Total Posts:62|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Socialized Medicine

Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2012 6:41:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is why socialized or single-payer healthcare should not even be considered as a viable economic policy, let alone actually implemented into law.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2012 7:05:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Aw contra is innactive
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2012 7:09:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Socialized medicine is a failure, just ask Canada or Britain.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2012 5:36:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I can now respond.

Friedman is talking about for the most part Socialized Medicine, and makes a slippery slope towards outright Socialism. I saw the whole video. I do not support socialized medicine. I have said before, that if Single Payer was socialized medicine, the training and employment of medical professionals would all become public employees, operation of facilities, production of drugs would be managed by the gov't, etc. Single Payer only makes the gov't fund the insurance. So, it is socialized insurance, not socialized medicine. And I think that it is okay if one wants to opt out of the system, as long as they cannot opt out of the funding. So, it isn't even truly socialized insurance, but it's close.

Furthermore, Single Payer health insurance ensures universal access to care, and lets market forces determine which doctors and medical professionals "survive" based on public demand, only the funding is distributed by the gov't, determined on medical needs of patients and other medical operations.

Corporate bureaucracy in medical insurance is much more bloated than gov't bureaucracy in health insurance. Insurance in general is where gov't is more efficient. This is a special case, and several Capitalist economies survive on Single Payer health insurance better than a private system would've worked, such as Canada, Taiwan, South Korea, etc.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2012 5:51:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
And I think that it is okay if one wants to opt out of the system, as long as they cannot opt out of the funding.
A meaningless concession. Funding is the system.

Corporate bureaucracy in medical insurance is much more bloated than gov't bureaucracy in health insurance.
We've never seen such an entity as "private insurance," only heavily regulated insurance.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2012 5:53:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/29/2012 5:51:04 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
And I think that it is okay if one wants to opt out of the system, as long as they cannot opt out of the funding.
A meaningless concession. Funding is the system.

I mean that someone could keep their private insurance instead of using the universal Medicare system.

Corporate bureaucracy in medical insurance is much more bloated than gov't bureaucracy in health insurance.
We've never seen such an entity as "private insurance," only heavily regulated insurance.

Regardless, my point stands. The health care bureaucracy that Canada needs is the same size of Blue Cross' bureaucracy in Massachusetts alone.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2012 6:39:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/29/2012 5:53:23 PM, Contra wrote:
At 6/29/2012 5:51:04 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Corporate bureaucracy in medical insurance is much more bloated than gov't bureaucracy in health insurance.
We've never seen such an entity as "private insurance," only heavily regulated insurance.

Regardless, my point stands. The health care bureaucracy that Canada needs is the same size of Blue Cross' bureaucracy in Massachusetts alone.

Actually it doesn't. Your arguing for optimal efficiency of government provided health insurance. The only thing you do though is argue that our already heavily government regulated insurance system is bad. It says nothing of the effects of getting rid of that regulatory system altogether.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2012 6:56:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Contra, even if single payer is not fully socialized medicine, then Friedman's criticism of the socialist healthcare system still in part applies to single payer. Under the status quo, demand and supply in the healthcare market is more or less balanced. If single payer is implemented, demand of the product greatly increases (as more people will go to hospitals) and supply stays fixed. As a result, rationing happens.

Now, while socialized medicine is not mutual with socialism or the other way, it is a fact that countries that have socialized medicine are generally much more left-leaning than countries that don't. Countries that are left leaning often have socialized healthcare. Even though the correlation is not direct, it is still present.

Furthermore, single payer does not let market forces work because the demand and supply are already disproportionate. There is much more demand rather than supply, so scarcity occurs. In that case, all incentives are going to be against letting some doctors fail, as that would make the problem even worse.

Take it from somebody who lives in a socialist country....Socialized healthcare is ridiculously inefficient.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2012 7:43:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/29/2012 6:39:54 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/29/2012 5:53:23 PM, Contra wrote:
At 6/29/2012 5:51:04 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Corporate bureaucracy in medical insurance is much more bloated than gov't bureaucracy in health insurance.
We've never seen such an entity as "private insurance," only heavily regulated insurance.

Regardless, my point stands. The health care bureaucracy that Canada needs is the same size of Blue Cross' bureaucracy in Massachusetts alone.

Actually it doesn't. Your arguing for optimal efficiency of government provided health insurance. The only thing you do though is argue that our already heavily government regulated insurance system is bad. It says nothing of the effects of getting rid of that regulatory system altogether.

If we did get rid of gov't regulation totally in health care, besides the protection of property rights, it would still be inferior to public health insurance. Private plans need to spend additional fees towards bureaucracy to dump people and deny them care to ensure higher profits, when care is too expensive. And the need for marketing, advertisements, profits, and all of this layered up in structure accumulates into massive bureaucracy, which gov't insurance does not need. My point, the private insurance businesses have administration rates of about 25-31%. Medicare administration? About 6% of each dollar. In Taiwan it is about 2%.

