How would single payer function in this country

[The Rabbi]

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.

Yet another red herring of a non-fact.

 

[Toronado3800]

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.

Yet another red herring of a non-fact.

Why is that a non fact? What is the true percentage?

 

[GunZawga]

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.

It would have been a real time saver had you raised your hand and shouted "I'm absolutely clueless!"

Thanks anyway.

BTW good luck getting that CEO to forego his Vacation home in the south of France for your life saving surgery!
LOL

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Yet another red herring of a non-fact.

Why is that a non fact? What is the true percentage?

{quote]2. "Medicare and Medicaid are far more efficient and less wasteful than private insurance, spending only three percent on administrative overhead."

When you hear this, always ask, "Why is the administrative cost always given as a percentage?" One reason is that, due to the age of covered patients, the average Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements are higher than those of private insurance—and administrative costs are therefore a lower percentage of the larger amount paid. Another reason is that the huge cost of contending with 130,000 pages of Medicare regulations is pushed onto the providers. The cost of the more than 100,000 employees of the Internal Revenue Service who collect Medicare taxes are also omitted from Medicare's "administrative overhead." But the biggest reason is that the government programs make no effort to minimize expense or fraud. Fraud counts for about $50 billion in Medicaid expenses every year—as high as $18 billion in New York alone. Total spending has been going through the roof for more than 40 years, but the government's administrative cost of burning money is quite low. That does not prove that the government is efficient or prudent. Private insurance companies, on the other hand, need to keep fraud and expenses down or go out of business. [/quote]
Fifty Fallacies About Health Care

IOW, like a lot of things, it is true as stated. But the statement is misleading, for the reasons given here.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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 pay your Premiums (plural). That might give you a clue. I suggest you ask your Doctor's staff, do they want to bill one, two or more providers, and what problems and costs they enconter with mutlibile billings?

Honestly, do you have clue? I don't believe so.

 

[Steve Hanson]

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.

Not very well since a large percentage of the population can't afford to pay.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Not very well since a large percentage of the population can't afford to pay.

? Clueless.

 

[The Rabbi]

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 pay your Premiums (plural). That might give you a clue. I suggest you ask your Doctor's staff, do they want to bill one, two or more providers, and what problems and costs they enconter with mutlibile billings?

Honestly, do you have clue? I don't believe so.

It should be a hint to you that fewer and fewer doctors take Medicare.
Should be. But won't.

 

[Steve Hanson]

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.

Not very well since a large percentage of the population can't afford to pay.

? Clueless.

IDK are you? Seems you may be.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Not very well since a large percentage of the population can't afford to pay.

? Clueless.

IDK are you? Seems you may be.

I think he meant that you don't seem to understand what "single payer" healthcare is.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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 pay your Premiums (plural). That might give you a clue. I suggest you ask your Doctor's staff, do they want to bill one, two or more providers, and what problems and costs they enconter with mutlibile billings?

Honestly, do you have clue? I don't believe so.

It should be a hint to you that fewer and fewer doctors take Medicare.
Should be. But won't.

Link? Proof? Sorry Rabbi, but I know that you know that I know you're a liar. So I'm sure you're not shocked I ask for proof.

 

[Steve Hanson]

? Clueless.

IDK are you? Seems you may be.

I think he meant that you don't seem to understand what "single payer" healthcare is.

And he. like all libs, doesn't realize someone has to pay for it. Same problem we have today. doesn't matter is it is single sourced.

 

[auditor0007]

IDK are you? Seems you may be.

I think he meant that you don't seem to understand what "single payer" healthcare is.

And he. like all libs, doesn't realize someone has to pay for it. Same problem we have today. doesn't matter is it is single sourced.

Everyone helps pay for single payer; some more than others. Believe me, nobody thinks that it is free.

 

[Wry Catcher]

IDK are you? Seems you may be.

I think he meant that you don't seem to understand what "single payer" healthcare is.

And he. like all libs, doesn't realize someone has to pay for it. Same problem we have today. doesn't matter is it is single sourced.

Duh. You really are clueless.

 

[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.

You pay your Premiums (plural). That might give you a clue. I suggest you ask your Doctor's staff, do they want to bill one, two or more providers, and what problems and costs they enconter with mutlibile billings?

Honestly, do you have clue? I don't believe so.

I think it's you who doesn't have the clue. Because it would be my guess that doctor's wouldn't want to deal with any billing of a third party at all and just have YOU, the patient, pay them for services rendered. That is undeniably the most efficient method of all.

