do a sonogram because I didn't have fever. A simple test to see for sure that I had gaul stones, was not allowed by the insurance company. Not only would the test confirm the doctors suspicions. But would also show the size and scope of the stones. Which would determine if emergency surgery was needed. Or if I could wait to have the surgery.

Bottom line to this, IMO, health insurance companies are nothing more than money brokers and do nothing to help, treat or cure patients. So the ones getting 100% of the money, should be the MP's. If a single payer system is the only way to abolish insurance companies, then so be it.

I see two big problems right off the bat:

1. Good luck getting rid of insurance companies.

2. The MP's, being a monopoly, could put in any prices they wanted unless a government agency, well, governed them, in which case you are right back to having government controlled health care.

 

[YoursTruly]

I see two big problems right off the bat:

1. Good luck getting rid of insurance companies.

2. The MP's, being a monopoly, could put in any prices they wanted unless a government agency, well, governed them, in which case you are right back to having government controlled health care.

I don't disagree with some government intervention.

 

[Donald H]

I mean seriously, I don't mind the medical professionals getting filthy rich, because they're part of a system that actually helps people. Insurance companies only broker money. (when you get right down to it). And their CEO's are getting filthy rich in the process.

Good for you as a conservative showing real concern for the US health care system mess.

But you're still going to have to get your head around the fact that 'for profit' HC is always going to fail to provide what is necessary for all the people.

Only government can do it for a price that's near equal to the low cost and high quality of the world's best HC systems.

However, it's obviously true that America's government in it's present corrupted form wouldn't be able to duplicate the success of the world's best HC systems.

Some services in a capitalist system must be administered by the inclusion of government run socialist policies. Why on earth would eliminating competition by insurance companies provide the missing social responsibility?

In the end analysis, you're trying to promote some kind of plan that will bring a good HC system to the American people by encouraging social responsibility. No 'for profit' scheme cares about that and never will. Good government 'might' provide the answer.

The quality of the world's best HC systems is dependent on tax revenue. With America's system that's traded off with bankrupting the unfortunate for the sake of not taxing appropriately.

 

[Donald H]

I don't disagree with some government intervention.

There!
You've broken through the wall of denial!

Lack of government intervention is directly related to the problem that you and many other Americans are acknowledging.

 

[Donald H]

After my experience with the VA wouldn’t trust the government to walk my dog.

That's bad government that has corrupted the VA system.

Bad government is that which adheres strictly to a capitalism dogma which excludes the necessary 'socialism' within all good capitalist systems.
When that is accepted, answers will become obvious. Nothing else can improve the HC mess that nearly all Americans are beginning to acknowledge.

 

[dblack]

There!
You've broken through the wall of denial!

Lack of government intervention is directly related to the problem that you and many other Americans are acknowledging.

Government intervention created the problems it now presumes to solve.

 

[Donald H]

Government intervention created the problems it now presumes to solve.

Yes! Bad government allowed capitalism to run rampant and uncontrolled. And your politicians are paid by big insurance companies to keep the 'failed' system in place.

How can that corruption be defeated so that politicians begin to demonstrate loyalty to the people and not loyalty to the insurance companies?

Are the insurance companies beginning to show cracks developing in their armor? TV advertising bombards the media with almost continuous ads!

 

[YoursTruly]

There!
You've broken through the wall of denial!

Lack of government intervention is directly related to the problem that you and many other Americans are acknowledging.

Look bro. When humans and money are involved, there's a HUGE chance that there's going to be lies and greed. That's a given. I'm for just enough government intervention to keep people honest.
The problem is, like with lobbyist, it to contains humans and money. So who's going to keep tabs on the politicians who oversee the MP's? Especially when the MP"s are making the insurance money too.

Could be a fox guarding the hen house thing.

 

[YoursTruly]

Good for you as a conservative showing real concern for the US health care system mess.

But you're still going to have to get your head around the fact that 'for profit' HC is always going to fail to provide what is necessary for all the people.

Only government can do it for a price that's near equal to the low cost and high quality of the world's best HC systems.

However, it's obviously true that America's government in it's present corrupted form wouldn't be able to duplicate the success of the world's best HC systems.

Some services in a capitalist system must be administered by the inclusion of government run socialist policies. Why on earth would eliminating competition by insurance companies provide the missing social responsibility?

In the end analysis, you're trying to promote some kind of plan that will bring a good HC system to the American people by encouraging social responsibility. No 'for profit' scheme cares about that and never will. Good government 'might' provide the answer.

The quality of the world's best HC systems is dependent on tax revenue. With America's system that's traded off with bankrupting the unfortunate for the sake of not taxing appropriately.

Anytime the government subsidizes something, we get more of it. No system is going to be absolutely good.
So I think the private market, ran by healthcare professionals (and financial people who the MP's choose), would be the best way.
Then ad in just enough government overseeing to help insure the lies and greed are kept to a minimal.

And under no circumstances should the profits of the medical profession be allowed to go to any politicians by ways of MP's lobbying.