SmarterthanYou
rebel
try to be somewhat detailed instead of saying it will lower costs, etc.
explain the supposed benefits of single payer health care
- Thread starter SmarterthanYou
- Start date
Legion Troll
A fine upstanding poster
LMFAO @ Physicians for a National Health Program.
The argument that single payer managed by Government buffoons can be well managed and cost effective is for the realm of low information lunatics on the left. This is why the DNC needs low information twits to stay in power.
Best example to date:
VA Hospitals: Why Single-Payer Systems Fail
The VA is a perfect example of why government-run health care fails. Like any single payer system, Tanner explains, the VA cuts and controls its costs with a budget that limits the amount that it can spend on care. Funding is determined not by what consumers are willing to spend, but by whatever budget Congress sets.
Demand for VA care has increased as soldiers return home from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. From 2007 to 2012, enrollment in VA services rose by 13 percent. An additional $24 billion -- a 76 percent increase -- was poured into the program over those five years, but the agency still has budget problems. And because the VA lacks the resources to provide all of the care that is demanded, it rations care -- just as every other single-payer system does. Moreover, it takes an average 160 days simply for a veteran to gain access to his health benefits, and the case-processing backlog within the VA currently sits in excess of 344,000 claims. Appealing a VA decision is lengthy as well, requiring an average wait time of 1,598 days.
Tanner cites Medicaid as a similar example: Medicaid patients are six times as likely to be denied a doctor's appointment as the privately insured, and when they do manage to get an appointment, they wait an average of 42 days to see a doctor -- twice as long as a privately insured individual would wait. Promising health care does not mean that the government will actually deliver more health care, writes Tanner. Americans should take note of the problems within the VA as the federal government continues to exert greater control over our health system.
See more at: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=24455#sthash.P1meuwVJ.dpuf
The argument that single payer managed by Government buffoons can be well managed and cost effective is for the realm of low information lunatics on the left. This is why the DNC needs low information twits to stay in power.
Best example to date:
VA Hospitals: Why Single-Payer Systems Fail
The VA is a perfect example of why government-run health care fails. Like any single payer system, Tanner explains, the VA cuts and controls its costs with a budget that limits the amount that it can spend on care. Funding is determined not by what consumers are willing to spend, but by whatever budget Congress sets.
Demand for VA care has increased as soldiers return home from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. From 2007 to 2012, enrollment in VA services rose by 13 percent. An additional $24 billion -- a 76 percent increase -- was poured into the program over those five years, but the agency still has budget problems. And because the VA lacks the resources to provide all of the care that is demanded, it rations care -- just as every other single-payer system does. Moreover, it takes an average 160 days simply for a veteran to gain access to his health benefits, and the case-processing backlog within the VA currently sits in excess of 344,000 claims. Appealing a VA decision is lengthy as well, requiring an average wait time of 1,598 days.
Tanner cites Medicaid as a similar example: Medicaid patients are six times as likely to be denied a doctor's appointment as the privately insured, and when they do manage to get an appointment, they wait an average of 42 days to see a doctor -- twice as long as a privately insured individual would wait. Promising health care does not mean that the government will actually deliver more health care, writes Tanner. Americans should take note of the problems within the VA as the federal government continues to exert greater control over our health system.
See more at: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=24455#sthash.P1meuwVJ.dpuf
Single payer system singularly bad idea
The single-payer alternative for one and all is also more razzle-dazzle than realistic remedy. Experts from various think tanks have shown it actually can have such bad effects as reducing the quality of care. Among their points is that it leads to long waits for care, often affecting the elderly most of all. One critic argues it only saves money through rationing Americans would not like a bit, and large majorities in some countries with single-payer systems don’t like the extensive controls much, either, as polls show.
That’s one reason many of those countries have been allowing far more private insurance and care than in the past.
