Posted on 03/14/2013 8:11:08 AM PDT by ksen
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-system-cost
http://truecostblog.com/2009/05/13/how-much-would-universal-healthcare-cost/
I live close to an Air Force base so I guess that makes me an expert on how they spend their funds.
The vast majority of money spent on basic research is from public sources. That is a fact.
No, they are facts.
Wow... That's pathetic.
I'm sorry to hear about your troubles. Neither my wife nor I have any remaining parents. It's both a curse and a blessing.
The last was my wife's mother, who lived with us for the last 10 years of her life. All but the last month or two, she was relatively healthy: (ie: able to work, and drive herself to the coffee shop). She had almost NO money So, when she was diagnosed with Stage IV breast cancer, she had to rely on the local university hospital for care.
I was extremely impressed with the quality of care she received. She sometimes had to wait a little too long... (1-2 hours) but, she also often got to see the SAME DOCTORS my wife saw. My wife, who also battled breast cancer, but with great health insurance. My Mother-in-Law was allowed to participate in a drug test, sponsored by Merck. The drug helped her live 4 years longer than expected, and Merck paid ALL of her medical bills.
I hope you're able to manage your relative without too much more pain.
Money? Did you say money? LIEbertarians would be for it if it saves fascist CEO’s money!
I have seen them advocating for Queen Bloomer’s soda ban becuase they don’t want to pay for the health care of fatties.
This is the way socialism “progresses” to a Soviet Utopia.
Healthcare is a finite resource and will always be rationed, or allocated, according to something.
The question is, would you prefer the government consifcate your money via taxes and also make the decisions as to who gets what care ? That's rationing by government, or single-payer. To have the enforced purchase of the product via taxation, also allocated by the provider is a situation ripe for abuse. Such a monopoly wouldn't be allowed in any other industry.
Would you rather have medical professionals offer their services on the free market to those who can afford them? That's rationing by free market. Individuals purchase directly from providers to the limit of their purchasing power. This option requires that purchasers make the rationing decision, and is the only option that preserves the liberty of the individual.
Would you rather be forced into buying a certian type of insurance that your government thinks you ought to have, and/or fined if you can't afford it, and also have the government decide who gets/doesn't get care? That's rationing by Obamacare bureaucracy. It's the worst of all worlds.
Ask them if they’d have liked to have been paid on their old jobs the same way a doctor is paid through medicare or medicaid and you may be surprised with the answer you get.
The leftist mentallity of taking from some one to influence some one else to get them into power and keep them there is what you are trying to sell here. Take a hint, it won’t fly.
OTOH primary Medicaid pts rightfully have only contempt for their captors the system. This is more in-line with expectations of SP.
I have a challenge for you to step back and really think about this preconceived notion for a moment.
What is the 'bottom line' for insurance companies? It is to have customers who continue to pay premiums, right? They can't do that if the customer is dead or so ill they can't work, correct? Insurance companies have a vested interest in you being in a position to continue to pay your premiums.
If you really dig, you will find that health insurance companies invest a LOT in wellness services- services and support to keep you healthy to where you won't need to use the more expensive treatments or that will pull you away from work and being able to continue to pay premiums. My insurance company, Blue Cross, for example, invests a lot in these wellness services and encourages continual check-ups and treatments to prevent illness in the first place. Add into that the factor of competition, even as little as it is, is still out there. They are constantly trying to one-up the other companies in the services they offer.
Now let's look at the government providing 'cheap' healthcare as you describe. Do they have any incentive at all to do any of the things I just described? No. They are only focused on their own job security (and unelected bureaucrats don't answer to you or I). Job security for them amounts to amassing power as so you are dependent on them. This isn't even theory, look at the services the government provides- Medicare, Tricare*, VA, etc. None of those services try to promote customer satisfaction or wellness. Only treatment after the fact for what they claim is the cheapest cost. All of these are notorious for cutting services or providing sub-standard care. The bureaucracy and inability of these services to pay doctors have gotten to the point that they won't even accept Medicare any longer. Case in point
Even President Obama himself made it perfectly clear that his plan is not about quality of care but about doing as little as possible to save money. Remember, Just take a Pill?
So be honest, when it comes to your health, do you really want to trust it to a single payer government system who cares only about what they can sell to the press or do you think a competitive, free market solution is the better answer?
*One exception with Tricare is 'Cadillac' plans elected officials and people high up in departments get that are not available to the avergage government worker.
Speaking of not sustainable. Doctors have stopped taking Medicare.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2995887/posts
I saw that. Can’t blame physicians; fee schedules dropping and operating costs edging up and up; something has to give. Central planners, unaware of their role in fomenting it, must be frothing at the mouth to capitalize on the upheaval and expand their reach. The way things are going now this won’t end smoothly or well.
Money should not be the primary motivation for health care - certainly not for the patient.