 

[The Rabbi]

You pay your Premiums (plural). That might give you a clue. I suggest you ask your Doctor's staff, do they want to bill one, two or more providers, and what problems and costs they enconter with mutlibile billings?

Honestly, do you have clue? I don't believe so.

It should be a hint to you that fewer and fewer doctors take Medicare.
Should be. But won't.

Link? Proof? Sorry Rabbi, but I know that you know that I know you're a liar. So I'm sure you're not shocked I ask for proof.

What an asshole you are.
Here ya go:
» Fewer Doctors Accepting Medicare Patients Due To Payment Uncertainties Liberal Values
Fewer primary care doctors take Medicare
Harder to Find Doctors Accepting Medicare | Medicare and Medicaid Center: Medicare Medicaid Information, Tips & Information
Fewer Doctors In Texas Are Accepting Medicare Cases

Is that proof enough? Or will you claim that every story there is biased, misinterpreted, or the product of a vast right wing conspiracy?
You know, you have access to the same resources I do. A google search would take about 3 seconds, so you could easily have checked this without calling me names.
But you're an asshole. And assholes aren't interested in facts or debating. They're interested in being assholes.

 

[editec]

the benefits of single payer are:

1. It creates the largest insurance pool

1. Insurance comapnies can no longer CHERRY PICK their clients

3. Government run HC Administration costs are typically 1/5th of private companies

4. The 8% or so profit is not longer part of the overall vost of HC.

Those are the advantages of single payer universal HC.

I still content that that alone will not solve the crises, of course.

But it would be marginally better than what we have now.

 

[California Girl]

the benefits of single payer are:

1. It creates the largest insurance pool

1. Insurance comapnies can no longer CHERRY PICK their clients

3. Government run HC Administration costs are typically 1/5th of private companies

4. The 8% or so profit is not longer part of the overall vost of HC.

Those are the advantages of single payer universal HC.

I still content that that alone will not solve the crises, of course.

But it would be marginally better than what we have now.

Just for balance:

In countries where they have a 'single payer' system:

1. There is no money for innovation, therefore no advancement in treatment. To a large extent, the rest of the world relies on the US to develop new treatments, cures, drugs, etc.

2. In 'single payer' systems, people die because their system cannot afford the drugs needed to extend or save their lives.

3. Taking the UK as an example: in a country of 60 million, their NHS is the 4th largest employer in the world. Now, consider that for a country the size of the US.

4. They are notoriously wasteful,

5. They're overly bureaucratic,

6. They're rife with theft

7. Cumbersome to manage.

8. What starts out as a 'life saving' safety net, will end up pandering to whatever idea becomes politically correct. For example: in the UK system, people die because the system cannot afford life saving cancer treatments, but you can get gender reassignment, and IVF treatment. If someone can explain to me the logic of denying people life saving treatment while spending money pandering to someone else's desire to have a child or change gender, I'll listen.

 

[CountofTuscany]

the benefits of single payer are:

1. It creates the largest insurance pool

1. Insurance comapnies can no longer CHERRY PICK their clients

3. Government run HC Administration costs are typically 1/5th of private companies

4. The 8% or so profit is not longer part of the overall vost of HC.

Those are the advantages of single payer universal HC.

I still content that that alone will not solve the crises, of course.

But it would be marginally better than what we have now.

Just for balance:

In countries where they have a 'single payer' system:

1. There is no money for innovation, therefore no advancement in treatment. To a large extent, the rest of the world relies on the US to develop new treatments, cures, drugs, etc.

2. In 'single payer' systems, people die because their system cannot afford the drugs needed to extend or save their lives.

3. Taking the UK as an example: in a country of 60 million, their NHS is the 4th largest employer in the world. Now, consider that for a country the size of the US.

4. They are notoriously wasteful,

5. They're overly bureaucratic,

6. They're rife with theft

7. Cumbersome to manage.

8. What starts out as a 'life saving' safety net, will end up pandering to whatever idea becomes politically correct. For example: in the UK system, people die because the system cannot afford life saving cancer treatments, but you can get gender reassignment, and IVF treatment. If someone can explain to me the logic of denying people life saving treatment while spending money pandering to someone else's desire to have a child or change gender, I'll listen.

Some very interesting points and perspective

 

[California Girl]

Another 'interesting' point about a 'single payer system'.... in the UK, 11 babies die every day. Every day. 11. That's a very high rate of deaths for this 'wonderful' National Health Service of theirs.