Is single payer healthcare really what you want?

[Oneuli]

Sally C. Pipes is president and chief executive officer of the Pacific Research Institute, a San Francisco-based think tank, and the Thomas W. Smith Fellow in Health Care Policy at PRI. She previously served as the assistant director of the Fraser Institute in Canada. She is the author of The Cure for Obamacare (Encounter, 2013), The Truth about Obamacare (Regnery 2010), The Pipes Plan: The Top 10 Ways to Dismantle and Replace Obamacare (Regnery 2012). She writes a biweekly health care column for Forbes.

Sally Pipes really shined a light on this topic tonight. She spoke on what's going on in Canada and the U.K. and shares a lot of knowledge on how it would impact the U.S.

In the big picture, you can measure the success of a medical system on two axes: cost per person, and public health outcomes. The US system is the worst of any major wealthy nation on each of those axes. Our system costs more, per capita, than any other, and the public health outcomes (life expectancy, etc.) are behind those of most developed nations and all major wealthy nations. And the thing is, things were even worse before Obamacare. As low as we rank, today, in terms of things like life expectancy, we ranked still lower before Obamacare -- we've actually closed some of the gap between ourselves and our international peers like the EU nations. And as much as we overpay today, things were going even worse before Obamacare -- not only were we spending more than anyone, but we were rapidly pulling away from the rest, whereas now our rates of healthcare growth are closer to international norms.

So, when the propagandists of the medical profiteers work to scare us away from improving our system to something more like the UK's or Canada's, they need to zoom in and focus on particular aspects of those systems they expect Americans to find scary. They don't want to zoom out and give the big picture (higher quality/lower cost), for obvious reasons.

 

[Truth Detector]

Private medical insurance for a person aged 65+ in the UK is typically around £250 a month. The main benefits are quality of accomodation in a private hospital and a choice of when to have a procedure.

So after the confiscatory taxation that citizens in nations like England have to pay for their mediocre healthcare services, you have to pay an additional $328 a month just so that you do not have to wait forever for a procedure or room with several other patients?

That doesn't sound cheaper; in fact, it is much more to get what you are expected to get but don't as a result of Government MISmanaged healthcare. IS IT merely an "accommodation" to get a critical heart bypass when needed? Seriously?

Privately insured people are still free to use all the NHS services, including a GP (family doctor), as most do

Why shouldn't they be? They paid for it through the confiscatory taxation in their respective nations. And now, in order to ensure they don't die waiting for a doctor, they pay an additional $328 a month. What a deal!

ALL citizens of these nations are responsible for their own dental care. It is not part of the National system. Why is that? When I get private insurance, it is part of the whole package. No wonder Brits have such shitty teeth eh?

 

[Truth Detector]

You maintain your own private police force, then? It wouldn't do to become dependent on the STATE.

That is a laughably absurd argument. You want to equate public safety with healthcare? Daft aren't you?

 

[Jarod]

You know what would solve the healthcare problem without single payer....

Start awarding attorneys fees for lawyers who successfully sue insurance companies for wrongful denial.

 

[Truth Detector]

In the big picture, you can measure the success of a medical system on two axes: cost per person, and public health outcomes.

Axes? So if those are the axis to base them on, Government Mismanaged services fail on both accounts.

The US system is the worst of any major wealthy nation on each of those axes.

That's a LIE and it is LAME. The US healthcare, so far and until the liberal dunces on the left ruin it like they do EVERYTHING else, is the best in the world. You got your "axes" wrong.

Our system costs more, per capita, than any other,

This is also a FALSE claim that ignores total cost including wait times, supplementing Government MISmanaged systems and confiscatory tax rates.

and the public health outcomes (life expectancy, etc.) are behind those of most developed nations and all major wealthy nations.

This too is a LIE and it is LAME. But, if you think dying while waiting in line is a good thing, then yes, Government systems are your cup of tea.

And the thing is, things were even worse before Obamacare.

Wrong; they are WORSE now with Obamacare. We now wait longer to see a doctor and pay more. I do wish you weren't such a liar.

As low as we rank, today, in terms of things like life expectancy, we ranked still lower before Obamacare -- we've actually closed some of the gap between ourselves and our international peers like the EU nations. And as much as we overpay today, things were going even worse before Obamacare -- not only were we spending more than anyone, but we were rapidly pulling away from the rest, whereas now our rates of healthcare growth are closer to international norms.

