What's Wrong with Single Payer?

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
What I don’t understand is how single payer systems exist all throughout Europe and Asia without most of the issues were talking about? These people are also some of the healthiest in the world.

Why wouldn’t it work here?[/quote]

People are not a bunch of fat asses around the world, it has a lot to do with our lifestyle. Look at the rest of the world, they are all about to go bankrupt, and a major cause of this is the health care system. They can’t ration to much more or shit will hit the fan.[/quote]

You have it as cause and effect that the health care systems of the world have bankrupted them, then why are we bankrupt?[/quote]

Prepetual war and social programs.[/quote]

We agree on prepetual war , but what social programs?

What’s wrong with single payer?

Nothing, if you want to see your grandma’s organs harvested and sold.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
<<< We aren’t an unhealthy nation because we lack access to care - we are an unhealthy nation because we don’t take care of ourselves in the vast space before ever using the health care system, and then we overconsume health care resources once we decide we have a health problem. >>>[/quote]

This is an absolutely spot on point that I was discussing just this morning. How much of Americas health problems exists in the form of preventable lifestyle based “diseases”? How many early deaths are largely self induced and would have occurred regardless of WHAT health coverage somebody had? What incentive is there now for somebody to take care of themselves if they must be covered no matter what they do. Or must they? Rationing? Why they’d never do that.

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
What I don’t understand is how single payer systems exist all throughout Europe and Asia without most of the issues were talking about? These people are also some of the healthiest in the world.

Why wouldn’t it work here?[/quote]

People are not a bunch of fat asses around the world, it has a lot to do with our lifestyle. Look at the rest of the world, they are all about to go bankrupt, and a major cause of this is the health care system. They can’t ration to much more or shit will hit the fan.[/quote]

You have it as cause and effect that the health care systems of the world have bankrupted them, then why are we bankrupt?[/quote]

Prepetual war and social programs.[/quote]

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

over %50 of the budget is military and p[ast military , I would like to throw in the war on drugs. start with the police shacking the drug users down on the street , the cost of prosecution and the incarceration covering cities ,states and the Federal Gov.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think for profit health care is flawed because there is no incentive to cure anything and further more there is an incentive to create illness when none exists[/quote]
You may be shocked to find out that I think you actually have a point here. Until we then ask what the motive is in a not for profit health care system? Warm hugs and wet kisses for one’s fellow man?

You will not find me championing health related private companies who I do believe have much to gain by never really getting you well or insurance companies who have much to lose by doing the very thing you’re allegedly paying them for.

In fact the only thing worse than them is government.

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
<<< Understood. Thanks for clarification.
[/quote]
You have to be one of the nicest people I’ve ever stumbled across in an internet forum. It makes me nervous.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think for profit health care is flawed because there is no incentive to cure anything and further more there is an incentive to create illness when none exists[/quote]
You may be shocked to find out that I think you actually have a point here. Until we then ask what the motive is in a not for profit health care system? Warm hugs and wet kisses for one’s fellow man?

You will not find me championing health related private companies who I do believe have much to gain by never really getting you well or insurance companies who have much to lose by doing the very thing you’re allegedly paying them for.

In fact the only thing worse than them is government.[/quote]

Selling drugs and repeated office calls is what present health care system gets

Other than that euphemisms can make people feel better about something, why say “single payer” when it is the government that is meant?

So the question is, Why would a person be opposed to the government forbidding free, voluntary transactions between health care providers and patients or parties representing the patients, with government making itself the only entity allowed to pay for health care?

Well if one is a totalitarian, one wouldn’t be opposed to that. In fact one would lust after it.

Under “single payer,” since health providers in most cases will not work for free (nor should they have to) then you can need a treatment, a doctor can be willing to provide it for a given fee, but if the government – your “single payer” – won’t authorize it well then you’re just SOL.

You can’t pay for it yourself you see: that’s not “single-payer.”

The bill just passed does not cause an immediate changeover to single-payer. However Obama has stated that that is his intended goal, and for reference, under Hillarycare it was a felony to pay a doctor with one’s own money or for the doctor to accept it. Only the government could pay, and if the government said no, then no procedure.

And that is not unique to Hillarycare: if that’s not the case, then it’s not single-payer but multiple-payer, as multiple parties are allowed to and in fact would be paying.

Here in New Mexico the state spent millions and years on a study to determine what the cheapest, most effective way to get health-care to everyone in the state would be.

Guess what they found?

