Single Payer Health insurance

34 posts / 0 new
Last post
AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803
Single Payer Health insurance
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 4 weeks ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

We should have gone to a single payer system from the start, but republicans blocked it. What's the debate?

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"Potter75" wrote:

We should have gone to a single payer system from the start, but republicans blocked it. What's the debate?

Do you agree with the article that we are headed to a single payer system? Do you think we should go to a single payer system?

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 4 weeks ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

Do you agree with the article that we are headed to a single payer system? Do you think we should go to a single payer system?

Do you know what a single payer system is Bonita? It's Medicare, essentially. Do you disagree with Medicare? I already answered your second question- as to what the future holds I don't have my crystal ball w me tonight. I'd hope so as its a lot more practical than this mess Obama has us headed into.

Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 months ago
Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

"Obamacare" is Romneycare. It is a stop-gap. They are trying so hard not to get a single payer system which would eliminate so many of those health insurance companies and their massive profits, instead focusing on the health of citizens, that they adopted this half-system, which pretends to help people, and probably does help a few, but keeps the profits funneling into the pockets of a few.

Eventually the US will have to go to a single payer system, every other developed nation has realized that it is a basic necessity to keep their resources (workers!) healthy. But Romneycare, but making it slightly better but not addressing the real issues, is delaying the adoption of a single payer health insurance system. It's unfortunate, and what I like least about Obama.

Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

As someone who works at a health insurance company that is not for profit I have a few issues with a single pay system none of which has to do with my job.

The biggest one is that I'm not fond of how Medicare is run now. I think it's a great idea but I think it is poorly run.

Even with a single payer system there will typically be a huge need for extended or supplemental insurance so you will probably still have to purchase insurance to get additional benefits.

Those are just a few. As for the profit information, with NHCR companies how to show that they are paying a certain percentage of premiums (I think 88 or something like that...I'm blanking) on claims or they have to issue payouts. So large profits are not going to really happen anymore even with for profit insurance.

mom3girls's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1537

Using medicare as a reason for adopting a single payer system is a very bad idea. The administration of Medicare is so poorly executed. I dont know a single person that thinks the government does a good job with Medicare, and most use medicare as a reason we shouldnt go to a single payer system.

I do think Obamacare will lead to a single payer system, but I think it is because it will get so much worse then it is right now people will be begging for anything to get rid of Obamacare

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

Heading toward a single payer .. yes..
Should we? no.. I am much more for free market.

Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

"mom3girls" wrote:

Using medicare as a reason for adopting a single payer system is a very bad idea. The administration of Medicare is so poorly executed. I dont know a single person that thinks the government does a good job with Medicare, and most use medicare as a reason we shouldnt go to a single payer system.

I do think Obamacare will lead to a single payer system, but I think it is because it will get so much worse then it is right now people will be begging for anything to get rid of Obamacare

See, I don't think that's how it will happen. At least I hope not. Is it perfect? No. Is anything perfect? No. I don't think it will get so bad that the people, who right now don't want anything, will all of a sudden be begging for the government to be the only payer.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 4 weeks ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

I wasn't using Medicare as a reason- I was using it as an example of what is already in existence as I am assuming bonita posted this with the assumption from her political views that single payer is terrible that it already exists. I don't believe she knows what single payer means.....but yes, I believe that this would be a better system for our country as a whole. There will still be alternative options available to those who can afford them or want them.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

I asked a question. I never said what my opinion is.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 4 weeks ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

I asked a question. I never said what my opinion is.

Oh ~ was mu assumption incorrect? Are you for a single payer system? If I was wrong and you are pro single payer I will happily apologize to you.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"Potter75" wrote:

Oh ~ was mu assumption incorrect? Are you for a single payer system? If I was wrong and you are pro single payer I will happily apologize to you.

I really do not know what I am. That is why debates on this topic interest me. I do feel the current system is badly broken and does not work. Something does need to change. It may be that a single payer system is better than what we have now, I really do not know enough about it to know for sure. I am to the point of thinking almost anything would be better than what we have now.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 7 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"blather" wrote:

"Obamacare" is Romneycare. It is a stop-gap. They are trying so hard not to get a single payer system which would eliminate so many of those health insurance companies and their massive profits, instead focusing on the health of citizens, that they adopted this half-system, which pretends to help people, and probably does help a few, but keeps the profits funneling into the pockets of a few.

Eventually the US will have to go to a single payer system, every other developed nation has realized that it is a basic necessity to keep their resources (workers!) healthy. But Romneycare, but making it slightly better but not addressing the real issues, is delaying the adoption of a single payer health insurance system. It's unfortunate, and what I like least about Obama.