And for less wealthy regions like the South, it would be a huge financial windfall.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2012 7:48:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/29/2012 6:56:33 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Contra, even if single payer is not fully socialized medicine, then Friedman's criticism of the socialist healthcare system still in part applies to single payer. Under the status quo, demand and supply in the healthcare market is more or less balanced. If single payer is implemented, demand of the product greatly increases (as more people will go to hospitals) and supply stays fixed. As a result, rationing happens.

We have that in the market system already. That is why the emergency room services are rationed. With Single Payer, people could get care from a physician of their choice, and it would be balanced out, with emergency room services being given a huge relief. Some rationing would likely occur, but it would be minor, and we already have rationing, but it is not really public information.

Now, while socialized medicine is not mutual with socialism or the other way, it is a fact that countries that have socialized medicine are generally much more left-leaning than countries that don't.

True.

Countries that are left leaning often have socialized healthcare. Even though the correlation is not direct, it is still present.

Or socialized health insurance.

Furthermore, single payer does not let market forces work because the demand and supply are already disproportionate. There is much more demand rather than supply, so scarcity occurs. In that case, all incentives are going to be against letting some doctors fail, as that would make the problem even worse.

Most doctors would not fail, as most are satisfied with medical professionals like doctors. Furthermore, Single Payer could present an opportunity to increase the supply of medical professionals, like offering incentives such as bonuses when the patient reaches a health goal (me and Darkkermit had disagreements on this though).


Take it from somebody who lives in a socialist country....Socialized healthcare is ridiculously inefficient.

You live in Canada?
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2012 10:02:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/29/2012 5:36:39 PM, Contra wrote:
I can now respond.

Friedman is talking about for the most part Socialized Medicine, and makes a slippery slope towards outright Socialism. I saw the whole video. I do not support socialized medicine. I have said before, that if Single Payer was socialized medicine, the training and employment of medical professionals would all become public employees, operation of facilities, production of drugs would be managed by the gov't, etc. Single Payer only makes the gov't fund the insurance. So, it is socialized insurance, not socialized medicine. And I think that it is okay if one wants to opt out of the system, as long as they cannot opt out of the funding. So, it isn't even truly socialized insurance, but it's close.

Furthermore, Single Payer health insurance ensures universal access to care, and lets market forces determine which doctors and medical professionals "survive" based on public demand, only the funding is distributed by the gov't, determined on medical needs of patients and other medical operations.

Corporate bureaucracy in medical insurance is much more bloated than gov't bureaucracy in health insurance. Insurance in general is where gov't is more efficient. This is a special case, and several Capitalist economies survive on Single Payer health insurance better than a private system would've worked, such as Canada, Taiwan, South Korea, etc.

Contra, how do you feel about the NHS?
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2012 10:11:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/29/2012 10:02:45 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 6/29/2012 5:36:39 PM, Contra wrote:
I can now respond.

Friedman is talking about for the most part Socialized Medicine, and makes a slippery slope towards outright Socialism. I saw the whole video. I do not support socialized medicine. I have said before, that if Single Payer was socialized medicine, the training and employment of medical professionals would all become public employees, operation of facilities, production of drugs would be managed by the gov't, etc. Single Payer only makes the gov't fund the insurance. So, it is socialized insurance, not socialized medicine. And I think that it is okay if one wants to opt out of the system, as long as they cannot opt out of the funding. So, it isn't even truly socialized insurance, but it's close.

Furthermore, Single Payer health insurance ensures universal access to care, and lets market forces determine which doctors and medical professionals "survive" based on public demand, only the funding is distributed by the gov't, determined on medical needs of patients and other medical operations.

Corporate bureaucracy in medical insurance is much more bloated than gov't bureaucracy in health insurance. Insurance in general is where gov't is more efficient. This is a special case, and several Capitalist economies survive on Single Payer health insurance better than a private system would've worked, such as Canada, Taiwan, South Korea, etc.


Contra, how do you feel about the NHS?

It isn't terrible, but it isn't that great.

It is socialized medicine, and I favor Single Payer insurance, otherwise known as Improved Medicare for All, or "Universal Medicare".

If I could reform America's health insurance system, I strongly would suggest going along the lines of Taiwan's health insurance system, which is also Single Payer.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2012 10:15:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/29/2012 10:11:05 PM, Contra wrote:
At 6/29/2012 10:02:45 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 6/29/2012 5:36:39 PM, Contra wrote:
I can now respond.

Friedman is talking about for the most part Socialized Medicine, and makes a slippery slope towards outright Socialism. I saw the whole video. I do not support socialized medicine. I have said before, that if Single Payer was socialized medicine, the training and employment of medical professionals would all become public employees, operation of facilities, production of drugs would be managed by the gov't, etc. Single Payer only makes the gov't fund the insurance. So, it is socialized insurance, not socialized medicine. And I think that it is okay if one wants to opt out of the system, as long as they cannot opt out of the funding. So, it isn't even truly socialized insurance, but it's close.

