I keep asking this question, and NEVER get an answer. People who think that a single-payer system means that the government is going to "take over" healthcare (they AREN'T), are CONSTANTLY talking about the government making healthcare decisions. They believe the government is going to tell them: what drugs they can have, what procedures they can have, which doctors or hospitals they can go to, etc. I have asked over and over, "What do you think insurance companies do NOW?!" And, I NEVER get a response.
Anyone who ACTUALLY believes this tripe needs to do some research and learn what a single-payer system IS. If Aetna, BCBS, HAP, or any other agency became the only ones to pay doctors, etc, then THEY would be the single-payer. HOWEVER, they don't make the decisions, you and your doctor do. It means that if you get sick in Texas it costs the same as it would if you got sick in California. A single-payer system mearly STREAMLINES the payment. THAT'S ALL. It ensures that EVERYONE can get the healthcare they need and EVERYONE pays the same amount for the treatment. If you go to a hospital in Beverly Hills, CA you would get charged the same amount as if you went to a hospital in Withcita, KS.
I'm begging you, pleading with you, down on my knees, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, do some research. Some unbiased, non-propaganda, honest research. What most people think of as a single payer system is, in reality, a socialist system. In a socialist system the government DOES own the hospitals, the drug companies, etc. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING!
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 210
What does this have to do with GARAGE SALES?!?
Luvly Dotter's right, folks. The VA system is the "socialist" system you don't want. Not ONE of the proposals on the table includes ANYTHING LIKE THAT! These are INSURANCE proposals, people. GET IT STRAIGHT!
But...but....but Obama is a SOCIALIST. And we know its bad. Of course we dont know why its bad...it just is.
Elizabeth you will never get an answer worth a shat from someone who truly feels this way.
First, SHHHHH, Lori, that's a secret!
Second, I know, but if I can get just ONE person to do some REAL research into the truth, then I'll be happy.
Socialist? I don't think so. He may be more like FDR but a socialist?
But...but....but Obama promised HOPE and CHANGE! He promised to immediately leave Iraq. He promised a new era of transparency!!!!!
He kept the Bush war team, expanded on the Bush policy of bailing out banks and auto companies, kept the wire tap privileges Bush enjoyed and now he is promising that government won't run healthcare like he promised government wouldn't run GM. Hmm. Maybe socialized medicine will pay for an operation to pull your heads out of you asses!
Haven't you heard? Homeland Security is shutting down the satilites for it's domestic spying program.
As far as bailouts go, Bush's nor Obama's administration is not the first to bailout companies. In past times, it seems it did work, for what they were trying to fix at the time, and the money was, indeed paid back, although that never got any media play, much less coverage.
It's scarier for the bailouts to occur during a major economic collapse, as opposed to just a few companies struggling. It's still playing itself out, and those having the task of wrestling with this are dancing as fast as they can, while we all sit on the sidelines complaining and wanting our dose of immediate gratification of the day, and playing our politcal cheers and boos, like a Jr. high school audience in the bleachers attending a Jr. highschool football game.
I wonder what these folks will say when the bailout money is all paid back with interest and the government MAKES money off it. They'll probably be screaming that private industry was screwed.
My insurance company sure as heck tells me what drugs I can take. And what providers I can go to, and what hospital I can be admitted to, etc. etc.
Yep, that's what they do. That's how they make money. That, and denying care, even retroactively.
Our insurance allows us to go anywhere. If the doc or hospital is not in the network, we might have to pay some up front, but they always reimburse us.
I have the same freedom Marilyn. I am in the single payer system called Medicare. Best insurance I have ever had.
Marylin-I've said it before, and I'll say it agaiin. YOU are very lucky (or so it would seem) and Marie Antoinette Syndrome is EXTREMELY unattractive.
Robert-You also seem very lucky, and I'm glad for you. If you believe that a single-payer system is the best way to go I would encourage you to go to WWW.SICKOCURE.ORG and sign the petition. Also, contact all of your local and federal reps, and the whitehouse with your views.
No matter how much someone thinks they have choice in their healthcare, there is this office behind the scenes called "case management". It plays a key role in what treatments you are offered, what drugs are available, the tests you have, the specialists you see, and whether you are considered rehabible (aka "salvageable".)
This is not just "some" insurers -- its all of them.
Yep, you tell them Liz...and like Lori said, you will never get a response. Insurance is one big fraud in my book. YOu pay all that money in, and you go to a doctor your insurance isn't connected with and bang boom...you get a large bill...even if it is a specialist. (just happened to my friend, the doctor the insurance company wanted her to go in didn't have an opening for two months, so she went to the other one (they recommended) and she ended up with a large bill...even though she had to have surgery on the problem she was having...hmmmm)
I know, it sucks. I just want people to find out the TRUTH and stop listening to the propoganda.
The insurance companies are going batsh*t right now advertising their fat a**s off trying to scare the dimbulbs out there!
Now, there's a remark from a genius.
BTW, you deleted my comments from your post "Where is the Democratic Party". You also deleted a couple of YOUR comments insulting me FIRST.
What a guy! Arrogant all the way...
I agree. It's frustrating having an insurance company tell you what procedures you can and can't have, what doctors you are allowed to see, how often you are allowed to go to the doctor, and what drugs you are/are not allowed to take.