I agree with this 100%.

Spacers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104

One of the biggest problems with Medicare is that it is NOT a single-payer system. It's a government-run insurance company operating in an insurance-company world. Medicare is not a single-payer system, get it? - Kanuk - Open Salon

I don't support a true single-payer system because I think people should be vested in their own healthcare and paying a portion of it at the point of service helps with that and probably reduces the risk of over-use. My dream-world health care program would look more like a big HMO: doctors would be on salary and work relatively set hours, hospitals would be non-profit, bigger hospitals would "buoy" less profitable ones so even a small town could have an emergency room and maternity ward, access to specialists would be coordinated through your primary care doctor, specialized programs would be regionalized for cost savings, and the emphasis would be on staying healthy rather than fixing things after the fact. This would all be a good thing for our country, I think, because a lot of small towns lose their doctors because they can make more money in the city. If a doctor knew he would make the same amount of money in Podunk, he might choose to stay there after medical school or go there for the quality of life for his family. And the state could offer an incentive for a doctor willing to work in a place like East Armpit for a year or two.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"Spacers" wrote:

If a doctor knew he would make the same amount of money in Podunk, he might choose to stay there after medical school or go there for the quality of life for his family. And the state could offer an incentive for a doctor willing to work in a place like East Armpit for a year or two.

In TN there are already some programs like this. My cousin is a MD a few hours from here. She was able to go to med school on a scholarship. The conditions of the scholarship were that she needed to work in an underprivileged area of TN for X amount of years. I thought it was a great program.

Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 months ago
Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

"Spacers" wrote:

My dream-world health care program would look more like a big HMO: doctors would be on salary and work relatively set hours, hospitals would be non-profit, bigger hospitals would "buoy" less profitable ones so even a small town could have an emergency room and maternity ward, access to specialists would be coordinated through your primary care doctor, specialized programs would be regionalized for cost savings, and the emphasis would be on staying healthy rather than fixing things after the fact.

So you want Japan's system then?

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 4 weeks ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"Spacers" wrote:

because a lot of small towns lose their doctors because they can make more money in the city. If a doctor knew he would make the same amount of money in Podunk, he might choose to stay there after medical school or go there for the quality of life for his family. And the state could offer an incentive for a doctor willing to work in a place like East Armpit for a year or two.

Why should a DR living in podunk TN make the same as a DR in NYC or SF? Their cost of living is a fraction of what it costs to live in one of those cities. And then on top of top wages to Dr's in areas with rock bottom costs of living you want the state to pay them extra/subsidize them out of our tax dollars? No thanks.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"Potter75" wrote:

Why should a DR living in podunk TN make the same as a DR in NYC or SF? Their cost of living is a fraction of what it costs to live in one of those cities. And then on top of top wages to Dr's in areas with rock bottom costs of living you want the state to pay them extra/subsidize them out of our tax dollars? No thanks.

This is very true. Our same house in NYC would cost many times what our house costs here in TN.

ftmom's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

I would think that if all Drs are payed the same and cost of living is lower in rural places then it would help fill those positions that are empty now. That is a good thing. As for govt incentives, here if you immigrate as a Dr, you have to go to a northern community for x number of years. Not sure how long. Almost all our Drs are South African, from the same area. They enjoy a very rich community here (were mostly friends before they immigrated, and so they stay here.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 4 weeks ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

Yes......I think that attempting to switch our medical system to socialism may cause a lot of backlash in America Smile

ftmom's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

Double post story: I just made 72 banana bread mini muffins Smile

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"ftmom" wrote:

I would think that if all Drs are payed the same and cost of living is lower in rural places then it would help fill those positions that are empty now. That is a good thing. As for govt incentives, here if you immigrate as a Dr, you have to go to a northern community for x number of years. Not sure how long. Almost all our Drs are South African, from the same area. They enjoy a very rich community here (were mostly friends before they immigrated, and so they stay here.

You are not talking about just a little bit of money. I am not sure of the exact prices in NYC, but in Alexandria, VA where my SIL lives, she has a house similar to ours only we have a 4br 2bath and she has a 3br 2bath. The houses are similar in age and style. Our house was less than $70K. Her house was over $400K. You would have to make A LOT more money to be able to buy a house there. It just would not work to pay people the same in both places.

Spacers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104

"blather" wrote:

So you want Japan's system then?