Furthermore, Single Payer health insurance ensures universal access to care, and lets market forces determine which doctors and medical professionals "survive" based on public demand, only the funding is distributed by the gov't, determined on medical needs of patients and other medical operations.

Corporate bureaucracy in medical insurance is much more bloated than gov't bureaucracy in health insurance. Insurance in general is where gov't is more efficient. This is a special case, and several Capitalist economies survive on Single Payer health insurance better than a private system would've worked, such as Canada, Taiwan, South Korea, etc.


Contra, how do you feel about the NHS?

It isn't terrible, but it isn't that great.

It is socialized medicine, and I favor Single Payer insurance, otherwise known as Improved Medicare for All, or "Universal Medicare".

If I could reform America's health insurance system, I strongly would suggest going along the lines of Taiwan's health insurance system, which is also Single Payer.

I don't know. I really don't like the idea of government run health care.

I mean, you have to look at all of the innovations that come from the US that are not readily available in government run systems, or even government financed systems.

I wear invisalign. If I lived in the UK, that wouldnt be available because it isn't considered "essential". In the US, I can get it very easily.

I know that is anecdotal, but I think it is reflective of a larger reality.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2012 10:22:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/29/2012 10:15:10 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 6/29/2012 10:11:05 PM, Contra wrote:
At 6/29/2012 10:02:45 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 6/29/2012 5:36:39 PM, Contra wrote:
I can now respond.

Friedman is talking about for the most part Socialized Medicine, and makes a slippery slope towards outright Socialism. I saw the whole video. I do not support socialized medicine. I have said before, that if Single Payer was socialized medicine, the training and employment of medical professionals would all become public employees, operation of facilities, production of drugs would be managed by the gov't, etc. Single Payer only makes the gov't fund the insurance. So, it is socialized insurance, not socialized medicine. And I think that it is okay if one wants to opt out of the system, as long as they cannot opt out of the funding. So, it isn't even truly socialized insurance, but it's close.

Furthermore, Single Payer health insurance ensures universal access to care, and lets market forces determine which doctors and medical professionals "survive" based on public demand, only the funding is distributed by the gov't, determined on medical needs of patients and other medical operations.

Corporate bureaucracy in medical insurance is much more bloated than gov't bureaucracy in health insurance. Insurance in general is where gov't is more efficient. This is a special case, and several Capitalist economies survive on Single Payer health insurance better than a private system would've worked, such as Canada, Taiwan, South Korea, etc.


Contra, how do you feel about the NHS?

It isn't terrible, but it isn't that great.

It is socialized medicine, and I favor Single Payer insurance, otherwise known as Improved Medicare for All, or "Universal Medicare".

If I could reform America's health insurance system, I strongly would suggest going along the lines of Taiwan's health insurance system, which is also Single Payer.


I don't know. I really don't like the idea of government run health care.

I mean, you have to look at all of the innovations that come from the US that are not readily available in government run systems, or even government financed systems.

Yes, but the far majority of the funding and research in the medical field comes from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), while private companies get the marketing rights after the research is complete or at a end stage.

Most private companies create similar "me too" drugs. For example, Cialis and Viagra along with all the other competing brands. The NIH funds them. If we had Single Payer, the reimbursement fee for each drug would still retain any market incentive in the drug industry, the small amount there actually is.

I wear invisalign. If I lived in the UK, that wouldnt be available because it isn't considered "essential". In the US, I can get it very easily.

They still get that. All medically necessary care with other care such as braces etc. And, Single Payer would let private plans deal with luxury items such as cosmetics, plastic surgery, etc.

I know that is anecdotal, but I think it is reflective of a larger reality.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2012 10:24:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/29/2012 10:15:10 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 6/29/2012 10:11:05 PM, Contra wrote:
At 6/29/2012 10:02:45 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 6/29/2012 5:36:39 PM, Contra wrote:
I can now respond.

Friedman is talking about for the most part Socialized Medicine, and makes a slippery slope towards outright Socialism. I saw the whole video. I do not support socialized medicine. I have said before, that if Single Payer was socialized medicine, the training and employment of medical professionals would all become public employees, operation of facilities, production of drugs would be managed by the gov't, etc. Single Payer only makes the gov't fund the insurance. So, it is socialized insurance, not socialized medicine. And I think that it is okay if one wants to opt out of the system, as long as they cannot opt out of the funding. So, it isn't even truly socialized insurance, but it's close.

Furthermore, Single Payer health insurance ensures universal access to care, and lets market forces determine which doctors and medical professionals "survive" based on public demand, only the funding is distributed by the gov't, determined on medical needs of patients and other medical operations.

Corporate bureaucracy in medical insurance is much more bloated than gov't bureaucracy in health insurance. Insurance in general is where gov't is more efficient. This is a special case, and several Capitalist economies survive on Single Payer health insurance better than a private system would've worked, such as Canada, Taiwan, South Korea, etc.


Contra, how do you feel about the NHS?