Of course, if you don’t do the rationing, you have runaway costs with single-payer systems. Our own federal Medicare and Medicaid programs are already in deep trouble, and, without reform, are unsustainable over the long run. Make Obamacare essentially another version of Medicare (or even leave it alone) and there might be no ark that can save us from the flood of red ink of the sort now drowning so many European welfare states.
Many progressives note we Americans have slightly shorter lives on average than in those welfare states, but that’s more likely because of accidents, homicides, lifestyles and genetic inheritance than anything having to do with health care. One expert notes that 90 percent of U.S. adults report themselves as healthy, which is higher than in any other country in the world, and when you look at such a major matter as treating cancer, you find no one does it better.
http://www.tbo.com/list/news-opinion-commentary/single-payer-system-singularly-bad-idea-20131202/
The single-payer alternative for one and all is also more razzle-dazzle than realistic remedy. Experts from various think tanks have shown it actually can have such bad effects as reducing the quality of care. Among their points is that it leads to long waits for care, often affecting the elderly most of all. One critic argues it only saves money through rationing Americans would not like a bit, and large majorities in some countries with single-payer systems don’t like the extensive controls much, either, as polls show.
That’s one reason many of those countries have been allowing far more private insurance and care than in the past.
Of course, if you don’t do the rationing, you have runaway costs with single-payer systems. Our own federal Medicare and Medicaid programs are already in deep trouble, and, without reform, are unsustainable over the long run. Make Obamacare essentially another version of Medicare (or even leave it alone) and there might be no ark that can save us from the flood of red ink of the sort now drowning so many European welfare states.
Many progressives note we Americans have slightly shorter lives on average than in those welfare states, but that’s more likely because of accidents, homicides, lifestyles and genetic inheritance than anything having to do with health care. One expert notes that 90 percent of U.S. adults report themselves as healthy, which is higher than in any other country in the world, and when you look at such a major matter as treating cancer, you find no one does it better.
http://www.tbo.com/list/news-opinion-commentary/single-payer-system-singularly-bad-idea-20131202/
Vermont's Single Payer Health Care Plan Failed For One Big Reason: It Cost Too Much
https://reason.com/blog/2014/12/22/vermonts-single-payer-health-care-plan-f
https://reason.com/blog/2014/12/22/vermonts-single-payer-health-care-plan-f
The Drawbacks Of Single-Payer Healthcare
To some, it’s the greatest idea since price supports for agriculture: A government assumes its citizens’ healthcare choices, paying every cost and minimizing all guesswork. To others, it’s an infringement on individual human autonomy, the transference of private decisions about health to a taxpayer-funded bureaucracy.
Single-Payer Healthcare
A euphemism for “government-run,” “single-payer” means that instead of every person in the marketplace paying for his or her own healthcare, there’s just one payer. A monopsony. In some parts of the world, such a system has been entrenched for so long that it’s difficult to conceive of any other way. In others, in particular the United States, there’s still plenty of debate on the issue. It’s easy to talk about a fundamental “right to healthcare,” but the issue gets complicated when one realizes that entitling a person to certain time and resources means putting an obligation on someone else to provide the same.
An Old Idea
Advocacy for a single-payer system in the U.S. is nothing new. In the fall of 1945, just after the end of World War II, recently inaugurated President Harry Truman addressed Congress with a plea for a national healthcare system. The American Medical Association opposed the idea, and it eventually faded away.
Incremental steps did continue throughout the decades. Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965, essentially becoming a de facto single-payer system for certain groups of the population – senior citizens, and young children and the poor, respectively.
Brought Back in Recent Times
In modern times, the strongest push to nationalize healthcare in the world’s largest economy happened in 1993. When her husband’s administration was months old, then-First Lady Hillary Clinton spearheaded the Health Security Act. Thus known commonly as “Hillarycare,” the bill required all citizens to enroll in a government-approved health plan and forbade them from ever exiting that plan.