Japan's system isn't perfect but overall it's far better than ours. They have the healthiest population on earth because of the emphasis on prevention, a longer life expectancy than Americans by about five years, lower infant mortality, pretty much no wait to see a doctor, and it costs less both to the government and to the consumers. Their system of paying doctors based on the number of tests & medications they prescribe is no good, though, because it's causing doctors to leave underpopulated areas and abandon pediatrics and obstetrics. And neither is their system of paying hospitals by the number of beds occupied, that just encourages overuse, which is wasteful. They also seem to have a rather poor track record of approving new drugs and new medical technology because of regulations. So no, I wouldn't want Japan's healthcare system as it exists today, but I think it has a lot more positives than ours, and most of the negatives could easily be dealt with.

Spacers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104

"Potter75" wrote:

Why should a DR living in podunk TN make the same as a DR in NYC or SF? Their cost of living is a fraction of what it costs to live in one of those cities. And then on top of top wages to Dr's in areas with rock bottom costs of living you want the state to pay them extra/subsidize them out of our tax dollars? No thanks.

I didn't say that they would be getting "top wages." They would be getting a reasonable salary and would no longer be expected, or allowed, to work 80+ hour weeks. Most doctors don't work that much because they want to, they do it because they can make a crap-ton of money doing it, and then they take off a month or two and basically abandon their patients while they recharge. No patient is ever getting quality care in a doctor's 79th hour of work, and we need to move away from that expectation.

And I'm sorry for the confusion, but I didn't mean the same as in exact; I meant the same relative to the cost of living. If someone would earn $250K in San Francisco, they would earn $336K in Manhattan and $132K in Cookville, TN.

ftmom's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

You are not talking about just a little bit of money. I am not sure of the exact prices in NYC, but in Alexandria, VA where my SIL lives, she has a house similar to ours only we have a 4br 2bath and she has a 3br 2bath. The houses are similar in age and style. Our house was less than $70K. Her house was over $400K. You would have to make A LOT more money to be able to buy a house there. It just would not work to pay people the same in both places.

It works here, and we have those same huge discrepancies. Typically pricier areas are popular to live in for other reasons, such as weather or lifestyle, so people will want to live there regardless. Maybe they will have to work more hours, take on more patients, or be part of a working couple, but they will find a way. People who now only work in pricy areas for the money, will see that they will have a better lifestyle in a cheaper area and move there to work. This is in fact how my husbands job works as well, and they dont make anything close to what a Dr does.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4229

This is what is going to push us into a single payer system, the fact that Obamacare is pushing all the employers that did have great coverage to drop it because they can no longer afford it.

Delta Air Lines: Next Year, Our Health Care Costs Will Increase By 'Nearly $100 Million' - Forbes

Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 months ago
Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

Exactly why it should be single-payer. Then corporations wouldn't be involved in paying.

Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

I just can't get on board with a lot of the information in the Forbes article. The self funded definition is basic and incomplete and dependents under 26 don't typically have high costs of care because the majority are relatively healthy are 2 examples. I also feel like I was supposed to feel bad that a company can't cap how much they have to spend on health care or that they cannot prohibit a full time employee from being enrolled in insurance. Any article that wants to be considered newsworthy to me will refer to it as National Health Care Reform and not Obamacare.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"Jessica80" wrote:

Any article that wants to be considered newsworthy to me will refer to it as National Health Care Reform and not Obamacare.

President Obama has referred to it as Obamacare himself. While it started out as a nickname, it has become what it is known as.

Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

That's fine. I expect a news article to actually call it by what it is and not a nickname though.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

U.P.S. to End Health Benefits for Spouses of Some Workers

Obamacare penalty: Your family could pay more for insurance

A few articles on the subject.

Everyone that I know personally and have talked to about believes that they are worse off in the health insurance department than before Obamacare. Our insurance premiums have DOUBLED in the last few years since Obamacare first passed and that same trend has been the same with many people I have talked to. It might have been a nice idea in theory, and it might get better when the kinks are all worked out, but right now I believe it is doing a lot more harm than good.

Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

The thing is, most of NHCR's mandates weren't even in place for the past few years so the premium doubling is more than likely to do with things outside of it. Insurance companies costs, costs of medical technology, providers wanting pay increases and so forth.

Prescription drug costs alone are causing HUGE increases. We are a pill happy society and it comes at a big cost. I forget the exact number but if we were to take prescription drug coverage off the table of medical plans, a family of 4 would pay about 70.00 a month or something insanely low like that.

Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

When I compare paychecks from my first year with my current year, cost of benefits have consistently increased to the point where they are 3 times what they were 13 years ago. It has been an on-going source of contention at work since at least 2005.

Having employers offer health benefits for employees only isn't new either. IIRC, when I got married in 2002, XDH couldn't have me added to his insurance because I was already covered through my employer.