Those rankings come from ideological perspectives that lean towards Government MISmanaged countries and are distortions and lies that are not properly documented.

But I get it; liberals love Fascism almost as much as they do mediocrity. They want the US to become a third world shit hole and to have shitty healthcare like everyone else.

So, when the propagandists

Irony here; as if you aren't a lying propgandist promoting mediocrity and failure.

....of the medical profiteers work to scare us away from improving our system to something more like the UK's or Canada's, they need to zoom in and focus on particular aspects of those systems they expect Americans to find scary. They don't want to zoom out and give the big picture (higher quality/lower cost), for obvious reasons.

The big picture is that you are a lying, partisan hack with an agenda who could care less about facts. If you had actually listened to Sally C. Pipes instead of emotionally erupt in a vacuum of reality or the facts, you might have learned something.

But I am not sure liberals like learning. They prefer echo chambers and propaganda as well as parroting those lies to actual learning. You make that obvious.

 

[Getin the ring]

In the big picture, you can measure the success of a medical system on two axes: cost per person, and public health outcomes. The US system is the worst of any major wealthy nation on each of those axes. Our system costs more, per capita, than any other, and the public health outcomes (life expectancy, etc.) are behind those of most developed nations and all major wealthy nations. And the thing is, things were even worse before Obamacare. As low as we rank, today, in terms of things like life expectancy, we ranked still lower before Obamacare -- we've actually closed some of the gap between ourselves and our international peers like the EU nations. And as much as we overpay today, things were going even worse before Obamacare -- not only were we spending more than anyone, but we were rapidly pulling away from the rest, whereas now our rates of healthcare growth are closer to international norms.

So, when the propagandists of the medical profiteers work to scare us away from improving our system to something more like the UK's or Canada's, they need to zoom in and focus on particular aspects of those systems they expect Americans to find scary. They don't want to zoom out and give the big picture (higher quality/lower cost), for obvious reasons.

two big holes in your "point"

#1 Obamacare did not lower MY costs, matter of fact it raised them, while offering sometimes free insurance to others, that is IF they chose to bother.
AND used some of MY MONEY to buy it for them. that part pisses me off pardon my attachment to MY MONEY
#2 higher quality is a myth, beyond a myth.
When you leave the same hospitals, same doctors, same everything associated with the care in place, how on earth would you argue that? Doctors and hospitals started acting better because more people came to them?

that's ridiculous quite the opposite

 

[Life is Golden]

THen again less jobs and more people sitting around getting Bernie's free stuff, is the aim.

“The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants.” - Albert Camus

 

[Truth Detector]

“The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants.” - Albert Camus

Love that saying; and it is so true!

 

[Legion]

Fun fact: BRAD claimed to have Obamacare and still whined about "amoral" insurance companies.

thank God for Obamacare or we would not have insurance.

Obamacare is better than what was before it, but it’s immoral.

It is. They are fighting to prevent a life saving surgery!

BRAD seems to forget that he makes a living extorting settlements from insurance companies, and skimming off a third of the proceeds.

 

[Stretch]

Are you also paying less now? I know I'm not.

Back when Obummercare began the cheapest new plan I could find was triple the price and went up each year
until I turned 65 and finally could get my Medicare.
That guy was a snake oil salesman selling something I never wanted in the 1st place.

 

[Tranquillus in Exile]

That is a laughably absurd argument. You want to equate public safety with healthcare? Daft aren't you?

No, and here's an example. A couple of centuries ago, before the state started meddling in firefighting, there were private firefighting companies which people paid into. If the house next door to yours caught fire and the owner wasn't covered, they wouldn't tackle that. Why should they? They waited until your house caught fire. That's a reductio ad absurdum of your "I'm alright Jack" doctrine, but it actually happened.

The question is not whether the state should be involved in policing, firefighting, or healthcare, it's HOW MUCH. We can disagree about that. But don't confuse the issue by calling it Socialism. To anyone whose wits haven't been addled by exposure to the American doctrinaire Right, it's common sense.

 

[Stretch]

Axes? So if those are the axis to base them on, Government Mismanaged services fail on both accounts.



That's a LIE and it is LAME. The US healthcare, so far and until the liberal dunces on the left ruin it like they do EVERYTHING else, is the best in the world. You got your "axes" wrong.



