[HM2Viking]

Honest debate requires sourced data.

[CRNA2007]

http://www.reason.com/news/show/29339.html

http://www.healthcarecom.net/hhk1993.htm

http://archives2.sifma.org/savings07...Walker_Web.pdf

Game, set, match!

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

Honest debate requires sourced data.

[pickledpepperRN]

From page 19:

"The United States may be the only super power but compared to most other OECD Countries on selected key economic, social, and environmental indicators the United States ranks 16 out of 28."
These key indicators include education, quality of life, science & technology, and energy.

http://archives2.sifma.org/savings07...Walker_Web.pdf

Instead of studying what the 15 countries doing better than the U.S.A. are doing right our government is asking other questions entirely.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by Cosper123

Zashaglaka,

Is there any single payer system you could ever see any merit in? For example, what do you think of Germany's?

It really is only a matter of time before we have a single payer system of some sort. We are the only Western nation in the entire world who doesn't have some form of national care.

I take issue with your claim that the USA has the best health care in the world, considering...

Out of all the developed nations...we have the highest:
-Infant Mortality Rate
-Death rate of 1-to-4 year olds
-Death rate of 15-to-24 year olds

On the WHOs rankings of best health systems in the world...we are...37. That number is due largely to the fact that we don't have universal coverage, but that in and of itself is really an issue anyhow. What good is the best health care in the world if it only applies to the rich segment of the population?

Anyhow, is there any system in the world that you could see working here?

I think we DO have the best healthcare, in the world. At issue isn't the provision of care, but the financing of it. Even you admit this with your summation that the issue, for you, is single payor, a financing mechanism.

You believe that better financing will lead to better care and so, improve upon these statistics.

I agree.

The problem is that the financing disaster we have now, third party payor, is the result of the government. You seem to assume that I'm advocating the status quo while you're advocating improving the system. Nothing could be further from the truth!

I'm advocating improving the system. Since the chief problem with financing healthcare today is gov't interference in order to support employer sponsored insurance that takes away your decisions and places it in the hands of your employer and Uncle Daddy, I simply do not trust the gov't with yet another financing scheme of its creation.

The gov't IS THE PROBLEM with healthcare financing today. Single payor is only bringing that level of gov't incompetence and control over your healthcare full circle. He who pays the bills decides the care. Uncle Daddy simply doesn't trust YOU to take care of your own healthcare.

It's not a matter of whether single payor would be better than the current system. I don't think so. I think it's just more of the same. I think the result will be a fair share is reduced quality at longer waits. That IS the experience of single payor, world wide. The point is that the free market would be better than the current system. That's a no-brainer.

There is no CHOICE but to reduce service and increase waits under single payor. It's the law of supply and demand. Gov't can't legislate that away. When you create unlimited demand, by declaring a product 'free', then you must either create unlimited supply (an impossibility) or ration supply.

The free market is a much better choice for improving the system. We do NOT have a free market system in healthcare today. Today, we have a gov't financing scheme, third payor healthcare.

Going to first payor, free market care will restore balance and make healthcare available for almost everybody. At THAT point, we can pick up the difference and ensure care, for all. It will only be affordable to do so, however, when we are allowed to pay for our own care.

Here's how the market works: somebody wants to sell you something. They want to make a profit. In order to sell you something, you have to be willing and ABLE to pay for it. First payor will bring sanity because providers will only be able to charge what most people can actually PAY. This works. It works well.

We do have a choice. You advocate more of the same - gov't interference in your healthcare. I advocate a different path, a path PROVEN to provide the best combination of quality and cost - the free market.

Finally, let me suggest that 'everybody else is doing it' isn't such a great political argument in American politics. Americans like being mavericks. If everybody else was jumping off a cliff, would you? Then why would you create a defective healthcare product when the answer is much easier: get Washington out of your heathcare? They don't belong. The gov't NEVER had the right to step between you and your care. They certainly don't have the right to make your healthcare their monopoly.