Well, that's a little wrong. You are ALLOWED to do anything you want, if you can afford to pay out-of-pocket. Which most people can't. But the "haves" in this country don't want single-payer healthcare, because it would level the playing field.
EXACTLY! If we all had the same opportunity for health then we might all be able to do something to get a decent job and then there wouldn't be an "elite" set of haves. THEN who would they look down on?
They already know all the answers. Don't try to confuse them with facts. They like the dream world they live in. It is so comforting to be able to hate the bad guys in the black hats and love the good guys in the white hats. We have all these nice labels to apply to people and ideas. That's how we know who's right and who's wrong. It's like living in a movie. The handsome guy is the hero and we can trust him. The guy who looks funny must be a bad guy.
Sigh. :-(
Yep. It's a total Us VS Them mentality. If we're RIGHT they must be WRONG.
I once knew somebody who was admitted to the neuro floor of a hospital for continuous EEG monitoring, looking for seizures. Get this -- the doctors who worked on that floor were considered out-of-network, even though the hospital itself was in-network. So he got stuck with a HUGE bill.
Now, seriously, if you choose to go to an in-network hospital, are you going to ask each professional who enters your room whether they are in your network? It was the dumbest thing I've ever heard of.
That's not that uncommon, unfortunately. Different doctors have privileges in the same hospital, so they aren't all "participating".
In our hospitals in Cincinnati, the doctors are all like...independent contractors now. They have nothing at all to do with the hospital. And...family docs and such no longer make rounds at the hospitals. They let the hospital and emergency doctors do that. (I know. I was in the hospital last November and was quite surprised when my doc - in the office next door - never even poked her head in.)
It's amazing. Everybody is so busy looking at the bottom line. I work in a small hospital run by the state. Personally, I am all for a one-payer system. I am SOOOO sick of watching people get paid to shuffle insurance papers, call insurance companies, etc. I had to schedule a specialist appt for my daughter once, and they sent me to the office of a woman who does just that, spends her whole day helping people find specialists that will be covered by their insurance. She had several shelves of binders with information on various insurance companies. It was ridiculous. What a waste of resources.
Absolutely. People will tell you, "Then those people will lose their jobs." Don't you believe it, they'll be repurposed helping to ensure that doctors, hospitals, and other healthcare people are paid properly.
Absolutely spot on. The Boston Globe has had some excellent articles on the failures of the US system and how Canada's is much better....
Unfortunate, but true. I REALLY wish I was wrong...
If Canada's system is so great, why, when I lived in FL, did all the snow birds hate it so much and schedule their surgeries in hospitals in FL???
Why, if it's so great in the UK, do my hubby's two pen pals that he's had for 30 years tell him we're crazy to even consider having anything similar to what they have?
I know doctors who are planning on leaving the profession if this goes through - quite a few of them. And I cannot blame them at all.
Marilyn, we used to see that a lot in Texas as well. people would come to Texas during the winter, and have their surgeries schedualed there. You used to hear all sorts of horror stories from them. Both the Canadians in the winter, and the Brits in the Summer.
I think it depends on who you talk to, really. There are a couple of doctors I work with who used to live and work in Canada. They both think our system is horrible, and would go back to Canada in a heartbeat (they are here for family reasons).
Right, Jode - I worked in the healthcare industry for over ten years and serviced many Canadian providers. What they like is the money. What they don't like is that all insurance companies have DIFFERENT hoops to jump through for payment and not all pay in a timely manner - including Medicare and Medicaid.
The govt. sets the mandated fee schedule (of payments) and most insurance companies are now following them. It's about control of the industry. If a doc doesn't join a particular HMO/PPO, then they loose their patients who are covered under their plan.
Once they get them in the system, premiums go up, co-pays go up, reimbursements to physicians go down. The govt. controlled carriers profit goes up and all is well in the insurance neighborhood.
First, neither England nor Canada HAVE a single payer system. England's is SOCIALIZED and Canada's is split up by territory. The Canadian system changes depending on where oyu ARE. In a single-payer system there is a set price, regardless of where you are. If you are in California, it's the same as if you were in Michigan. It just means that ONE entitiy is paying for it, THAT'S ALL. THIS is WHY I keep begging people to get REAL information and STOP listening to the propaganda!
you've got that right
Unfortuantely, you are correct. I wish I wasn't though...
You may hear the terms "universal coverage" and "single-payer system" mentioned in discussions pertaining to health care reform. What do they mean? What is the difference between them? As you'll see below, "universal coverage" and "single-payer system" are two separate yet closely related concepts.
A "single-payer system" is one in which there is one party - usually the government - responsible for paying health care claims. This contrasts with the current U.S. health care system, where thousands of private insurance companies are responsible for paying some claims, while federal and state governments are responsible for others.
In most cases, "universal coverage" and "single-payer system" go hand-in-hand, because a country's federal government is the most likely candidate to administer and pay for a health care system covering millions of people. It is hard to imagine a private entity having the resources - or even the inclination - to establish a nationwide health care coverage system.
However, it is possible to have universal coverage without having a single-payer system. For example, some experts have suggested that we incrementally reform the U.S. health care system to provide a government-funded safety net for the sick and poor, while requiring those more fortunate to purchase their own policies. Various political interests will likely prevent this from ever happening, but it is possible to construct such a system, which would provide universal coverage with multiple payers.