Savings can be had by refusing treatment and/or providing cheap but less effective treatments & drugs. Allowing people to suffer & die is the easiest way to save money, therefore the “single payer” will always be tempted to adopt this strategy. This is the adopted solution to rising costs in the UK.
That might be fine for the other fella, but when you have a child/spouse/parent with a deadly disease, saving money is probably NOT your primary motivation, saving your c/s/p is. A “single payer” will probably focus on the costs of treatment, so he/it will become your adversary, not your ally. To the “single payer” - the bureaucrat 1000 miles away, we are all the other fella.
Simple economics shows that prices/costs can be lowered by less demand or more supply. Demand is unlikely to lessen with a growing population. The supply side is where potential savings are to be had. Single payer schemes do not address the supply side, at all.
There is a shortage of doctors in the USA. Why? Because the AMA & the gubmint limit the number of medical students. Why? Because being a doctor would not be nearly so lucrative if there were 10 times as many. The result: We import doctors from other countries - doctors who may or may not be as well qualified as US trained doctors. Long waits to see a doctor are also a result.
Our government regulated insurance system has become a insatiable monster that must be fed money or lives. Its service to the patient is declining while its service to bureaucracy increases. It's time to dump it & return to a free market system of health care where the individual & family takes responsibility for their life & health. No human created system, no matter how sophisticated, can be as fair, objective, or affordable as the free market.
You hit on all the right points - the goals of a health care system; competition; free market; monopolies yield crummy services AND .... since the single provider will be the government ...
'I will be made to pay more or less based on how rich I am, so I’ll be subsidizing worthless lazy people.'
Here is even more about your ‘cheap’ healthcare. Today the Administration announced even more cuts to medicare.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-administration-plans-cut-medicare-advantage-reimbursements
So cheap, it is free because you can’t get any care at all.
And by cheaper I mean overall. Of course in a single payer system taxes would have to go up to pay for it but personal out of pocket expenses would go down as people wouldn't have to worry about paying for their medical on their own.
Looking forward to the fight . . . er dicussion.
Hmmm, let's see, since the Federal Government is already soooooo low cost and efficient, we could:
Put the Post Office in charge of ensuring that all the new forms and other paperwork, created under this great idea, move efficiently and cheaply between patients and all the new offices implemented around the country by the new Department of Single Payer (DSP).
Put the Transportation Safety Agency (TSA) in charge of overseeing the movement of all the "must buy" caskets being filled under the new regulations from the "We're not a Death Panel", Death Panels, implemented in all those new DSP offices. This effort will, of course, be performed in the same efficient and cheap methodology currently accomplished by the TSA.
Put the Department of Education in charge of the mandatory "reeducation" required for anyone over 60 (with future age drops "as required by budgetary pressures"), to ensure that all citizens fully understand why they need to not only have Granny and Grandpa "put to sleep" in the special rooms, in those new DSP offices. They will also need to understand why they will have to buy only DSP approved caskets (or Urns, if they choose the alternate method of "putting Granny and Gramps to rest). Of course, highly efficient and cost effective methods, like those already in use by the Department of Education will be used.
Put the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as well as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in charge of disposing of Granny and Gramps' homes and property. Such property will be disposed of by destruction and return to "wetlands", or presented as a welfare benefit to illegal immigrant families, selected by representatives from the Homeland Security agency. All of these actions will, of course, be carried out with the utmost efficiency and cost effectiveness already well known to these three Federal Agencies.
I could go on, but I'm sure that Conservatives on FR see the obvious advantages that could flow from your conjecture about implementing a wondrous single payer system here in the USA. In fact, they can undoubtedly identify many, many other Federal "feeding freely at the money trough" agencies that would just love to get a piece a the "Low Cost Single Payer" scam. Of course, they would take on the new inflow of taxpayer dollars and waste them in the most efficient and cost saving ways possible.
I also suspect that the real Conservatives on FR are fully aware of your real purpose in posting this BS vanity. I believe that Jim posted a number of years back that FR would not be used as a place for leftists/progressives to spew their non-conservative "ideas" in the interest of "really wanting to know what FReepers think" and "just wanting to have a good discussion". Perhaps it's time Jim reiterated that position, and sent you on your way, with a big "Zotted" stamped on your forehead.
Because all of that is happening in countries with a universal type health care system, i.e. hong kong, singapore, france etc?
Go ask the folks in the UK, Ireland and Canada.
Hell no!
Well, I might prefer to be in Canada rather than experience the total disarray and dysfunction that this country’s system will undergo next year.
My experience in British Columbia was that ordinary, everyday ailments received OK treatment, minus timely advanced imaging, orthopedic surgical procedures, oncology treatments, etc.
But, no, even for common stuff their insurance and delivery model wouldn’t work here.
I, for one, would be satisfied with a policy having low benefit caps — no bypasses, transplants, $15,000/month cancer drugs or fancy multispectralhyperboson imaging.
Let us not forget the Marxist philosophy: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".
That is the basis for tax supported and government controlled health care.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.