Single-payer, by a wide margin, would reduce healthcare costs the most, and most efficiently cover everyone.

Guess which plan the decision makers decided to implement? Not single-payer (the Governor promised before the study even began that he would veto any attempt at single payer), but a complex, mess of tax credits, children’s insurance programs, and employer incentives.

Why? Well, the Governor PUBLICLY promised the insurance companies single-payer wouldn’t happen, and that they wouldn’t be “cut out”. Ideology mixed with money.

I don’t like the idea of government anything in principle. But in the REAL world, as a matter of practicality, if it’s actually going to be the cheapest, most efficient way to get healthcare…

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
What I don’t understand is how single payer systems exist all throughout Europe and Asia without most of the issues were talking about? These people are also some of the healthiest in the world.

Why wouldn’t it work here?[/quote]

You do realize that I live in such a system?

I honestly considered to visit a public hospital just to take a few pictures of the restrooms.

Just for you.

But dont worry, you will wait a year anyway as long as its not life threatening and then those restrooms are the least of your problems.

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Here in New Mexico the state spent millions and years on a study to determine what the cheapest, most effective way to get health-care to everyone in the state would be.

Guess what they found?

Single-payer, by a wide margin, would reduce healthcare costs the most, and most efficiently cover everyone.

Guess which plan the decision makers decided to implement? Not single-payer (the Governor promised before the study even began that he would veto any attempt at single payer), but a complex, mess of tax credits, children’s insurance programs, and employer incentives.

Why? Well, the Governor PUBLICLY promised the insurance companies single-payer wouldn’t happen, and that they wouldn’t be “cut out”. Ideology mixed with money.

I don’t like the idea of government anything in principle. But in the REAL world, as a matter of practicality, if it’s actually going to be the cheapest, most efficient way to get healthcare…[/quote]

Sure…

You also realize that I live in such a system?

Maybe it is cheap, but that is because it is rationed, the doctors get paid shit, the few good doctors are in the private clinics that are allowe but few can afford and if you want a decent doctor to operate on you and not his least competent assistant you will have to bribe him.

But hey, its “free”.

In a way even left leaning Americans are very American in that they believe that they, finally, will make socialism work because Americans are extra special.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Here in New Mexico the state spent millions and years on a study to determine what the cheapest, most effective way to get health-care to everyone in the state would be.

Guess what they found?

Single-payer, by a wide margin, would reduce healthcare costs the most, and most efficiently cover everyone.

Guess which plan the decision makers decided to implement? Not single-payer (the Governor promised before the study even began that he would veto any attempt at single payer), but a complex, mess of tax credits, children’s insurance programs, and employer incentives.

Why? Well, the Governor PUBLICLY promised the insurance companies single-payer wouldn’t happen, and that they wouldn’t be “cut out”. Ideology mixed with money.

I don’t like the idea of government anything in principle. But in the REAL world, as a matter of practicality, if it’s actually going to be the cheapest, most efficient way to get healthcare…[/quote]

Sure…

You also realize that I live in such a system?

Maybe it is cheap, but that is because it is rationed, the doctors get paid shit, the few good doctors are in the private clinics that are allowe but few can afford and if you want a decent doctor to operate on you and not his least competent assistant you will have to bribe him.

But hey, its “free”.

In a way even left leaning Americans are very American in that they believe that they, finally, will make socialism work because Americans are extra special.
[/quote]

How would it be free? Who claims paying for healthcare through taxes rather than a bill to a private insurer makes if “free”? I’ve never heard anyone try to sell single-PAYER (payer being a key word there) as FREE health-care. Sounds more like a straw man.

In the US doctors are already told by the government how much they will get paid for a given service/procedure. It’s already there. If you think there’s a functioning healthcare market in the US, you’ve been mislead. The government has been setting prices for decades.

And healthcare is already rationed. If someone who needs healthcare can’t get it, for whatever reason, it’s being rationed. Rationing healthcare based on income is still rationing.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
<<< Understood. Thanks for clarification.
[/quote]
You have to be one of the nicest people I’ve ever stumbled across in an internet forum. It makes me nervous.[/quote]

LOL! I think it’s because I’m NOT an internet warrior who’s only out to prove my point. I respect others people opinions, especially when they take the time to answer my posts.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
What I don’t understand is how single payer systems exist all throughout Europe and Asia without most of the issues were talking about? These people are also some of the healthiest in the world.

Why wouldn’t it work here?[/quote]

You do realize that I live in such a system?

I honestly considered to visit a public hospital just to take a few pictures of the restrooms.