It isn't terrible, but it isn't that great.

It is socialized medicine, and I favor Single Payer insurance, otherwise known as Improved Medicare for All, or "Universal Medicare".

If I could reform America's health insurance system, I strongly would suggest going along the lines of Taiwan's health insurance system, which is also Single Payer.


I don't know. I really don't like the idea of government run health care.

I mean, you have to look at all of the innovations that come from the US that are not readily available in government run systems, or even government financed systems.

I wear invisalign. If I lived in the UK, that wouldnt be available because it isn't considered "essential". In the US, I can get it very easily.

I know that is anecdotal, but I think it is reflective of a larger reality.

Speaking as someone who has used the NHS many times, it's fantastic. But that's all anecdotal right? Well, look at the support for it in the UK. It's somewhere around the 90% mark in the last poll I seen. In other words, it's about as controversial as votes for women. The data for WHO studies also suggest it is superior to, say, the US system (by around 20 places, the US being one place above Cuba).

But who cares about personal experience, overwhelming public support and empirical validation?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2012 10:30:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/29/2012 7:48:00 PM, Contra wrote:
At 6/29/2012 6:56:33 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Contra, even if single payer is not fully socialized medicine, then Friedman's criticism of the socialist healthcare system still in part applies to single payer. Under the status quo, demand and supply in the healthcare market is more or less balanced. If single payer is implemented, demand of the product greatly increases (as more people will go to hospitals) and supply stays fixed. As a result, rationing happens.

We have that in the market system already. That is why the emergency room services are rationed. With Single Payer, people could get care from a physician of their choice, and it would be balanced out, with emergency room services being given a huge relief. Some rationing would likely occur, but it would be minor, and we already have rationing, but it is not really public information.

Lol. You do realize that you are just digging yourself into a bigger hole, right? If you admit that there is scarcity now (there is-but for the sake of the previous argument, equilibrium was assumed), then when single payer comes out, demand goes up, and supply stays constant. Just cause you chose your own doctor doesn't magically mean there are more doctors. So basically, judging by strictly economic terms, single payer would create more scarcity.

Now, while socialized medicine is not mutual with socialism or the other way, it is a fact that countries that have socialized medicine are generally much more left-leaning than countries that don't.

True.

Countries that are left leaning often have socialized healthcare. Even though the correlation is not direct, it is still present.

Or socialized health insurance.

Furthermore, single payer does not let market forces work because the demand and supply are already disproportionate. There is much more demand rather than supply, so scarcity occurs. In that case, all incentives are going to be against letting some doctors fail, as that would make the problem even worse.

Most doctors would not fail, as most are satisfied with medical professionals like doctors.

I was responding to you saying that "Single Payer health insurance ensures universal access to care, and lets market forces determine which doctors and medical professionals "survive" based on public demand." This is clearly false, as the incentive to do so in an even more rationed environment would be bill.

Furthermore, Single Payer could present an opportunity to increase the supply of medical professionals, like offering incentives such as bonuses when the patient reaches a health goal (me and Darkkermit had disagreements on this though).

Darkkermit and I.

There are a lot of problems with this argument, such as whether you have authority to dictate which life choices somebody should make, will this result in ulterior methods, and etc....

In short, bad argument. ^


Take it from somebody who lives in a socialist country....Socialized healthcare is ridiculously inefficient.

You live in Canada?

Lol. I love how you came to the stunning realization based off of "ridiculously inefficient healthcare."
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2012 10:33:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I remember Friedman dedicated a section to utterly disembowelling the NHS in Britain.

From my presentation on Dr. Friedman's analysis:

A great example of the failure of previous socialistic healthcare policies would be during which Britain adopted universal healthcare in 1948. Dr. Max Gammon, a British physician working in Britain at that time and witnessed what happened. He illustrates it interestingly with an input/output ratio. "From 1965 to 1973, administrative staff went up 21% and clerical staff also went up 51%. However, hospital bed occupation went down by 11%." He also quickly points out that this was not because of a lack of patients, because there was at all times a waiting list of about 600 000, but because of the National Health Service deeming which operations are postponable and optional. Dr. Max names his theory "The Theory of Bureaucratic displacement," which states, "As the more bureaucratic an organization, the greater extent to which useless work displaces useful work. A bureaucracy cannot focus as a business because of a lack of incentives and a profit-loss motive.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2012 10:44:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/29/2012 10:22:36 PM, Contra wrote:
At 6/29/2012 10:15:10 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 6/29/2012 10:11:05 PM, Contra wrote:
At 6/29/2012 10:02:45 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 6/29/2012 5:36:39 PM, Contra wrote:
I can now respond.

Friedman is talking about for the most part Socialized Medicine, and makes a slippery slope towards outright Socialism. I saw the whole video. I do not support socialized medicine. I have said before, that if Single Payer was socialized medicine, the training and employment of medical professionals would all become public employees, operation of facilities, production of drugs would be managed by the gov't, etc. Single Payer only makes the gov't fund the insurance. So, it is socialized insurance, not socialized medicine. And I think that it is okay if one wants to opt out of the system, as long as they cannot opt out of the funding. So, it isn't even truly socialized insurance, but it's close.