Hillarycare also called for the creation of a National Health Board, a seven-member panel whose duties would include determining what constitutes “an item or service that is not medically necessary or appropriate” [Section 1141(a)(1)]. The bill was a bureaucrat’s dream, as it set criteria for everything from a new tax on cigarette rolling papers [Section 7113(a)], to payment limits on certain drugs. When prominent members of the President’s own party began to question the bill’s feasibility, support continued to weaken. The bill officially died a few weeks before 1994’s midterm congressional elections, which was seen as something of a referendum on Hillarycare.
One fact often used to defend the concept of a single-payer plan is that the U.S. spends more of its gross domestic product (GDP) on healthcare than do other nations.
Is Socialized Really Better?
Just ask citizens of Canada or the United Kingdom, two nations famous for their universal healthcare systems. Many Canadians love to talk of their “free” healthcare system, forgetting that if a free lunch doesn’t exist, then a free colonoscopy can’t either. Neither doctor salaries nor cardiopulmonary bypass pumps are cheap, and the money to pay for them has to come from somewhere.
Canadian health care expenditures work out to just shy of $6,000 per capita per year, compared to the top-ranked U.S. with $8,233. In Canada, nearly all of the $6,000 is funded via taxes. Less than half of that comes from income taxes with the bulk of the costs bankrolled by corporate and sales taxes.
Increases in per capita healthcare spending in Canada have kept pace with those in the U.S., expenditures in the former having almost tripled since the mid-70s, going from $39.7 billion to $137.3 billion. The Canadian government not only acknowledges that many of its citizens have to wait a long time for care, but recently spent an additional billion dollars to examine the issue. In the meantime, watching the months pass is an unavoidable component of Canadian healthcare. If you want a new hip or knee, prepare to live with your old one for at least half a year.
Wait times are a fact of life under socialized medicine in the United Kingdom, too. The U.K.’s National Health Service claims that you shouldn’t have to wait longer than 4.5 months for your approved service yet recent reports say patients can wait as long as eight months for cataract surgery.
Wait times in Canada are increasing, too and are up by 95% since 1993, according to one measure. At least one Canadian doctor has pointed out the absurdity of dogs being able to see specialists faster than humans can. In the U.S., such wait times aren’t even an issue.
The Bottom Line
It wasn’t all that long ago that healthcare was a market no different than that for furniture or electronics: you paid as you went, usually out-of-pocket. Then rising costs led to the notion of a single-payer. When a party other than a patient or a provider starts making healthcare decisions, it’s easy to lose sight of whose interests should be paramount in a healthcare transaction. Governments and private insurers often have conflicting agendas regarding treatment, but a sick person never does. He or she just has one goal: recuperation.
Read more: The Drawbacks Of Single-Payer Healthcare http://www.investopedia.com/article...acks-singlepayer-healthcare.asp#ixzz3rPwro7nh
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook
To some, it’s the greatest idea since price supports for agriculture: A government assumes its citizens’ healthcare choices, paying every cost and minimizing all guesswork. To others, it’s an infringement on individual human autonomy, the transference of private decisions about health to a taxpayer-funded bureaucracy.
Single-Payer Healthcare
A euphemism for “government-run,” “single-payer” means that instead of every person in the marketplace paying for his or her own healthcare, there’s just one payer. A monopsony. In some parts of the world, such a system has been entrenched for so long that it’s difficult to conceive of any other way. In others, in particular the United States, there’s still plenty of debate on the issue. It’s easy to talk about a fundamental “right to healthcare,” but the issue gets complicated when one realizes that entitling a person to certain time and resources means putting an obligation on someone else to provide the same.
An Old Idea
Advocacy for a single-payer system in the U.S. is nothing new. In the fall of 1945, just after the end of World War II, recently inaugurated President Harry Truman addressed Congress with a plea for a national healthcare system. The American Medical Association opposed the idea, and it eventually faded away.
Incremental steps did continue throughout the decades. Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965, essentially becoming a de facto single-payer system for certain groups of the population – senior citizens, and young children and the poor, respectively.