The problem with single-payor is that those that make the rules in gov't don't consider themselves accountable to you. Why should they, when greater than 90% routinely win re-election? They are bought and paid for, and it isn't by you. Gov't monopolies, like any monopoly, simply do not have your best interests at heart. When gov't starts using single payor to ration out your healthcare, it will be to the highest campaign bidders. Think Halliburton, in charge of your care. THAT is what is being offered. No, thanks.

We've tried gov't financing schemes for healthcare for six decades now, and our current system is the result. It's time for a change.

~faith,
Timothy.

[HM2Viking]

2 sources were from 1993, the last from 2007. The comptrollers source could in fact be used as the single strongest argument of all for single payer.

The real issue remains that our health care is costing at least 20% more than it should. The drive for profit is resulting in an ever upward spiral in costs. The cost projections could be reduced by 20% by adopting medicare for all. Traditional medicare operates around 5% for administrative fees vs 31% for our non-system. In any event containing the administrative fee monster flattens the health care growth curve dramatically.

The FEHP keeps medical inflation for its beneficiaries in the single digits simply because of the power of the large groups being able to negotiate better prices and services for its beneficiaries.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

2 sources were from 1993, the last from 2007. The comptrollers source could in fact be used as the single strongest argument of all for single payer.

The real issue reamains that our health care is costing at least 25% more than it should. The drive for profit is resulting in an ever upward spiral in costs. The cost projections could be reduced by 25% by adopting medicare for all. Traditional medicare operates around 5% for administrative fees vs 31% for our non-system. In any event containing the administrative fee monster flattens the health care growth curve dramatically.

The FEHP keeps medical inflation for its beneficiaries in the single digits simply because of the power of the large groups being able to negotiate better prices and services for its beneficiaries.

Our healthcare costs are FAR more than 25% more than they should be. In a free market, they would be far less as competition lead the the best combination of quality vs. cost.

Our healthcare costs are probably greater than 100% more than they should be, thanks to a gov't financing scheme that placed it in bed with your employers to squeeze you out.

So, the solution? Single payor. See, the gov't hasn't squeezed you out enough and now wants a complete monopoly on your care.

And just how will the concept of 'free' care affect costs? Why it's free, use as much as you want. The real world doesn't work that way. In the real world, under single payor, you really wouldn't use the EDs except in extreme emergencies. Who'd want to wait 3 days to be seen, otherwise.

Dollars do ration care. Yes, they do. However, they do so much more effectively than gov't created shortages. I'd much rather pay a little more for gas and drive right up to the pump than have the gov't ration it and be 'odd or even'. Same is true with healthcare, although the gov't's third party payor scheme has so bloated healthcare, that true free markets would bring prices spiraling downward.

We've tried gov't financing schemes for healthcare for six decades now. The current system is the result. It's time for a change. The gov't has proven itself an abject failure when it comes to healthcare financing schemes. It's time to go back to a proven system, the free market. If you want to bring sanity back to healthcare, the way to do so is to tell Washington to keeps its grubby hands off.

~faith,
Timothy.

[HM2Viking]

Another nugget of wisdom:
A major factor in our sky-high health costs is that Americans simply pay more per unit of health care than any other nation. We're getting gouged, and it has to stop. For that to happen, a new system must bring Americans into the same pool, so the government can use its massive market share to bargain down prices and advocate for their interests -- just like every other nation does.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=cost_counts

[pickledpepperRN]

This time, it’s the LA Times poll.

Let’s head straight to the numbers. The poll offered 4 healthcare proposals to 1,209 adults nationally. Here’s how they came up:
Do you agree or disagree with the following proposals:

1. Require large companies that do not offer health insurance to pay a tax to cover the costs of insuring Americans who cannot afford to pay for their own: 62% agree, 31% disagree. ("pay or play")

2. Create a government-run, government-financed health insurance program that would cover all Americans: 53% agree, 36% disagree. ("single-payer")

3. All Americans should be required to buy health insurance. Insurance companies should be required to cover everyone, with government subsidies for those who cannot afford it on their own: 51% agree, 39% disagree. ("indiviudal mandate")

4. Give Americans a tax credit that will help make health insurance more affordable, while keeping the current system the same as it is now: 44% agree, 45% disagree. ("market-based approach")

Where does this leave us? Well first of all, the so-called market-based solution is not a legitimate choice in the eyes of the American people. We have market-based healthcare, and it is a public health nightmare, sickening and killing our population.