Furthermore, Single Payer health insurance ensures universal access to care, and lets market forces determine which doctors and medical professionals "survive" based on public demand, only the funding is distributed by the gov't, determined on medical needs of patients and other medical operations.

Corporate bureaucracy in medical insurance is much more bloated than gov't bureaucracy in health insurance. Insurance in general is where gov't is more efficient. This is a special case, and several Capitalist economies survive on Single Payer health insurance better than a private system would've worked, such as Canada, Taiwan, South Korea, etc.


Contra, how do you feel about the NHS?

It isn't terrible, but it isn't that great.

It is socialized medicine, and I favor Single Payer insurance, otherwise known as Improved Medicare for All, or "Universal Medicare".

If I could reform America's health insurance system, I strongly would suggest going along the lines of Taiwan's health insurance system, which is also Single Payer.


I don't know. I really don't like the idea of government run health care.

I mean, you have to look at all of the innovations that come from the US that are not readily available in government run systems, or even government financed systems.

Yes, but the far majority of the funding and research in the medical field comes from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), while private companies get the marketing rights after the research is complete or at a end stage.

Most private companies create similar "me too" drugs. For example, Cialis and Viagra along with all the other competing brands. The NIH funds them. If we had Single Payer, the reimbursement fee for each drug would still retain any market incentive in the drug industry, the small amount there actually is.

Both the private sector and NIH play a crucial role in drug development and medical research. Without the private sector, there would be much less innovation:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


I wear invisalign. If I lived in the UK, that wouldnt be available because it isn't considered "essential". In the US, I can get it very easily.

They still get that. All medically necessary care with other care such as braces etc. And, Single Payer would let private plans deal with luxury items such as cosmetics, plastic surgery, etc.

Invisalign is not available on the NHS:

http://www.invisalignguide.co.uk...

In my opinion, there would be less innovation in a single payer system, and regular people certainly couldn't afford it.


I know that is anecdotal, but I think it is reflective of a larger reality.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2012 10:56:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Lol. You do realize that you are just digging yourself into a bigger hole, right? If you admit that there is scarcity now (there is-but for the sake of the previous argument, equilibrium was assumed), then when single payer comes out, demand goes up, and supply stays constant. Just cause you chose your own doctor doesn't magically mean there are more doctors. So basically, judging by strictly economic terms, single payer would create more scarcity.

Scarcity when dealing with emergency services. So, they end up rationing care based on if you can afford it (or if your insurance plan covers it).

Would there be more scarcity? Well, Single Payer would be optimally fully electronic and streamlined, and since paperwork uses up to about 2-3 hours a day for the average doctor, you get 2-3 hours extra a day. The average visit for a patient would probably slightly decrease in the length of the visit. However, since people would have some preventive care, and usage of care would allow overusage to be limited, people would have greater access to care, and more often. SP countries have more visits per patient per year than private countries like us.

However, a good idea would probably be instituting different types of health care plans across America, to see which works best. We already have Single Payer health insurance in Vermont (not implemented for a few years though), if we had a system based on health savings accounts and subsidies for the poor in another state, we could see which worked better.

I was responding to you saying that "Single Payer health insurance ensures universal access to care, and lets market forces determine which doctors and medical professionals "survive" based on public demand." This is clearly false, as the incentive to do so in an even more rationed environment would be bill.

Oh. Well, we could manage any rationing using the modernized ideas that I said earlier, and using a clinical system to examine the effectiveness of treatments (a provision that does this actually exists in Obamacare), and other actions. In Canada, these actions have yielded health care being used very close to what specialists consider reasonable (besides joint replacements — which are for the most part rationed just fine under Medicare).

http://pnhp.org...

There are a lot of problems with this argument, such as whether you have authority to dictate which life choices somebody should make, will this result in ulterior methods, and etc....

In short, bad argument. ^

I don't know if you guys get this argument I use. I will quote the exact text from the documentary I heard this from:

"Another way Governments can be more efficient when they're footing the bill is by having a more coordinated approach to healthcare.

For Instance, the NHS rewards primary care doctors with bonuses for achieving certain measures of good health, like getting patients to quit smoking. That's money well spent, because fewer sick people means lower health care costs for the country.

On average, the British spend about $3500 on healthcare per capita/annually. In the United States, we spend about $8500 annually per capita."

"Overhauling Healthcare" Fareed Zakaria, 2012, CNN.

Lol. I love how you came to the stunning realization based off of "ridiculously inefficient healthcare."

America doesn't have Socialized Healthcare. Canada doesn't either, but it is closer to that.

Though, you did trap me in that frame of thought.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2012 11:12:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Both the private sector and NIH play a crucial role in drug development and medical research. Without the private sector, there would be much less innovation:

True.

