Skip to comments.Vanity: If a true single payer healthcare system would save money would you be for it?
Posted on 03/14/2013 8:11:08 AM PDT by ksen
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.
Allow for the purchase of health insurance across state lines. Allow competition to set the cost.
NO... It WOULD be cheaper... no question. Because health care would be rationed, and there would be almost nothing spent on innovation.
Over time,most of us would be worse off.
Call me crazy, but I prefer systems that benefit the most productive in our society. That way, Darwinisn works to our benefit.
Who wouldn’t be for a cheaper better system? Silly question
Of course the ‘single payer’ system in question isn’t cheaper, isn’t better, and give the govt control over individual health decisions.
So lets phrase it a different way. Would you be for a healthcare system which gives unknown political appointees the power to deny you life saving medical treatments?
Then it is only cheaper for free loaders.
Let the free market work (not that it does now). Anything the government touches turns to crap.
Lives will be lost resulting from the death panel decisions. Or do you want to keep the discussions purely on a financial level?
I would like a single payer who is a space alien that pays everyone’s bills within 15 days in gold backed Swiss franks.
I would also like at home healthcare visits and a therapeutic message by a team of small asian women, twice a week.
Toss in dental, eyecare, pet coverage, and relaxed fit jeans.
Sure I would! And with St. Patty's Day coming up on Sunday, I'd like my unicorn in green, please.
Get government out of medicine (FDA, JAMA, NIS, etc.), allow insurance companies and doctors compete in a free market. Prices would necessarily drop as competition and innovation build.
I can get you single payer healthcare right now and it will be much cheaper.
But you won’t get any health care.
You cannot control prices from a single source and expect the high quality and price competition that result from free market forces.
You can’t get a heart transplant (and live) but it’s “cheaper” because the government pays for it. This just doesn’t work.
No. It gives too much decision-making to the state. This isn’t just about the money.
that should have been NIH not NIS,
and oh yeah, CURE DISEASES!!!
No, here in Canada you are 38% more likely to die from cancer than the US because of a single payer system.
I’ve been advocating for privatization for years, and the US wants to go in this direction? It’s pure crazy. Also, call me crazy, but I don’t like anyone having power over my health, least of all government officials.
Nothing the government runs is ever really cheaper.
In addition, there are serious issues regarding liberty. Once the government fully controls your healthcare options, the government controls you. Or your death.
These are not hypothetical points. Politicians, people, are corrupt and evil. They WILL use their power over their enemies which soon becomes anyone who gets in their way.
No - the US constitution does not give the Federal Government the power to legislate such things as socialized medicine.
No, I have lived in Canada........piss poor medical.
I know people from the UK....... piss poor medical.
You get what you pay for, and single payer is piss poor every where it is tried.
No, without competition it could not be cheaper, by definition. Economies of scale would be overshadowed by bureaucracy and political manipulation.
and there would be almost nothing spent on innovation.
Over time most of us would be worse off.
Why the morbid obsessive love for “single payer”? It is noting but pure distilled hatred of everything decent and good. Would you like single payer, if say the “single payer” was Blue Cross,, State Farm,, Allstate?
NO, it would be an apoplectic frothing attack as to how safe from competition, they would ignore and abuse us at every turn. don’t like the treatment you are getting? “Go somewhere else” they would sneer,,knowing there WAS nowhere else for you to go. All would know that the enforced absence of competition leads to evil. But somehow, government as the “single payer” becomes a loving, caring, trusted entity.
I stand awestruck before such willful ignorance.
Kill a commie for mommy. NO single payer communist BS for me. Especially this early in the morning.
If doctors and pills and hospitals grew on trees, would you be for it?
If Congress outlawed healthcare (thereby driving the cost of healthcare to zero), would you be for it?
If Congress created a new system of human bondage, compelling all, say, black people, to become doctors under forced servitude, would you be for it?
Maybe as a patient - but I sure wouldn’t bother going to medical school. :)
I’m all for a single payer system, where the payer IS THE PATIENT. No 3rd party payor model will ever work until the consumer has skin in the game.
At $22,000 per student in NYC, is the single payer education system cheaper?
If you consult Milton Friedman's four ways spend money, which is found here:
you will realize the absurdity of the question.
1. Nothing the government does ends up being cheaper than private sector counterparts, there is no cost savings incentive in the public sector. The claim may be made but it is never fulfilled.