That leaves broad, majority support for three options: individual mandates, “pay or play” systems, or single-payer healthcare…this despite the fact that there has been a steady drumbeat of media support for individual mandate plans proposed by politicians from Mitt Romney to John Edwards to Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Interestingly, the wording of the question for individual mandates is mis-leading. It stresses the regulation of insurance companies, and the expansion of public subsidies for lower-income people.

The Massachusetts experience with this system has both shown how resistant to reforms these powerful insurance companies are to regulation, and the problem of defining for patients what they can afford. Can a middle-class family making, say, $50,000 a year afford $8,000 to $10,000 per year for premiums before they pay co-pays, deductibles, and out-of-pocket expenses? Probably not, and as word gets out about the Massachusetts mess, support will likely drop.

So that leaves a “pay or play” system or single-payer as two popular options for healthcare reform and that’s where the debate should center. Shall we save our private insurance industry, build out public health, and encourage businesses to remain worried about providing healthcare--or scrap the system and build a national, non-profit, universal risk pool to offer insurance to everybody.

You’d never know it, of course, by the poll write-up the Times offered. Here’s their take on these results:
Democratic ideas for fixing the healthcare system to cover the uninsured enjoy more support among Americans than proposals coming from Republicans, a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll shows….

Sixty-two percent said they supported requiring large employers to help pay for coverage whereas 31% opposed it. And 51% said they favored a mandate that individuals purchase health insurance, much as drivers are required to carry auto coverage; 39% disagreed.

Tax breaks to make insurance more affordable -- a leading Republican idea -- more closely divided the public, with 44% backing that approach and 45% opposing it.

Any mention of the public’s endorsement of guaranteed, single-payer options was relegated to the last paragraphs of the article, which read:
The survey found that 53% supported the idea of extending Medicare to cover all Americans, creating a government-run system; and 36% opposed it.

But Blendon, the Harvard expert, said that finding was suspect because the poll question did not make clear that such a system would be financed by taxes.

Um, if that’s what Harvard says, maybe the reporters should have called Stanford or Yale? Everybody knows how Medicare is financed, and people like it.
The story remains that the public is far ahead of the politicians on healthcare reform. Perhaps because we’re not on the payroll of the insurance companies?

http://www.guaranteedhealthcare.org/...t-single-payer

The Times article: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...,1531547.story

[HM2Viking]

Here is another point of view that supports how single payer will advance the economy:

The trick would be exempting certain conditions and treatments from the cost-sharing. For instance, it's cost-effective and medically important to encourage adherence to statin regimens (cholesterol-lowering drugs), and the evidence shows that co-pays compel some to stop taking the medication. So statins shouldn't be subject to cost-sharing. Indeed, the French system provides a useful model here, as it erases cost-sharing for various chronic conditions (like diabetes) and cost-effective medications (like hypertension treatments) where it's cheaper and more healthful to encourage health care use. In order to do that, you need an integrated system capable of setting system-wide priorities. As Furman, in fact, says, in a surprising admission for an economist associated with the centrist Hamilton Project, "The simplest and cleanest way to implement income-related cost sharing would be as part of a far-reaching fundamental health reform. For instance, a single-payer system could easily incorporate [it]." Such a system would not only save money, it would likely improve outcomes as well. And there'd be nothing catastrophic about that success.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=cost_counts

The point is that with single payer patients have true choice of providers. If the providers offer high quality services the patients will vote with their feet. It is just that simple. Businesses will compete on a level playing field because their competitors are all paying into the health insurance pool on an equitable basis. Single payer is a true pro-growth strategy for the economy.

Cost sharing is rational only when it contains unneeded health care consumption. It is irrational to use cost sharing for medications designed to control chronic illnesses. The french have it right when they cover treatments for HTN, DM etc without copays. Exacerbations of chronic illness are horribly expensive which in effect drives up the costs of health care.

[HM2Viking]

Educational attainment improve for kids enrolled in SCHIP:

http://www.cbpp.org/images/index-infocus-schip.jpg