Brought Back in Recent Times
In modern times, the strongest push to nationalize healthcare in the world’s largest economy happened in 1993. When her husband’s administration was months old, then-First Lady Hillary Clinton spearheaded the Health Security Act. Thus known commonly as “Hillarycare,” the bill required all citizens to enroll in a government-approved health plan and forbade them from ever exiting that plan.
Hillarycare also called for the creation of a National Health Board, a seven-member panel whose duties would include determining what constitutes “an item or service that is not medically necessary or appropriate” [Section 1141(a)(1)]. The bill was a bureaucrat’s dream, as it set criteria for everything from a new tax on cigarette rolling papers [Section 7113(a)], to payment limits on certain drugs. When prominent members of the President’s own party began to question the bill’s feasibility, support continued to weaken. The bill officially died a few weeks before 1994’s midterm congressional elections, which was seen as something of a referendum on Hillarycare.
One fact often used to defend the concept of a single-payer plan is that the U.S. spends more of its gross domestic product (GDP) on healthcare than do other nations.
Is Socialized Really Better?
Just ask citizens of Canada or the United Kingdom, two nations famous for their universal healthcare systems. Many Canadians love to talk of their “free” healthcare system, forgetting that if a free lunch doesn’t exist, then a free colonoscopy can’t either. Neither doctor salaries nor cardiopulmonary bypass pumps are cheap, and the money to pay for them has to come from somewhere.
Canadian health care expenditures work out to just shy of $6,000 per capita per year, compared to the top-ranked U.S. with $8,233. In Canada, nearly all of the $6,000 is funded via taxes. Less than half of that comes from income taxes with the bulk of the costs bankrolled by corporate and sales taxes.
Increases in per capita healthcare spending in Canada have kept pace with those in the U.S., expenditures in the former having almost tripled since the mid-70s, going from $39.7 billion to $137.3 billion. The Canadian government not only acknowledges that many of its citizens have to wait a long time for care, but recently spent an additional billion dollars to examine the issue. In the meantime, watching the months pass is an unavoidable component of Canadian healthcare. If you want a new hip or knee, prepare to live with your old one for at least half a year.
Wait times are a fact of life under socialized medicine in the United Kingdom, too. The U.K.’s National Health Service claims that you shouldn’t have to wait longer than 4.5 months for your approved service yet recent reports say patients can wait as long as eight months for cataract surgery.
Wait times in Canada are increasing, too and are up by 95% since 1993, according to one measure. At least one Canadian doctor has pointed out the absurdity of dogs being able to see specialists faster than humans can. In the U.S., such wait times aren’t even an issue.
The Bottom Line
It wasn’t all that long ago that healthcare was a market no different than that for furniture or electronics: you paid as you went, usually out-of-pocket. Then rising costs led to the notion of a single-payer. When a party other than a patient or a provider starts making healthcare decisions, it’s easy to lose sight of whose interests should be paramount in a healthcare transaction. Governments and private insurers often have conflicting agendas regarding treatment, but a sick person never does. He or she just has one goal: recuperation.
Read more: The Drawbacks Of Single-Payer Healthcare http://www.investopedia.com/article...acks-singlepayer-healthcare.asp#ixzz3rPwro7nh
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook
Legion Troll
A fine upstanding poster
Truth Neglector seems frightened.
Single-pay health care is superior because you cut away all the administrative machinery required to run a for-profit health care system. For one thing, obviously, there is no class of people extracting profit from the system, so you save that money. Then, as Obamacare has already done, you stop paying people to deny health insurance claims (which is totally fucking stupid).
Really it is obvious that single-payer systems are more efficient. The US spends more of its GDP for worse outcomes than all other developed countries.
Really it is obvious that single-payer systems are more efficient. The US spends more of its GDP for worse outcomes than all other developed countries.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
that's funny, considering your stance on baby killing.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
where have I ever said that this is my position?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
why do you?