Just for you.

But dont worry, you will wait a year anyway as long as its not life threatening and then those restrooms are the least of your problems.

[/quote]

Could this just be an isolated incident or particular to your country? Hopefully, someone else from another country who checks this thread will respond. I’d be interested in a comparison between countries.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
What incentive under a single-payer system do you have to take individual responsibility for your health? An individual who eats right, doesn’t smoke or overindulge in alcohol, doesn’t do drugs, and exercises “pays” the same as someone who eats like crap and does other assorted things to destroy their health. Single payer treats individual irresponsibility no differently than a true victim of unforeseen catastrophe.
[/quote]

Even if my goverment pays for my healthcare, I still have incentive to be healthy, because it feels better to be healthy than ruining my health. Is your only incentive for being healthy, saving money on your insurance?

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Here in New Mexico the state spent millions and years on a study to determine what the cheapest, most effective way to get health-care to everyone in the state would be.

Guess what they found?

Single-payer, by a wide margin, would reduce healthcare costs the most, and most efficiently cover everyone.

Guess which plan the decision makers decided to implement? Not single-payer (the Governor promised before the study even began that he would veto any attempt at single payer), but a complex, mess of tax credits, children’s insurance programs, and employer incentives.

Why? Well, the Governor PUBLICLY promised the insurance companies single-payer wouldn’t happen, and that they wouldn’t be “cut out”. Ideology mixed with money.

I don’t like the idea of government anything in principle. But in the REAL world, as a matter of practicality, if it’s actually going to be the cheapest, most efficient way to get healthcare…[/quote]

Sure…

You also realize that I live in such a system?

Maybe it is cheap, but that is because it is rationed, the doctors get paid shit, the few good doctors are in the private clinics that are allowe but few can afford and if you want a decent doctor to operate on you and not his least competent assistant you will have to bribe him.

But hey, its “free”.

In a way even left leaning Americans are very American in that they believe that they, finally, will make socialism work because Americans are extra special.
[/quote]

How would it be free? Who claims paying for healthcare through taxes rather than a bill to a private insurer makes if “free”? I’ve never heard anyone try to sell single-PAYER (payer being a key word there) as FREE health-care. Sounds more like a straw man.

In the US doctors are already told by the government how much they will get paid for a given service/procedure. It’s already there. If you think there’s a functioning healthcare market in the US, you’ve been mislead. The government has been setting prices for decades.

And healthcare is already rationed. If someone who needs healthcare can’t get it, for whatever reason, it’s being rationed. Rationing healthcare based on income is still rationing.[/quote]

If you want to muddy the water so much that everything is “rationing” well then a free market “rations” too.

However, you decide how much you safe and what insurance you get.

In our system our government tells you what you pay and what you get and unless you have quite a bit of money, that is what you will get. That is a whole different ballgame.

Also, with a single payer system the rules change. Whereas before you would want to avoid medical expenses, now you get something deducted from your paycheck each month and are in a position where you would want to get as much of it back as possible. The whole incentive structure is different and no system, paid by whomever, can survive suuch an arrangement.

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Could this just be an isolated incident or particular to your country? Hopefully, someone else from another country who checks this thread will respond. I’d be interested in a comparison between countries.
[/quote]

If I go to work in the public health system in Norway when I am done in medical school I am looking at about $170.000 a year and increasing.

The waiting time as a patient depends on severity. We are all assigned a doctor (we can also choose to change the doctor up to 3 times a year), which does the initial assessment and sends us to specialists if needed. Last time I called my doctor I got an appointment in 5 minutes, lucky I guess. There is always the private option.

[quote]espenl wrote:

Even if my goverment pays for my healthcare, I still have incentive to be healthy, because it feels better to be healthy than ruining my health. Is your only incentive for being healthy, saving money on your insurance?[/quote]

If you are right, then why are so many insured people so unhealthy?

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]espenl wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Could this just be an isolated incident or particular to your country? Hopefully, someone else from another country who checks this thread will respond. I’d be interested in a comparison between countries.
[/quote]

If I go to work in the public health system in Norway when I am done in medical school I am looking at about $170.000 a year and increasing.

The waiting time as a patient depends on severity. We are all assigned a doctor (we can also choose to change the doctor up to 3 times a year), which does the initial assessment and sends us to specialists if needed. Last time I called my doctor I got an appointment in 5 minutes, lucky I guess. There is always the private option.[/quote]

Interesting. Thanks for the response, espenl.