While it is theoretically possible to have a single-payer system without having universal coverage, it is extremely unlikely to ever occur because the single-payer would undoubtedly be the federal government. If our government adopts such a system, it would not be politically viable for them to exclude any citizen from coverage.
Do I get an "A" for doing my homework?
Note, Elizabeth, the singer-payer is usually the government. :)
Please keep in mind, many do not want health insurance. Second, we are already taking care of the illegals for free. Third, many hosp. close to the Mexican boarder's had to close because they could no longer afford the free healthcare, and the govt. regulations MANDATE this care. So, they will narrow down the number of hospitals of which they will take control.
It will be a GM in the making. Govt. owned and run hospitals. Govt. owned and pay minimum wage to doctors. Govt. owned medical clinics with great drugs from China, which will not treat our chronic illness. It will just maintain so they can continue collecting those co-payments.
Do you think co-payments will go away? Do you think you will quality drugs? Do you think you will get quality physicians? Do you think the equipment will be top notch and maintained?
Debra-THANK YOU! You absolutely get an A.
Marylin-I said the Government would be the ones PAYING, they are not going to be IN CHARGE of what you do! IF you had read the post, you would see EXACTLY that written. I KNOW that the government will be the "single payer". I also said that IF Aetna, BCBS, HAP or anyone else was the ONLY people paying, THEY would be the single payer. Single payer means there is only ONE entity paying! This is the point I"ve been TRYING to get accross! Good grief, it's like talking to a WALL.
Linda-Single Payer does NOT mean Government OWNED. People are turned away from hospitals ALL THE TIME. People are left to die ALL THE TIME. This is what's going on NOW.
It's more like nailing jello to tree, Elizabeth! I didn't come back to respond when I saw the R-troops out, showing their ignorance again.
The willful ignorance that is going around like a plauge just amazes me.
Listen, folks, the GOVT started the HMO/PPO's - they caused the problems. It was their way to get control of industry. Corporatism at it's worst. Their "friends" where chosen to get the system going, to track and trend claims, to form networks and get the providers used to accepting a "fee schedule". So, the way it works, the corporatist/networks get the hospitals to join the network, the hosp. gets their doctors to join the network, and then the corporatist/marketing get the customers (employer groups) by offering a lower premium because they are paying the hosp. and providers, pennies on the dollar for their claims.
So, the corporations make the money, the hosp. and providers keep going as the members being directed to them - aka "the network". Many times the co-payments are more than the actual amount paid to the provider from the fee schedule (except hi-tech radiology tests), that's why they require pre-auth because they cost the corporatists more money.
Bottom line, it was all about easing the health industry into a controlled environment - basically taken over.
So, it's not working for the American people, however, it is working for the friends of the govt.
Each insurance provider (network) has a Formulary. Doctors must use the formulary to prescribe drugs covered by the network. The formulary is created because the network makes deals with the drug companies for low prices. There again, the co-payment can be more than the cost of the drug. This is especially true now that most of the drugs are imported from China, w/o any oversight of quality - and many are fake - look identical to the real thing so you can't tell.
Now, I just read today that Obama made a deal with the "drug companies" for a couple of reasons. To provide drugs to close the "donut-holes" in Medicare and the balance of the $50Billion would be utilized for Obama's health plan. That is easy for the big pharma because this is a drop in the bucket of what they are currently making AND most drugs now come from China = cheap!
Whatever "plan" Obama had in mind will NOT be to our benefit. It will SOUND like it will, but don't be fooled. The drug companies are not "contributing" to the new healthplan out of the goodness of their heart.
Allowing the govt. to become your healthcare provider will equal slavery. They say one thing and do another.
Look at Meicare
Look at Medicade
Look at Social Security
Look at [insert your choice here]
With this control, the doctors continue to make pennies on the dollar, and are leaving the industry in droves. You won't notice until it hits your favorite doctor.
Quality of new doctors will go down. Quality of care will go down.
If we don't get it back to where it was many years ago, and turn it over to the free market, we will be slaves to the system for the rest of our lives - which will be much shorter with the govt. in more control.
Amen, Linda. That's telling it like it really is.
When you do your research if you stop looking for answers which seem to support what you already believe or wish for you might be able to see that the insurance industry is one of those industries which cannot function very well in the free market. Especially in the more recent decades they have shown they do not have the ability to operate at or near inflation. They have almost single handidly destroyed our health care system with complicity with Congress showing a lack of control over their actions. Who ever got you thinking the insurance companies are your savior pulled a real wool over your thinking.
Every one of the negatives you mentioned would happen "IF" we allowed government control over health providers has "already" happened but you refuse to see it. Go check the annual reports of your "poor" insurance companies and see how good they've been to themselves.
Spencer, I understand very well. The insurance companies/corporatists are not poor BECAUSE OF the way the govt. structured them. It's when it gets narrowed down to ONE the real hammer will come down. The HMO/PPO's were just the vehicle needed to lead us into total govt. control of our health.
Don't know where you got your information, Linda. Please give us the links. The HMO's were started by the government, yes, but the insurance companies chosen to run them soon ran them to suit themselves and become the money-hungry middle men. Not what the government intended. And now they are very threatened by the prospect of losing all that money, so the lobbyists will be/are putting tremendous pressure on congress and the senate to stop it. Stop blaming the "government". It's propaganda such as this type of fear-mongering that the Republicans are using to protect the big businesses.
