Defeating the bogeyman of single payer healthcare

The empirical reality is that the US pays far more for healthcare, whilst failing to cover tens of millions, than all advanced nations that cover everyone.

Pragmatism dictates adopting the proven paradigm

 

And you don't think you have rationing now...or before the ACA?

What do you think a pre-existing condition was? That was a form of "rationing" too.

This is a pretty ridiculous argument. If you have $$$ then you don't have "rationing". You can ALWAYS pay more to get the level of service you desire...unless of course you're staking your claim on the belief the rich should be treated equally as the poor?

 

First of all, you're conflating health insurance with health care. No one goes without health care in the US, even if it's at ER's. The tens of millions who go without health insurance have to get their health care another way. But that doesn't mean they don't get it. Second of all, "pragmatism" dictates that we not spend another $2 trillion a year we don't have.

 

And the highlighted portion is the one that you seem to keep missing.

Maybe you're not aware that with either decision, we are still paying it regardless. If you think going back to a system where 1/3 of the nation couldn't afford or qualify for a health plan doesn't cost you anything, you're sadly mistaken. Every uninsured person that gets treated for emergency medical services WILL cost you eventually.

Ignoring those costs doesn't make them go away.

And for those who seem to have a penchant for gaggling "the Constitution doesn't provide for health care" line:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

​

 

Single payer would take US spending on health care down by half. And the government would decide who gets what when. This is accomplished by government limiting health care spending. That's an absurd position to take.

 

You are actually arguing that gov limitations on health care spending would increase availability of health care for everyone ?? Google the problems in the UK and Canada before wishing for that.

 

An HMO by definition makes money by rationing healthcare

 

I don't have any experience with the VA, however I do come across people in my line of work who do have personal experience with the VA, and it seems to be a hit or miss depending on location, and each individual's circumstances. Now as for for the remaining list of agencies, I've rarely if ever have had the nightmares people claim to have had there. Sure, some places have long wait times, but then few private businesses ever have to deal with such a huge population to service.

Considering what they do, and for how many people they do it for, and for the fixed wage scales paid, it is an amazing job what government employees and their agencies do day-in, day-out.

 

They love their healthcare in Canada and the uk

 

And you honestly don't think that private health insurance does NOT ration care?

 

I think established OECD metrics for healthcare provision are pretty good global comparator, but can't be taken at face value since there are so many variables, let alone inconsistencies in reporting capabilities/methods. A little digging and undestanding of the specific conditions and trade offs each system must make can paint a significantly different overall picture.

 

The simple fact is that any group of statistics can easily be manipulated to say whatever the researcher or forum poster wants them to say.

A good example is the infant mortality rate. Not all countries count live birth the same so a blanket assumption based on statistics is entirely useless.

 

At levels ~ 3X per capita greater than the NHS.

 

They love receiving ~ 3X less per capita than the US ??

 

They ration based on cumulative premiums. And that is at a level ~ 3X per capita greater than the UK and Canada.

 

I agree.

 

Citation...

I really need to see a citation of where you're getting your information from, since you seem to be playing word salad.

What does the UK or Canada have to do with underwriting risks, negotiated contracts, or creating the most cost-effective formulary? Those three things are means of rationing care.

 

Only 14% of the population did not have health insurance in 2000. (I was and still am one of those, by the way.) So, no, not 1/3. The point is, the 86% of the population that did have health insurance was not our problem. They paid their own way or their employer did. Putting everyone on the government's insurance plan makes everyone our problem. Paying for the remaining 14% costs far far less for everyone than making everyone dependent on the government for their health insurance or their health care.

"Gaggling"? And yet, even though the Constitution was set up in 1789, there was absolutely no thought of providing federally subsidized health care or health insurance or welfare or old age pensions or help for the handicapped for the general public for almost 150 years. So, again, no, the Constitution does not provide for health care, or welfare, or old age pensions, or help for the handicapped, etc., etc.

 

Homework.

 

You are confusing having health insurance that pays for your healthcare with having the taxpayer pay for your healthcare. When you have established a system where tens of millions are forced to seek healthcare in hospital emergency rooms, those inflated costs are routinely assessed to the taxpayer's tab.

Pragmatism constitutes ignoring the airy-fairy ideological dogma, and adopting and adapting the paradigm of the most successful extant systems that actually achieve Trump's stated goal of covering "everybody" at "lower cost."

The actuarial desirability of establishing the maximal-sized risk pool and advantaging economy of scale in eliminating the multiple duplications and diversions of healthcare dollars to the rapacious, superfluous middle man is undeniable, but that does not comport with the ideological credo of some and the profiteering motivations of others.

 

All that produces a health care system that provides the same care for less than half what is currently spent in the US ?? Is that what you want us to believe ?? And to accomplish this you propose to put gov bureaucrats in charge of ~ 20% of the US gdp ??

That's hilarious. Vermont tried that. What happened ??

 

Presumably, for all Americans who are not profiteering off the gross inefficiencies of the US healthcare system, covering everyone at lower cost is the objective.

Multiple advanced nations have already achieved that, and have settled upon variations on the same successful paradigm in doing so.

If there are any real nations that demonstrate a comparable level of relative success under an alternative formula, I don't know why the advocates for such an approach keep them secret.

 

They attempted single payer in Vermont which failed because the costs were too high. Why is that ??

What percentage of the ~ 20% of US gdp is wasted due to gross inefficiencies ??

Other nations have effectively decided to provide less health care than private US citizens demand. That's how costs are lowered. The difference is that insurance premiums pay for health care in the US. Government via tax receipts pays for health care in Canada and the UK. If the US is to spend less via gov dictate the gov will have to dictate what health care spending is to be cut.

 

Despite the propaganda that the ideologues and the profiteers spew to cling to the most expensive healthcare system on earth that fails to cover tens of millions, they cannot refute the empirical data that show all advanced nations covering everyone and achieving greater longevity and lower infant mortality than the US, at far lower cost.

Whenever I challenge them to cite a single nation on earth that covers everyone at lower cost via an alternative formula, they realize that their Aynrandisran isn't real, a basic requirement of pragmatists.

Airy-fairy ideological dogma is no substitute for demonstrable reality.

 

Because you've set the priorities wrong. A free market system isn't going to cover "everyone" because some people are too old, too sick, or too genetically fragile to cover under private insurance. It's like saying, "Show me a fire insurance policy that covers fireworks factories and LP gas storage facilities." That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the free market, it just means some risks are too high to be covered under insurance. We have a free market in auto insurance, but some people are too high a risk to be covered by the free market, so we have state pools for such people. That works just fine, why can't we follow that system?