Single payer is even more complicated because then everyone is out there making rules about whats covered and whats isnt instead of a service providing coverage for what it is that I want done in particular. Everyone shouldnt have to pay hundreds of dollars everytime they go to get an oil change, to subsidize those that need tranny work all the time.
Actually Single Payer makes everything less complicated. The Doctor doesn't need to worry about billing and all those other things. Just look at France, poor rich, everybody has high quality healthcare.
Obamacare means higher premiums for young people, more taxes and penalties, and higher deductibles. Um, no. http://www.ijreview.com/2014/04/128753-7-blockbuster-obamacare-charts-white-house-doesnt-want-america-see/
Hey ... If its truly inefficient that company will be burdened by it. Thats on them. Problem becomes when we make it the governments problem when inefficiency arrises. Then im held accountable. I dont want any part of it.
The inefficiencies are the very system that make the insurance companies money, right? That is what you are talking about. I have no care a number of large insurers go out of business. Can't make you business work, not my issue.
Im certain they actually make their money in how they calculate risk/coverage. That gets worse with more people covered because there are more individuals with their own special issues that end up being accounted for by the rest. They lose money through inefficiency ... Not gain money through it.
I dont care if they go out of business either ... But all that happens is the workers change hands from being a private insurance biller to a govt insurance biller. No efficiency gained there.
Lets put it this way. Micro insurance policies are better for individuals than bundled plans. Progressive knows this and is why they fight so hard to make bundles look like a good thing. You might save a little on one of your other policies, but they gain by having you covered using a larger pool of money while effectively keeping you from leaving to go to a place that offers lower premiums. And, it only appears to work in their line of work because they reserve the right/ability to raise your rate if you f up. Obamacare has botched that. You cant charge people based on their risk ... So rates go up for everyone all at once instead of only for the people draining the pool.
@FreedomBeforeEquality - While I was being somewhat flippant, the truth is not that far from my statement. Insurance companies are an additional cost no matter what way you cut it. The need a profit, where government does not. The complexities grow in a system like that, where a "single payer" reduces complexities. In the very long ago, I wrote some programs for medical billing. The system is (was) insane. The industry could dump a ton of clerical workers with the reduced complexity that single payer brings. I don't give a rats ass where they go. When I need medical care, it makes no difference to me if they are employed by the government or BlueCross.
It does if youre going to say that single payer through the government is an improvement over private companies. Theyre just moving from one to the other.
I see where youre mistaking this though, you think the government is comparable to a not-for-profit. Thats a mistake.
Speaking in pools etc. is just a mindset issue. I have had virtual no medical problems at this point. The money I have paid into insurance all paying for the other guy. I really have no issue with this. Remove the insurance go-between completely and just raise my taxes making the pool "all Americans" would work fine by me.
Seems like your quality of life in that society would be much more improved if your money was applied by you and toward things more local to you. You personally wont ever see the effects of every dollar you sent out. You could directly improve people who are more deserving by meeting them yourself and not letting some bureaucracy issue your funds out to some unknown account number out there.
@tajshar2k - There is the constant "but we have the best" argument. It just don't hold up. We clearly have the most expensive and don't have the best outcomes. It seems incredible that we are willing to pay more than most of the world, get objectively worse outcomes, and all just to satisfy some need to reject anything remotely "socialists".
Exactly, so follow Switzerlands model. They spend about $1453 per capita, have very flexible insurance packages, and government run healthcare programs do not exist. Nearly everybody can afford it. We can fix that, by creating competition between insurance providers in the U.S.
@FreedomBeforeEquality - Who do you think perpetuates these frauds? It is the providers of services, not the recipients. I am not willing or capable of build a personal system of fraud detection for doctors or hospitals preforming their services.
"I am not willing or capable of build a personal system of fraud detection for doctors or hospitals preforming their services."
Maybe not you personally, where you do not feel comfortable, but at the very least you can find someone you do feel comfortable in placing trust in and let them manage it for you. The government is not that person. A company you pick from a list of reputable competing companies is better for the job. One that you can easily drop when they do wrong and you dont have to wait years for re-election or hope that a vote in congress will make it through to rectify any disputes you may have. Thats just horrible customer service really.
I realize that this is just going to be a difference between the two of us, but I trust the government more than you. I am willing to outsource the fraud detection to them. And, I am willing to accept that there will be some fraud. I will not jump up-and-down at every instance of a doctor overcharging. Find them, fine them, jail them, but accept that people will try to fraud any system.
@tajshar2k - Not entirely. I think we need to shift a fair amount of our spending around, and tax much higher. You are looking to Sweden, look at their tax load. http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/The-Numbers-Jan-2012-International_1.gif Using any metric, our taxes are low.
We could cut spending in our military budget. A bigger budget doesn't always mean better army. According to Sanders, much of the spending in the Pentagon was meant to fight the Soviets. Which obviously doesn't exist anymore. Cutting spending in useless things like this is a start.
Our general "income tax" could use some reform, but sits about in the middle of most advanced countries. I am OK with that. We need to deal with the corporate tax (not the rate, but the... Problems) and extend the personal brackets past where they top out now. A national sales tax (most of those countries we look at and like have them) would be nice too.
I mean, we have the most advanced and powerful army in the world. No point increasing it. Its funny how gun nuts think they can fight the government with their cold-war era weapons, when nearly all of them supporting funding the already powerful army.
@tajshar2k - Well, because even though they have a mandatory insurance schema, it is highly subsidized by the government. As a matter of fact, it is our next companion for cost per person. Looking at Island or Norway prices go down (true single payer).
The problem with A National Healthcare, is that 1, the guys in Washington are not to be trusted to run this efficently, and 2, it would be too hard managing it, without conflict with the laws in each state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_health_care Single-payer health care is a system in which the government, rather than private insurers, pays for all health care costs. Single-payer systems may contract for healthcare services from private organizations (as is the case in Canada) or may own and employ healthcare resources and personnel (as is the case in the United Kingdom). The term "single-payer" thus only describes the funding mechanism—referring to health care financed by a single public body from a single fund—and does not specify the type of delivery, or for whom doctors work.
"In america you have to pay alot of money to say have a baby $6000-$8000 without insurance. I can have one in canada free!"
Bottom up economics. Not looking at the big picture or where that money comes from. Free free free.
"How do you live in Canada, and not know what single payer is???"
Another side effect of not paying for your own way. Im not suprised in the least that people could become so detached from the system they belong to that they dont even know how it works.
Canada's healthcare is not only not free, not by one dime. But it also is one of the slowest and least reliable in the whole world!!!!, It would choose not to have healthcare at all, and not pay the extra taxes up there. My grandma brock her arm in Canada, she called the doc and they set her up for a appointment 3 months from that date! After the appointment 3 months later, they said in this exact words "mam, your arm seems to be hurt, we don't know what it is, but we can get you in for a cat scan in 6 months" 6 Months!!!!! By that time, almost a year later, her arm had healed by itself, and they told her there is nothing they can do!!!!!!!!! It makes me so mad.