In a free market the insurance companies compete for your health policy. The company offering the best coverage with the lowest cost will prosper. Those that don't will go broke. I see nothing wrong with that.
If only it actually worked that way, Col.
It did way back when. Too bad it isn't working now.
And that's precisely the problem. It doesn't work now. Costs have increased greatly, partly because of advances in our medical technology, and a lot because of greedy people making way more money than they need to and not caring about the health of the people they "insure."
I never had the problem. I always went to whatever doctor I choose and the doctor's staff took care of the insurance. I didn't get bills until I got on Medicare. Now and then I get a small bill but that is nussance stuff. After probably a half million dollar illness I think I can stand two or three bills all three totalling less than 100.
If you have an insurance company telling you what doctor to see and what hospital to use, change companies. Don't stick me with Socialised Medicine for your problems.
Now Obama's plan is NOT a single payer plan. That would be better than the government run plan he has.
> Don't stick me with Socialised Medicine for your problems.
Colonel, did you pay for your half-a-million dollar illness? I doubt it. You are just a selfish old coot who doesn't care about anyone else if you have yours, but are chicken to pull your own weight or contribute to the country and every one else even when they contributed to you.
Excuse me?? Change companies?!?!? Yeah, because that's possible for so many of us <sarcasm>. I have 3 choices of companies at my job, and they are all essentially the same. Most people who are lucky enough to have insurance available through their employer don't have any choice in the company that provides the insurance. And for those who don't have a job, or don't make enough money to pay the ridiculously high cost of insurance, they certainly don't have the option to just "switch companies." If it was that easy, we would all do it. Selfish old coot is right.
Nop Bruce, I have Insurance that I worked and paid for called Medicare and I have a Medigap policy that I pay for.
As far as contributing to my country. I did that now I'm retired. I don't have sympathy for some lazy sucker too dumb to provide insurance for the famly and himself.
I worked hard and paid dearly for insurance I could not take until I was 65. I still pay a small premium for it plus the Medigap. I did it, you do it. Obama wants as much as 600 Billion out of Medicare for his plan. That is our money, the people who paid into it. It is not his and it don't belong to the government.
Colonel, way back before you were retired health care was not as expensive and the model for health insurance was not this maximize profit minimize service one. My point is not that you have morally bad but that you lived your life and use your antiquated ideas to judge other people. the 45 million people who do not have health insurance are not too dumb to provide it, and I can guarantee you that if you did not qualify for medicare and had to buy private insurance on the open market you could not do it either, unless you can afford over $1000/month for limited coverage that is likely to be challenged the first time you really have to use it.
Exactly. Insurance was a whole lot cheaper back when you worked. It's MUCH more expensive now. And the medical care is more expensive as well. Everything is out of reach for the average American and it is just getting worse.
Bruce K, what gives you the right to insult the Colonel like that! You are a disgrace to Gather. How dare you!
Wages were a lot less then too. It's what you can buy with your dollar not the amount of dollars.
My husband works as a mechanic at what USED TO BE a Chrysler dealership. He holds two degrees, one of which is in Automotive Technologies. He's been at the dealership for 11.5 years, we have 2 options for insurance. The one we currently have, and one that is STRICLTLY for ER use. If you break your leg, you're covered. If you get Menengitis/Encephalitis and have to be in the hospital for 11 days, you're not. We STILL owe over $6000 in medical debt. We buy our clothes at the Salvation Army, our newest minivan is a 1998, and the house we bought is/was within our means. So, what would you tell US? We don't HAVE the option of changing insurance, we don't know what's going to happen to my husband's job, and we may lose our home BECAUSE of medical debt AND the economy.
Again, the Marie Antoinette Syndrome is HIGHLY unattractive.
Elsie, Bruce is a nice enough guy he just likes to insult people who don't go along with his Socialist ideas and when he has nothing constructive to contribute to the conversation other than his constant bashing of private business.
Col., that still doesn't give him the right to be mean and nasty to others. What goes around, comes around and I'm sure he'll get his one day.
What a bunch of crap, ie. CGW and Elsie. George, when you do not know what you are talking about and do not absorb new facts, and you insist on insulting others in our country who are not as lucky as you, then you deserve a verbal thrashing. And do you Elsie for being a bleeding heart over something you apparently did not read and understand and put yourself in the middle of out or ignorance. The reason George gets the attitude from me is that he falsely tries to say that I am anti-business, when it is he that is just plain confused or senile and has to shrink discussions down to the point of meaningless black and white terms in order to participate in them.
In another thread I encouraged those who have employer provided health insurance to find out WHICH plan their employers bought into. Then they will know who is deciding their level of care and access to providers.
If you think our government is going to allow anything without total control, you haven't watched this president take over bankes, and businesses and decide what salaries, even in companies that received NO stimulus money. He wants total control of our lives, Elizabeth. If you think he's going to just go for the single payer system and let someone other than the government make these decisions, I don't know how you can possibly think that. Not THIS president.
In response to the question about insurance... I have never had an insurance company question my doctor, but I do know some who have. Usually it's because the proposed procedure or drug was a new one, not tested enough. It will be no different once the government has anything to do with health care.