This is also a FALSE claim that ignores total cost including wait times, supplementing Government MISmanaged systems and confiscatory tax rates.



This too is a LIE and it is LAME. But, if you think dying while waiting in line is a good thing, then yes, Government systems are your cup of tea.



Wrong; they are WORSE now with Obamacare. We now wait longer to see a doctor and pay more. I do wish you weren't such a liar.



Those rankings come from ideological perspectives that lean towards Government MISmanaged countries and are distortions and lies that are not properly documented.

But I get it; liberals love Fascism almost as much as they do mediocrity. They want the US to become a third world shit hole and to have shitty healthcare like everyone else.



Irony here; as if you aren't a lying propgandist promoting mediocrity and failure.



The big picture is that you are a lying, partisan hack with an agenda who could care less about facts. If you had actually listened to Sally C. Pipes instead of emotionally erupt in a vacuum of reality or the facts, you might have learned something.

But I am not sure liberals like learning. They prefer echo chambers and propaganda as well as parroting those lies to actual learning. You make that obvious.

 

[Oneuli]

two big holes in your "point"

#1 Obamacare did not lower MY costs, matter of fact it raised them, while offering sometimes free insurance to others, that is IF they chose to bother.

Why would you imagine that was a hole in my point? Did you misunderstand my point so badly that you thought I'd made some statement about how Obamacare impacted YOUR costs? If so, what made you jump to that foolish conclusion?

The point about Obamacare is that in the years leading up to its passage, not only were healthcare costs rising faster in this country than in the years since the passage of Obamacare, but the US's rate of healthcare cost growth was higher relative to other wealthy nations, pre-Obamacare, than since Obamacare's implementation. Those are verifiable facts. Now, that doesn't mean there weren't outliers. It's certain that some would have experienced different trends in that time. My point is based on the overall system, which is a product of the average, not a categorical statement about all individuals in the system. Obviously.

#2 higher quality is a myth, beyond a myth.
When you leave the same hospitals, same doctors, same everything associated with the care in place, how on earth would you argue that?

I argue it based on verifiable results. The US spent the decades leading up to Obamacare in health-care freefall, in terms of how we ranked relative to other wealthy nations, in major health indicators. We went from being one of the longest-lived wealthy nations, to having only the 49th-best life expectancy in the world:

https://web.archive.org/web/2010031...ns/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

Then, with Obamacare, the trend reversed. Not only did we stop our long fall down the rankings, but we actually improved -- passing by some other wealthy nations like Denmark and Portugal:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

Certainly those results took the know-nothings by surprise. They imagined that making health insurance more affordable to millions of Americans couldn't possibly result in the US improving its position in international health rankings. That's why everyone laughs at them. They're ridiculous people. The results are exactly what knowledgeable people predicted would happen.

 

[Oneuli]

until I turned 65 and finally could get my Medicare.

Single-payer, like Medicare, does tend to be better than market-based solutions like Obamacare. But a market-based solution was probably the best that could be done, politically, with the conservative Democrats objecting to anything more liberal than that. And it did turn out to be a big improvement on the pre-Obamacare system, in terms of public health outcomes as well as slowing overall healthcare cost growth rates.

 

[Heff]

Is it really so difficult to put money aside for one's own healthcare?

 

[Legion]

Is it really so difficult to put money aside for one's own healthcare?

Liberals seem to think that if individuals can't or won't pay for things, the government should.

 

[Legion]

Single-payer, like Medicare, does tend to be better than market-based solutions like Obamacare

Who told you that?

 

[Oneuli]

Who told you that?

The data told me that. Among wealthy nations, countries that have single-payer systems tend to have significantly lower per capita healthcare costs than the US, as well as superior public health outcomes. Also, within the US, those with the most socialized medical care (e.g., Medicare and the military system), tend to guard it fiercely against attempts to make it more privatized.

 

[Legion]

The data told me that. Among wealthy nations, countries that have single-payer systems tend to have significantly lower per capita healthcare costs than the US, as well as superior public health outcomes.

So you say.

Let's see this data.

 

[Legion]

But a market-based solution was probably the best that could be done, politically, with the conservative Democrats objecting to anything more liberal than that.

Name these "conservative DEMOCRATS" who supposedly objected to Obamacare.