Universal, Single-Payer healthcare:
Is a national health care system administered primarily by the national government. Financing for health care is publicly paid through taxes, while delivery of care remains private.
Costs are much lower, converting to a Single-Payer (SP) system would save an estimated $200-300 billion dollars.http://www.pnhp.org...http://www.pnhp.org...http://www.nytimes.com...http://library.thinkquest.org...
The reasons for all of the savings are because of the streamlined, electronic administration, the elimination of marketing, profit, and other associated costs, and with a brilliantly simple, yet efficient framework.
Plus, with a Health Security Card, all patients could have their health info. stored in an electronic, yet confidential way.http://www.google.com...http://www.google.com...
Plus, since SP covers all medically necessary health care costs, preventive care would be accessible to all citizens. Co-pays would be adjusted so that they are based on according to pay ability, so we get the best of both systems. Preventive care would save much money this way.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
All citizens would be covered with quality health care. Since all are in one system, the political pressure would make sure that the system is maintained and of good quality.
All citizens get to choose their own doctor.
Plus, since all citizens get to choose their own doctor, and also because American healthcare is an unsaturated demand market, we would NOT have rationing of care that is depicted by many. Taiwan has a weaker medical infrastructure, and with a similar system that I have described, they do not need rationing. We wouldn't need to ration care either.
Since HC would no longer be delayed or denied due to insurance coverage, we would truly have the best quality care in the world. Right now, we ration care in the US heavily on the basis on your wealth.http://www.latimes.com...
A clinical excellence system would be established preferably, in which drugs and treatments are compared for doctors so that patients get the most effective treatments that reduces waste and ineffective treatments. The Britons have this in a system called NICE. A study by the CBO showed the creating such a system would significantly reduce HC costs.Sasha Bartolf, "Orszag Discusses New Ways of Alleviating Soaring Health Care Costs," CQ Health Beat, May 22, 2007http://www.pnhp.org...
The per capita increase in taxes would be a 2% income tax increase, and a 7% payroll tax, or about $850 in new taxes, however private business would have a
in HC costs with about $910 per capita.http://www.cbo.gov...
So, the net cost of achieving universal insurance coverage under this single payer system would be negative.http://www.pnhp.org...
-Universal, comprehensive coverage for all American citizens.
-A Single insurance plan in each region, administered at the federal level
-Global Operating budgets, competition between medical professionals
-Free Choice of Providers
-Public accountability, Federal Health Board used to oversee HC system
-Clinical System of Excellence
-Protection of Right to Health Care
-High quality and availability of HC for all
-Affordable drug prices (negotiated down)
-Liberal benefits, conservative spending
So, we could cover all Americans with the benefits I just summarized and proved. And, we would have a net savings of cash. Pretty common sense I think right?
"If you live long enough, you make mistakes. But if you learn from those mistakes, you'll be a better person." - Bill Clinton
"A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." - Milton Friedman
"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility instead of a stagnant, government-directed economy that stifles job creation and fosters government dependency." - Paul Ryan