All we have is what we've seen so far with this president to go on, Elizabeth. And he has shown that he wants to own us.
What an absurd comment. What do you think the corporations are doing if not controlling your life, and they buy off the government to boot!
Bruce, I trust corporations FAR MORE than I trust this president or this Congress. I don't want them near my medical care. And, frankly, if there is a single-payer system (and everyone KNOWS that usually means the government is the single-payer), the government will have their noses in all of our medical business. No thank you.
With what I have seen from this president, I don't trust him, nor should I. He has no integrity. He lied during the campaign and y'all are perfectly fine with that. Whatever he feeds you, you just lap it up.
Well Marilyn I trust the government a lot more the I trust the corporate robber barons who control the industry now. They sucking this country dry to increase their own obscene profits. You need to look past the conservative lies that you and your cohorts spout and realize that you are merely pawns for the thieves who are now in charge of our health care system.
Then you let the government control your health care, but keep them away from mine. Pay for it with your taxes, not mine.
Bruce, for a man who Claims to be a Capitalist you certianly make noises like a Socialist or even worse a Communist.
Why does everyonr on the right constantly have to resort to the name calling of socialist and then communist. Col., I must assume you deserve that title. As an ex NCO you and I are automatically of different classes and this mess is a result of class warfare. Started as usual by the rich.
We middle class folk, even with good emplyer provided health care are going bankrupt with even a one week hospital stay or a need for a non generic medication. This can not continue and you people can not see it because it is outside your experience
In my experience it is the ones on the LEFT who do the name calling. Read Bruce K.'s remarks. I know 46+ milliion people don't have insurance but about 250+ million do. Why punish 250 million for the sake of 46+ milllion? Why not increase the upper limit for Medicaid and solve the problem?
Amen to that, Col. George.
I'd really like to see a breakdown of those 46 million people anyway. Back during the election campaign, it was said in one (or more) of the debates that the figure of over 40 million being tossed around included illegal immigrants. Recently, (on Fox, of course) someone shared that the number also includes persons who choose not to have insurance because they can pay for their own medical needs.
Yeah, read my remarks and the so-called name calling I have been accused of is just a valid description of George's nevernending rants against the average American person, who he must feel he is superior to and has no need to care about. Thus his Libertarian and isolationist views ... a POV that fits a selfish old man who does not have much and does not want to care of help anyone else in the coutry.
To you it might be "valid" but not necessarily to all of us. Col. George doesn't rant about the average American. He's pretty honest about what is wrong with people and how they refuse to change (to make their health/lives better).
Loyal non-thinking Republicans are apparently vile despicable people. How else do you explain the behavior of people who do not know what they are talking about, refuse to listen to facts, refuse to apply those facts to either their own or an average American's situation and discuss calmly and rationally what is best for the country.
Instead they latch onto a few slogans disseminated by their heros and just keep repeating them over and over way past they point that they have been answered and dealt with. Past the point of logical rational thought, unwilling to consider alternative explainations of even accept facts that contradict what they have been told to believe.
This is a person who is a potential thug for a regime like Iran. I'm sure there are people on the left that are just as irritating, but the lefty fringe element is funny because they are so far in most cases from holding any kind of power and 99.9% would never use violence. Righty fringe people do thinks like blowing up Federal buidlings or shooting abortion doctors, in fact it is the violence extremism and it long distance from rational thought and civilized behavior that seems to attract the wackos on the right.
I just try to ignore them and stay away from them.
What facts? Even Debra's contribution showing what single-payer meant showed that goverments are usually the single-payer. Duh. That's they way they work. The fact is that Obama wants to take over everything. He's proving that on a daily basis. He has taken over banks. He has taken over businesses. He even wants to set salaries and decide whether or not companies can continue...even if they have not taken any money from the government. What makes you think he'll keep his hands off your medical care? All you can do is look at a person's past to predict what they will do in the future. Obama had very little history to go on. Community organizer...where he trained people in ACORN - and look at how they screwed up AGAIN!!! with registering people to vote. But they're his pals, so he's letting them have a hand in our cencus. You talk about absurd!
That is the history of this president. He wants to control as much as he can. And he goes out of his way to pay back those who voted for him. (Not y'all - the big guys, like the unions.)
And you wonder why we're afraid to have him go any farther with health care? Are you really that blind? Or that brainwashed into still thinking the man is the messiah?
Bruce people don't accept your facts because they aren't
Go back to sleep CGW.
Marilyn, the government as single payer, means just that. It does not mean that the government tells doctors where to work, or macromanages their careers or any of the nonsense you are fearmongering about.
Single payer means the government consoldidates and streamlines the billing process and pays for health care out of tax revenues - which will be much less than the insurance company premiums. Just because you do not see your insurance company premiums from your workplace doesn't mean they are not there. You seem to not get that in your urge to scare and misrepresent Marilyn.
The Single payer system seems to work pretty damn well all over the rest of the world, do you think Americans are somehow too stupid or evil or corrupt to make such a plan work, or are you just part of the cleptocracy that is stealing our money and constantly blaming the government, even though a large part of the stolen money goes to corrupting the government.
The health care system right now is like a big private tax on everyone that uses the health care system as a club to beat a lot of people into submission, just like the Mullahs in Iran are beating their people into submission. At least Iranians are smart enough to see it, apparently you and CGW are not.