However, they noted that private sector scientific contributions, they never said that private sector funds helped the research. But, your point is valid. Coincidentally, when I was in MYIG, I sponsored a Single Payer bill that my conservative opponent agreed to support, as long as I take out the provision that the gov't negotiated down drug prices.

Reimbursement rates would still make competition in the drug industry.

In my opinion, there would be less innovation in a single payer system, and regular people certainly couldn't afford it.

I love that you brought this point up.

First, innovation would as I rebutted not be severely effected, with reimbursements helping.

The thing I want to show is that empirical evidence from the New England Journal of Medicine has reaffirmed that Single Payer would, because of the large reductions in marketing, profits, advertising, and administration costs and other external costs, reduce health care spending by large amounts.

http://www.nejm.org...

http://www.dollarsandsense.org...

It would also reduce income inequality, a sore challenge to America's demand problem. It would improve the whole economy and create a financial windfall for the middle class and poor.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2012 11:29:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/29/2012 11:12:14 PM, Contra wrote:
Both the private sector and NIH play a crucial role in drug development and medical research. Without the private sector, there would be much less innovation:

True.

However, they noted that private sector scientific contributions, they never said that private sector funds helped the research. But, your point is valid. Coincidentally, when I was in MYIG, I sponsored a Single Payer bill that my conservative opponent agreed to support, as long as I take out the provision that the gov't negotiated down drug prices.

Reimbursement rates would still make competition in the drug industry.

In my opinion, there would be less innovation in a single payer system, and regular people certainly couldn't afford it.

I love that you brought this point up.

First, innovation would as I rebutted not be severely effected, with reimbursements helping.

The thing I want to show is that empirical evidence from the New England Journal of Medicine has reaffirmed that Single Payer would, because of the large reductions in marketing, profits, advertising, and administration costs and other external costs, reduce health care spending by large amounts.

http://www.nejm.org...

http://www.dollarsandsense.org...

It would also reduce income inequality, a sore challenge to America's demand problem. It would improve the whole economy and create a financial windfall for the middle class and poor.

One area I have to disagree with you on is that single payer would reduce costs. Profits and advertising are not major causes of rising health care costs. In fact, the profit motive is one of the key things that, in other sectors, have led to lower costs and higher quality.

From 2000 to 2009, the US Health expenditures grew at an average annual rate of 4.3%. In Canada and the UK, the average annual growth rate during the same time period was 4.6% and 5.4% respectively.

There seems to actually be faster cost growth in single payer systems.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 10:42:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/29/2012 11:29:35 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 6/29/2012 11:12:14 PM, Contra wrote:
Both the private sector and NIH play a crucial role in drug development and medical research. Without the private sector, there would be much less innovation:

True.

However, they noted that private sector scientific contributions, they never said that private sector funds helped the research. But, your point is valid. Coincidentally, when I was in MYIG, I sponsored a Single Payer bill that my conservative opponent agreed to support, as long as I take out the provision that the gov't negotiated down drug prices.

Reimbursement rates would still make competition in the drug industry.

In my opinion, there would be less innovation in a single payer system, and regular people certainly couldn't afford it.

I love that you brought this point up.

First, innovation would as I rebutted not be severely effected, with reimbursements helping.

The thing I want to show is that empirical evidence from the New England Journal of Medicine has reaffirmed that Single Payer would, because of the large reductions in marketing, profits, advertising, and administration costs and other external costs, reduce health care spending by large amounts.

http://www.nejm.org...

http://www.dollarsandsense.org...

It would also reduce income inequality, a sore challenge to America's demand problem. It would improve the whole economy and create a financial windfall for the middle class and poor.


One area I have to disagree with you on is that single payer would reduce costs. Profits and advertising are not major causes of rising health care costs. In fact, the profit motive is one of the key things that, in other sectors, have led to lower costs and higher quality.

The evidence that Single Payer would reduce costs is factually supported. The administration, instead of being dealt with by over 2,000 different insurance companies all requiring different forms and applications, and all having administration costs up to 31% because of a lack of economy of scale, and having the needs to advertise as well as all the corporate profits welded into the system makes it a massive bureaucratic mess. Single Payer would make administration centralized, and make it much more efficient by economy of scale. This is why Medicare has low administrative costs of about 6%. The link earlier showed that if we had Medicare for All it would end up saving hundreds of billions because of administration cost savings and other external savings.

From 2000 to 2009, the US Health expenditures grew at an average annual rate of 4.3%. In Canada and the UK, the average annual growth rate during the same time period was 4.6% and 5.4% respectively.

There seems to actually be faster cost growth in single payer systems.

Single Payer systems reduce the growth of health care inflation, by making the system more efficient and effective (better general treatments, limiting overusage of care).

http://www.dollarsandsense.org...
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 11:06:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Did you just say Canada doesn't have socialized healthcare? Lolz.