2. Cheap doesn’t equate to quality. A Yugo was a cheap car; would you want to drive it just because it was cheap?
3. Slaves received a free(sic) roof over their head and food, all they had to do is give up liberty. Is it worth it?
4. Out of pocket costs aren’t the only part of the equation. What about all other aspects of the medical chain from support staff to medicine to supplies. Heck, we are even seeing veterinarian costs skyrocket as an unintended consequence of this. It is easy to fudge numbers if you are only looking at one line item and not the whole balance sheet.
Full scale government control of any entity inevitably leads to the destruction of said entity. Corruption, refusal to participate, rationing and a complete lack of accountability are symptomatic of the "single payer" concept. The medical industry becomes a slave, the people become subjects to the will of the government, the all encompassing nanny state consumes a full 6th of the country's economy consequently driving it to hell and the choices nurtured by the free market are destroyed.
"Single Payer" means no choice at all. If we are looking at a cost savings, let's discuss how that worked out for Hugo Chavez.
Good debate question - thanks for letting me rant. Cheers!
Would you like single payer, if say the single payer was Blue Cross,, State Farm,, Allstate?
No, I wouldn't really trust an entity all that much that was more concerned about their bottom line than providing health care services.
So I’m for shooting all sick people with a government bullet.
It’s the cheapest single-payer healthcare system.
Plus we can reprocess their bodies into food!
I pay (the premium)for my health care, and if I need care, I pay a deductible or co-pay and insurance pays the rest.
What's a single payer HC plan anyway ?
Simply put, without the price competition inherent in a free market, there's no way that it will be cheaper. More importantly without price competition, how can anyone say that it's cheaper?
Tyranny costs much more than money.
to ask this question indicates how far we have come
Absolutely not & for several reasons:
First, take away the free market you take away cost control AND quality. A cheaper single payor system is an oxymoron. And quality will go down the toilet.
Second, one of the ways a single payer system seeks to control costs is by denying care. Morally, I’ll never support passive or active euthanasia which is exactly what happens with a single payer system. And, all if us lose out on any advancements in medical care because there’s no incentive to be innovative & create newer, more effective treatments.
So the answer to your question: hell no.
Let’s see. The choice is low premiums or life.
I choose life
And yet routinely the US ranks behind many other countries that do have a universal heath care system.
The government should a PARTICIPANT in the economy, not a primary director.
Hell, no. Because single-payer is the ultimate government power grab.
Everything you do will become the government’s business.....it is simply not worth it.
The traitors in congress that voted for Obamacare exempted many organizations from it for a reason.
And yet a single payer system is good enough for our military men and women. I know quite a few retired vets and one of the biggest perks of retiring from the military is keeping their government healthcare. :shrug:
In a smaller country with a more homogenous population, maybe.
But in a multi-cultural country like the US, it would be a huge mess.
That's a different conversation about the role of lobbyists and the power they can wield over congressmen.
This is not proof that going to a government run, single payer system will improve innovation. It's simply evidence that, here in the US, we are already doing things to destroy innovation.
We don't really have free market forces driving our health care system. Government already runs 50% of our spending... and, new taxes are driving the medical device business elsewhere.
Do you really believe, that if we had a system here where people actually PAID for their own health care, that we wouldn't also be gravitating toward "faster, better, cheaper"??
What we have is, people sitting at home watching commercials for a FREE electric chair.. "Medicare will pay ALL the cost!".
That's a good article.. thanks for the link. But to me, it only highlites things we are doing wrong.
I believe, High Deductible Health Savings plans are our best path forward. They already HAVE bent the cost curve down. Incredibly so in my company. Apply something like this to Medicare??? And watch our health care costs come tumbling down.
Behind in what? By what measure? Comparing what to what?
Actually in a country as technologically advanced as ours it should be pretty easy to do. All that's lacking is the political will to do it.
Dave, I bet Pope Francis I would be for it. ;)
1.) There is no free lunch.
2.) Any idiot can “save money” by imposing price controls. I have at least one clear, ringing example of such an idiot.
3.) Only an idiot would even try it.
4.) Price controls inevitably damage both the supply and the quality of any commidity.
5.) Third party payments lead to insurmountable conflicts among the payer, the recipient and the supplier. Any “saved money” is more than consumed by increased transaction costs, which may or may not be directly monetarized. E.g., waiting lines for service.
6.) Single payer, by definition means a restriction on one’s freedom to make voluntary contracts. In Canada it is a crime to perform an MRI on someone outside of official channels. If a doctor goes off the network and sets up a private practice performing MRI’s not paid for by the “single payer” whom do you propose to arrest, the doctor, his patient, or both. And in keeping with the spirit of the War on Drugs, make sure and confiscate the landlord’s building as well. We cannot have “back alley MRIs”, can we?
7. ) I could go on all day.
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.