Bruce, Obama's plan is NOT Single Payer it is Socialized Medicine regardless of what he calls it. He refused to discuss a Single Payer plan.
No, Obama's plan would be single payer except it is politically unrealistic to try to get that passed in the face of 1/2 billion dollars ... that's 500 MILLION dollars being spent for commercials, influence and other lies to brainwash people against single payer - AGAIN - and lie about trying to cut costs and be more inclusive. ONLY A GOVERNMENT PROGRAM CAN COVER EVERYONE REALISTICALLY, every who knows anything about this agrees on that.
I do want to see health care for EVERYONE in America, but if we rush, we risk making mistakes that can costs lives. Let's keep working for this. Write our representatives with constructive suggestions.
Thanks for posting to Fugitives from Ignorance, Conformity, and Peer Pressure
Anyone who wants to trust the government to handle this....needs to have their head examined...
Even without this stimulus package they sold us on....even without the ownership of a bankrupt company that we just "had to save"...which we didn't...please look at the costs...the money is just not there...
The money IS there. If we took what is being paid to insurance companies and streamlined it all into one place, that would be a whole lot of money right there. The premiums they get are HUGE.
That's nice Jodie. Put all the insurance companies out of business and put all those people out of work. What the heck we only have 9.4% unemployment and rising.
Once it gets all in one place we will see a rise in that cost and be paying taxes on top of the cost of the insurance to maintain benefits.
Obama's plan is to steal 600 Billion from Medicare to kick off his plan. Even his oown party sees the falacy in that.
They wouldn't be out off work, they would be repurposed to help with the billing, just like they do now. The only people who would be out of work would be the obscenely paid CEOs, and if they can't live on $100,000,000 then maybe they should reconsider their lifestyle.
Darn, if we put the insurance companies out of work will we have to bail them out, too?
It's not that I want to see anyone out of work. But honestly, I don't enjoy the fact that a huge portion of what I pay for healthcare doesn't even go towards healthcare. It goes to someone trying to navigate our increasingly complicated insurance system. Something needs to change. I'm not going to say I have all the answers. But we need to fix things, because the rate of increase in the prices for healthcare is much higher than the increase in wages or the costs of anything else. And it's just getting worse all the time.
It is a myth to believe that under a Single Payer National Health Insurance Plan (SPNHIP), the government, or Obama, will be involved in health care or make the medical decisions. It is more of a myth to compare a SPNHIP to Socialized Medicine. It is not.
Actually, under the SPNHIP medical decisions are left to the patient and doctor, as they should be. Basically, Medicare is the most similar to a SPNHIP. The VA would be socialized medicine.
A SPNHIP would be financed in the following way : The public funds already funneled to Medicare would be retained. The difference, or the gap between current public funding and what we would needed for a SPNHIP, would be financed by a payroll tax on employers (about 7%) and an income tax increase on individuals of (about 2%). The payroll tax would replace all other employer expenses for employees' health care, which would be eliminated.
For the vast majority of people, a 2% income tax increase is less than what they now pay for insurance premiums and out-of-pocket payments such as the monthly payments, co-pays, deductibles, eye care, prescriptions, dental, etc, particularly if a family member has a serious illness.
The SPNHIP would be 'PUBLICLY' managed and financed , at the state level , by elected and appointed agencies that represent the public. This agency then becomes the 'single payer,' through the allotted tax increases. Thus, the total budget for health care is set through a public agency, a democratic process, not connected to the federal government in it's operation. Clinical decisions remain a private matter between doctor and patient.
This is similar to how Medicare works in this country. Doctors are in private practice and are paid on a fee-for-service basis. The government does not own or manage medical practices or hospitals.
Presently, the Insurance Companies "administrative" costs are 31% of U.S. health spending, far higher than in other countries' systems. These inflated costs are due to our failure to have a publicly financed SPNHIP, which would save enough on administrative costs to assure access to care for all Americans, without rationing.
That 31% annual profit the Insurance Companies see today ... translates in to 300 billion dollars annually. Is it any wonder the Insurance Companies are lobbying, and fighting a SPNHIP?
All medically necessary care would be funded through the SPNHIP, including doctor visits, hospital care, prescriptions, mental health services, nursing home care, rehab, home care, eye care and dental care.
Under a SPNHIP, there would be a tremendous savings on prescription drugs. When all patients are under one system, the payer wields a lot of clout. The VA gets a 40% discount on drugs because of its buying power. This "monopsony" buying power is the main reason why other countries' drug prices are lower than ours.
This will also explain the drug industry's staunch opposition to SPNHIP, and they will be the second biggest fighter against it.
For full, more detailed information : http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#socialized
Thanks Willa! Very informative!
Thanks for the link. I applaud physicians becoming active in the issue.
My concern is once this is implemented, who can stop them from changing the rules? How would govt. be kept out of it? Who would be "the single payer"? When you eliminate competition, you are STUCK with one choice. One payer and one set of rules is great for the doctors, but one size will never fit all.
Why don't we all drive Chevrolets? No trucks as only a few people need them. No four doors for the older crowd. All cherry apple red inside and out so we can easily see them. No replacement parts, including tires, so when it breaks down and the tires wear out, you have to get a new car. That will generate more jobs *couch* but only in the auto industry. All the rest of the jobs making and selling tires to the public are gone, same with replacement parts and...