Also, I'm not sure if you understand basic economic principles, Contra. Regardless of whether you "streamline" the process (which by itself will pose problems and will not be able to do immediately- not to mention that it requires utter violation of privacy by the government), demand goes up. If you don't pay for your own health care, you have an incentive to go to the doctor for every little boo-boo that you have. Does supply go up? For the sake of the argument, let's assume a minuscule increase in supply thanks to a streamlined process. Still, scarcity is occurring and BOOM-------rationing.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 11:25:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 11:06:55 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Did you just say Canada doesn't have socialized healthcare? Lolz.

I'm pretty sure they have socialized insurance, not healthcare.

Also, I'm not sure if you understand basic economic principles, Contra. Regardless of whether you "streamline" the process (which by itself will pose problems and will not be able to do immediately- not to mention that it requires utter violation of privacy by the government), demand goes up. If you don't pay for your own health care, you have an incentive to go to the doctor for every little boo-boo that you have.

To rectify this problem, there would still be minor co-pays for each visit, and since the gov't foots the bill, if they notice they are being billed more than average, the doctors would intervene to stop the overuse of care.

Does supply go up? For the sake of the argument, let's assume a minuscule increase in supply thanks to a streamlined process. Still, scarcity is occurring and BOOM-------rationing.

We already ration care based on if you can pay for it or if your plan is lucky enough to cover it. And, many plans have thousands of loopholes, especially in areas you aren't really able to plan for, such as getting a heart attack, attacked by a dog, etc. These are real problems that we already deal with. So, we ration care already in the US, and if you don't get care you have worse health or suffer like the other 45,000 who die each year in America due to having no insurance.

In Canada, 27% of Canadians waited 4 months or more for elective surgery. In America, it was 5%.

However, 24% of Americans couldn't get care due to cost. Together, that is 29% of Americans that couldn't get healthcare due to the American style of rationing. And remember, this is care that is necessary. We end up paying for them in the emergency services, and preventive care would reduce these costs further.

And in the Canadian system, the 27% of people I said, that is for elective care, which is not medically necessary. All medically necessary care is made available. And other Single Payer systems such as France, Taiwan, etc. don't have adverse rationing, unlike our system which causes massive death and suffering and rations care based on one's wealth.

http://www.latimes.com...

So, yes demand would increase. Doctor visit times would probably decrease by a few minutes. However, the access to care would allow people to see a doctor more often, and sooner (preventive care). And the lack of massive paperwork would increase time availability for doctors. And by limiting overuse of care, it would allow better access to care.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 11:35:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
While supply is always limited, there's a big difference between government rationing and how the market rations.

For market rationing, people are given choices. I might value other things more importantly than my health. Everyone dies, so some people might not feel as If its worth the cost of extending their lives by a few years and losing some of their purchasing power and would rather spend their money on more enjoyable things. Others might want to save their money because they want to avoid death as much as possible. Which one is the "right" choice? Neither. Who am I to judge.

However, when government rations this process has many problems. For one, its arbitrary. Government first rations the most to those that have the political connections then gives the rest to others. Its inefficient. It eliminates choice and fills everything under a one size fit only model. Why should someone who works hard his or her whole life and save his or her money receive the same treatment as someone who just doesn't give a damn one way or another?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 12:23:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Single payer might not be socialized medicine if it were implemented in a different way. for example, the government might give each person a $4000 voucher to buy medical care. That wouldn't be socialism.

However, that's not what we are talking about. The present approach is that the government applies controls to what is available in the market place. For example, suppose you would like to buy insurance with a $10K deductible. You cannot; it's illegal. The government also sets the price of every medical procedure, makes it illegal to incur to much overhead preventing fraud, doesn't allow incentives for people with healthy lifestyles -- and on and on. This controls the private market as well as the government-paid market.

I saw one estimate that the bureaucracy will generate 140,000 pages of rules governing what is allowed and what is not allowed. There will be a major new profession in determining compliance. A good parallel is the tax system: there are 70,000 pages of tax rules and people pay $500 billion a year to professionals (like CPAs) who determine compliance in paying $2.2 billion in taxes.

It's reasonable to expect $1 trillion to go to determining compliance. Moreover, limits on overhead mean that insurance companies will have to cut back on fraud checking. Estimates of fraud in Medicare go as high as 20%, because the government does little checking. In private industry, fraud is about 3%.

The new face of socialism is to specify the minute details of what individuals must do, rather than to take over directly.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 12:46:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 11:25:22 AM, Contra wrote:
At 6/30/2012 11:06:55 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Did you just say Canada doesn't have socialized healthcare? Lolz.

I'm pretty sure they have socialized insurance, not healthcare.

Criticisms are interchangeable. The failures of one directly apply to the other.

Also, I'm not sure if you understand basic economic principles, Contra. Regardless of whether you "streamline" the process (which by itself will pose problems and will not be able to do immediately- not to mention that it requires utter violation of privacy by the government), demand goes up. If you don't pay for your own health care, you have an incentive to go to the doctor for every little boo-boo that you have.

