Single-Payer Health Care Reform
by Timothy O. Villard
38716165
# 1. 3/3/09 2:06 PM by Zjabs
"The data and evidence are clear: to a scientific certainty, only a single-payer “Medicare-for-All” system of health care financing will solve the serious cost and access problems and achieve good, affordable health care for all in the United States"
Of course, because allowing monopolies is good for competition and lowers prices- what's it cost to mail a letter now- about a nickel? Editor's Note: The medicare system boasts the LOWEST administrative costs, 3%, but why listen to a doctor who has studied the situation for half a century?
31134177
# 2. 3/3/09 2:27 PM by Hawkeye - East Rochester, NY
Well I used to have my doubts about this but now that you’ve found a real M.D. who is all in favor of it, I guess I’d better rethink my objections. It should be remembered though, that back in the ‘50s the tobacco companies found a LOT of M.D.s who were willing to come on camera and tell how smoking cigarettes actually could IMPROVE health.
Medical doctors obviously never make mistakes. The 120,000 accidental deaths every year due to doctor error can’t really be considered when blindly accepting a one doctor’s opinion regarding your single-payer “Medicare-for-All” system of health care financing. And your M.D. even says that 59% of physicians even support the scheme.
Of course he never mentioned that the main reason so many support this type of plan is that the government has made it so complicated and made the maze of paperwork so extensive that 60% of a doctor’s practice expenses are tied up in billing and form submissions. Editor's Note: He does mention administrative waste, not by the government, but by insurers and their convoluted attempts to deny coverage.
52676339
# 3. 3/3/09 5:11 PM by Tom Dey - Springwater, NY
If everyone would have to pay equal premiums I would be in favor of it. If half the population gets the same care free - I'm against it.
38716165
# 4. 3/3/09 5:16 PM by Zjabs
"by insurers and their convoluted attempts to deny coverage."
So why not make it easier to deny coverage? If the insurers could just NOT cover certain things agreed to in advance by the prospective policyholder and the insurance government without the state mandating all sorts of coverages, the prices would drop on policies (as I would not get coverage on myself for things such as sickle-cell, and as I went out of my way to get fixed, I would decline any sort of fertility coverage for me or my wife- thus meaning I would pay LESS). But rather than doing the sensible thing, the governments get involved, drive the prices up, and then people claim all that can save things is more government..... yeah, that makes sense. Let's handcuff the market and then complain it isn't working right.... Editor's Note: Weak.
38716165
# 5. 3/4/09 7:54 AM by Zjabs
It really is funny how the left on this site gets the equation exactly backwards. Government is the PROBLEM, not the solution. And most of the areas with difficulties have heavy government intervention to start with....which some see as the problem. Editor's Note: Tell that to the masses that, as a result of poor regulation and greed, exploited by a small minority, will spend the next 12 months, or longer, looking for a job, in many cases unsuccessfully, with many losing their homes, their health care, and their retirement. Are they sloths? Are they lazy? Or are they victims of an enterprise (alleged free market capitalism) that is, by definition, indifferent to their plight?
52922406
# 6. 3/4/09 1:24 PM by Mildred
"Editor's Note: The medicare system boasts the LOWEST administrative costs, 3%,..."
Administrative costs might not be a true measure of the efficiency of Medicare. Take, for example, the 20,000 New Yorkers who collected benefits from New York while collecting from other states at the same time. NYS comptroller, Thomas DiNapoli, claims that $28 million of state taxpayers money was wasted on double-dippers who didn't live in the state.
Administration costs should carry with them an oversight and responsibility to see that programs are functioning as intended. This certainly was not the case in this example. It just seems to this reader that fraud and misuse runs rampant in most government operated programs. Editor's Note: I don't see abuse as insurmountable, nor as an excuse to retain a flawed system with astronomical administrative costs; and certainly not reason enough to prolong one with a built-in conflict of interest.
50724807
# 7. 3/4/09 8:14 PM by Gary - Williamson
Editor's Note: I don't see abuse as insurmountable, nor as an excuse to retain a flawed system with astronomical administrative costs; and certainly not reason enough to prolong one with a built-in conflict of interest.
So you're saying that once the government becomes the insurance company there will no attempts to influence medical procedures in an effort to reduce costs? How is there no built in conflict of interest in a single payer system? The only real difference is the government becomes the sole insurance company and will be paying out far more in claims than it brings in through premiums, thus requiring higher taxes to support it. They will end up doing exactly the same thing the insurance companies do now to try and reduce costs. Only now your coverage will also be subject to the whims of whoever is in power at the time.
I agree that something has to change, but I think a cafeteria style system of coverage packages would be a better start, right after the government stops forcing the medical system to cover every illegal that walks in the door. Editor's Note: Look to medicare. The program is a success by virtually any measure. There is no conflict of interest because the government's approach to keeping costs low does not include any profit motive.
52959187
# 8. 3/5/09 9:56 PM by Mildred
"Look to medicare. The program is a success by virtually any measure."
There are many who would disagree with that statement. Fraud and wastes costs the taxpayer billions annually.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/broken_government/articles/entry/1064/ Editor's Note: There are many, indeed. Why not take a look yourself Mildred. There are many with a financial interest in perpetuating the status quo.
|