A single payer system in not on the table. Obama wants the government to control it all.
They won't listen, Col. George.
Exactly the deal I had with my insurance coverage. It covererd almost nothing, and what it did cover was only under very specific scenerios, that could, theoretically occur, which is under very rare circumstances. Average circumstances did not apply, so they were not covered. I realized I was having money sucked out of my weekly paycheck, in order to be insured, in name only. Looked good on paper,...sounded good, in the slick glossy booklet handed out at the meetings for signing up.
Covered NOTHING MUCH!
I'm better off keeping my money, and putting it into my savings for that fateful rainy day, than to alighn myself with these scammers legal health care insurance scammers.
yeah ... why did so many people vote for Ahmadinejad in Iran, Rita? They didn't ... we are all the recipient of a massive fraud campaign to brainwash people into thinking that single payer or any other healthcare reform will impoverish their doctors, and kill them - it's ridiculous. Over 500 million dollars of our insurance premiums and medical over-profits are being used for this rip-off campaign to perpetrate this massive health care screw-job the insurance companies want to impose on everyone. They are not happy taking your money, they want more money, and they want you dead too if you are not paying enough tribute to them.
Do you know what else insurance companies do? They employ hundreds of thousands of people. Are you ready to add them to the ranks of the unemployed?
You'd better be prepared to answer that question while your demonizing the big, bad insurance companies.
A lot of those have the skills to work in the new healthcare system, whatever that turns out to be. I'm sure they can adapt, just like everyone else.
And you believe, of course, that the government can do a better job of managing the health care business better than the insurance companies? At the same time, managing all that comes with adding an additional 100,000+ jobs to the government payroll?
And what about the shareholders of the insurance companies -- and all of the 401K and pension plans that have invested in them.
Not as simple as it sounds, is it?
Dorothy insurance companys employ clerks not nurses. They are number crunchers and secretarys. They do the mundane things the government an employer wants done.
Rita, I can file a claim on my car insurance with no fear of being cancelled. It is against the law to cancel a policy because of a claim.
I don't know about your state, George but, unless something changed in the last couple of years, it's absolutely legal to cancel a policy because of claims.
In most states is is illegal. I guess I will not be moving to PA anytime soon. Not that I've had that many claims. (2 in the last 40 or so years)
Allstate used to cancell everyone in an area because of claims in the area. It was called "red lining". I got cancelled by them once, changed companies and will never do business with Allstate again.
Col., insurance companies hire both doctors and nurses. They are the ones who make the determination as to whether or not a payment will be made. All hospitals have Utilization Review boards who must report to the insurance companies. These boards also consist of nurses. Many of my colleagues (I am a nurse) have worked on both sides of this fence and many of left the insurance companies because of the ethical issues surrounding refusal of care. From what they've told me, you cannot be employed by the insurance company and hope to be on the side of the patient. That is not their job. They were hired as professionals in order to make it look good, but they don't last if they don't side with the insurance company.
Col George, insurance companies DO hire nurses. Lots of them. They (and doctors) are supposed to "manage" what care people get and decide whether or not it should be covered. Some of them even get bonuses for allowing almost nothing to get covered.
Everything I've seen or read said that they ALL get bonuses if they refuse enough claims. They get even BIGGER if they find a way to deny LARGE claims RETROACTIVELY.
Dan, those people working for the insurance companies add nothing but fluff to the GNP, they produce nothing, but they are the cause of many people being sick and crippled for long periods of time and even dying, going bankrupt, or losing their productivity and civic attitude. I would be happier if they did lose their jobs and were forced to get real jobs, especially the corporate officers and CEOs.
Yeah, Bruce, that's all we need are hundreds of thousands more people out of work in the US. That will do lots for our economy, won't it? They're not the cause of people being sick or "cirppled". I have never had problems with any insurance company with which I've dealt. Perhaps I was lucky. And as a young person, I used to pick my jobs based on the best insurance package, and not necessarily the best pay. With one, I negotiated having the company pay for 6 months of my premiums when/if I ever left their employ. I've also been in the situation where I had to buy insurance for myself, back when the only option was Blue Cross/Blue Shield. And I've been without insurance. I like having insurance. I don't want the government to have even the tiniest bit of say-so over my medical care. Not one bit.
Rita ... "Most are crooked"? And are you telling me that government employees are all pillars of integrity and honesty?
Bruce ... even if you were right -- which you're not -- what happens when you add these "fluff" employees to the ranks of the unemployed, uninsured?
But you should give those who want the OPTION of government insurance their rights as well as you having what you want. In all the plans I've seen the public option is just that, an option for those who can't do anything else. Since you can, bully for you but it's really immaterial to those of us who can't. Do we count at all to you? I'd really like to hear that answer from you, because I don't think we count at all. Remember, it's easy to hate or dismiss those whom you wrong.
No wonder they don't understand the problem or the need for change. They are pretty much like the millionaires running the Congress (elected and lobbyists) THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM OF THE ORDINARY CITIZEN.
Thanks for the great article! 10 for you!
From The Media Research Center:
President Obama is trying to put our nation on the fast track to socialized health care, and on June 24, the ABC network will help him sell this bill of goods to the American people.