To rectify this problem, there would still be minor co-pays for each visit, and since the gov't foots the bill, if they notice they are being billed more than average, the doctors would intervene to stop the overuse of care.

Not only would this create a huge bureaucratic system to impose these regulations onto the doctors (which ultimately breaches the doctor-patient relationship), but there is no real way to know what the the "overuse of care" is. People don't come into doctor's offices being healthy-they come in with a problem. If the government steps in to decide which problems are not worth a doctor's visit, then that is a huge intrusion on personal liberties and leads to the creation of the "Death Panels," like in Britain.

Does supply go up? For the sake of the argument, let's assume a minuscule increase in supply thanks to a streamlined process. Still, scarcity is occurring and BOOM-------rationing.

We already ration care based on if you can pay for it or if your plan is lucky enough to cover it. And, many plans have thousands of loopholes, especially in areas you aren't really able to plan for, such as getting a heart attack, attacked by a dog, etc. These are real problems that we already deal with. So, we ration care already in the US, and if you don't get care you have worse health or suffer like the other 45,000 who die each year in America due to having no insurance.

*Sigh*. Yes, care is being rationed now. There is no doubt. However, if demand already exceeds supply, then an increase in 30 million people (more demand), will create even more scarcity.

In a market-based healthcare system, care is rationed based on opportunity costs. In a government healthcare system, care is rationed based on arbitrary bureaucratic principles.

In Canada, 27% of Canadians waited 4 months or more for elective surgery. In America, it was 5%.

Correct.

However, 24% of Americans couldn't get care due to cost. Together, that is 29% of Americans that couldn't get healthcare due to the American style of rationing. And remember, this is care that is necessary. We end up paying for them in the emergency services, and preventive care would reduce these costs further.

Define preventative care. Going to the doctor is not preventative care. Preventative care is going to the gym, nutritionist, dietician, and etc...

Furthermore, nobody in a free market healthcare system is denied critical care if their life is in jeopardy. If a homeless person comes in with a heart attack, the hospital is both legally and morally obligated to treat him, even if he cannot pay.

And in the Canadian system, the 27% of people I said, that is for elective care, which is not medically necessary. All medically necessary care is made available. And other Single Payer systems such as France, Taiwan, etc. don't have adverse rationing, unlike our system which causes massive death and suffering and rations care based on one's wealth.

"Massive death and suffering?" Going a bit too far on the hyperboles, I see? What authority do you have to determine what is "necessary" care and what is not. For some, knee surgery might not be considered necessary care, but when you are a construction worker, it is critical. Whether something is necessary ought to ultimately fall down to the doctors and the patients, not the government.

Furthermore, countries such as France have a much higher doctor per capita ratio than the United States.

http://www.nationmaster.com...

http://www.latimes.com...

So, yes demand would increase.

Can I get a Hallelujah?

Doctor visit times would probably decrease by a few minutes.

You have any source for this? This seems completely arbitrary.

However, the access to care would allow people to see a doctor more often, and sooner (preventive care).

That's not preventative care. Preventative care is taking care of your own body to reduce the risk of future diseases.

Also, there is no "however." If you admit that that would happen, demand would increase substantially.

And the lack of massive paperwork would increase time availability for doctors. And by limiting overuse of care, it would allow better access to care.

The doctors are still affiliated with the insurance companies. There is no reason to believe that paperwork would decrease.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 12:48:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Also, many doctors are actually threatening to leave the profession because Obamacare requires them to do more work for less pay.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 4:53:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 11:35:16 AM, darkkermit wrote:
While supply is always limited, there's a big difference between government rationing and how the market rations.

For market rationing, people are given choices. I might value other things more importantly than my health. Everyone dies, so some people might not feel as If its worth the cost of extending their lives by a few years and losing some of their purchasing power and would rather spend their money on more enjoyable things. Others might want to save their money because they want to avoid death as much as possible. Which one is the "right" choice? Neither. Who am I to judge.

However, when government rations this process has many problems. For one, its arbitrary. Government first rations the most to those that have the political connections then gives the rest to others. Its inefficient. It eliminates choice and fills everything under a one size fit only model. Why should someone who works hard his or her whole life and save his or her money receive the same treatment as someone who just doesn't give a damn one way or another?

I fully get it.

But in Single Payer, the medical professionals and patients deal with this kind of thing. Not gov't bureaucrats.

It's better than letting a corporate entity, which ranks profits more than one's life, make the decisions or have a significant say in the ultimate decisions.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 4:58:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 4:53:39 PM, Contra wrote:

But in Single Payer, the medical professionals and patients deal with this kind of thing. Not gov't bureaucrats.

It's better than letting a corporate entity, which ranks profits more than one's life, make the decisions or have a significant say in the ultimate decisions.

Are you seriously insinuating that doctors or hospital administrators (who have zero profit motives of course)..or heaven forbid the "educated" patients should allocate all the money paid into a single payer system? That kind of policy could make even Greece look fiscally responsible.