Next Wednesday, ABC News will transform the White House into their newsroom for what has been described as an unabashed infomercial promoting the Democrat agenda—more specifically, government-run health care.
++ ABC News Emphatically Rejects Opposing Views
ABC News has abandoned all pretense of journalistic integrity in its bid to be the administration’s official salesman for ObamaCare. ABC flatly rejected Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Ken McKay’s request to add opposition views to ensure all sides of the health care debate were represented in the “town hall” forum.
Not only that, ABC News Vice President Kerry Smith responded by saying, “ABC News alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the President.”
As if that wasn’t enough, ABC then rejected an ad from a conservative group trying to counter the liberal health care agenda. They clearly are not interested in a balanced presentation on this subject.
Void of opposing views, this “news special” becomes nothing more than an extended infomercial designed to scare and manipulate the American people into supporting a trillion-dollar government takeover of the highest quality health care system in the world!
***************
Fair and balanced does not fit into their agenda. ABC is the new Obama network. OBC.
Welcome to open fascism folks, Obama's brought it out of the closet.
ABC? The Adore Barack Club? What did you expect?
Surely even you recognize that the disaster in the country didn't happen since January, 2009?
giggle
Well, ABC learned from the inventor of slanted news FOX. And if Obama let fascism out of the closet it was GW Bush who stuffed it in there, or Chaney our last real president.
I don't know why anyone is happy with having insurance companies stand between them and their doctor.
Insurance companies are FOR profit. They are interested in gambling that you will pay them money, lots of money over time, and then NOT have to make a claim. This is exactly what insurance is - assessed risk and profit taking. Why is there even a market for assessed risk in healthcare? It doesn't belong there. Medical care and treatment, including an emphasis on preventative medicine (not on costly procedures and pharmaceuticals where doctors get rewarded for recommending them), should be available to ALL in a modern, civilized society. The wrong questions are being asked and debated. Insurance companies should not even be a player. Pharmaceutical companies should be truly in the free market and actually compete. Why do the same drugs in Canada cost a fraction of what is charged in the US, made and sold by the same US company?
Wake up, people. Elizabeth is absolutely correct. Our healthcare system sucks and is on the road of bankrupting the entire country. Fewer and fewer people can actually afford healthcare under the current system. 90% of all personal bankruptcies are due to medical expenses, many of which involve people who HAVE health insurance. Can you actually call this a GOOD system, never mind saying we have the best in the world? Get real.
Medicine in Canada are cheaper? I checked out Actos a pill for diabeticts. It is the same price there as it is here.
Perhaps there are exceptions, but why do you think there was such a big fight over allowing US citizens to get prescription drugs from Canada over the past few years, Col? It's because the drug companies make a much higher profit margin from US sales than they do from Canadian sales.
Sheryl has identified the problem. But, just because we all know there is a problem doesn't mean we all agree on the same solution.
That's true, and to be expected, Oxnard. But to solve a problem you first must agree on the definition of the problem itself. There may be various ways to fix it, but if one side sees very little wrong with the current system in its entirety, no consensus will be reached because the solutions will be so vastly different. I think that's where we are right now - many people think that the for-profit insurance paradigm is the basis from which to start.
My sister used to get her prescription osteoporosis medication from Canada. Her doctor's office provided the information so that she could. It was very much cheaper. Here in AZ, people go to Mexico for their meds. I priced some I was on and the savings was substantial. I receivced 80% reimbursement from my insurance company on my blood pressure pills. The cost for the same medication in Mexico was the 20% that a paid here. So, presumably the insurance company paid the 80%. And who paid the insurance company? me, in premiums. That is a royal rip-off.
Yes, The insurance companies already get between doctors and patients.
Yes, I suppose single-payer would be a good thing.
But, what I want is some kind of universal coverage.
Even with a government single payer plan, there would be no guarantee that folks who need health care could afford health care or insurance.
In issue's of health and health care, lack of money should not be a barrier to proper and effective service; if you are a humanitarian, that is.
Good article and great discussion, Elizabeth.
And how do YOU propose to pay for that, Bill's Spirit? The US has no money now. Are you wanting them to print up more bogus money - and cause greater inflation - so you can have this wonderful universal health care that people in other countries do not like having? Are you willing to have 50% income tax so you can have this health care?
There's certainly no need to raise my income tax to 50% in order to do this. I would, however, be content with the government raising the taxes on my income, and everyone elses, by as much as 10% in order to pay for a universal single payer health care system.
Nope, don't want them to print more money; just reshuffle what is already flowing around in our economy.
"I trust corporations FAR MORE than I trust this president or this Congress. "
That's downright sad.
Astoundingly sad, Nippy, after what has happened in the mortgage, banking and securities industries over the past few years. Daily, my overall impression of the average American's intelligence goes down. Without an educated, thinking citizenry, this country is finished. The corporate power mongers have almost completed their job here.
Hopeless is another word, Nippy.
If the government (and community organizers) had not stuck their noses into mortgages, there would not have been a mortgage problem. Not all people can afford to buy houses. That's a fact of life and has always been a fact of life. When my ex and I bought a house, we had to pay 25% down because I worked on commission and he was already retired and on SS. That was life.
If the government would allow us actually have free markets, we'd all be better off and would not have had the economic problems we face today.