Socialized/Universal/Single Payer/Government Funded Health care....why?

HM2VikingRN, RN · Dec 27, 2007

have you used tricare for you and your family? when i was agr i used it. i thought it was a fine program.

there is absolutely nothing wrong with a large group system for health care. 25% of our health care dollars are going to profit and not patient care. i am just pragmatic. i want a health care system that is efficient and provides high quality care for all people not just those fortunate enough to have jobs with benefits.

poor access to care is inexcusable in the us. we have greater access problems than our peers in the english speaking countries.

we have problems with waiting that are in general worse than our peers:

we rank 6/6 on efficiency and overall quality:

spend far more for worse outcomes:

most of us view health insurance and access to health care as a shared responsibility:

we need to flatten the curve of health care inflation.

the real proposals are not true single payer systems rather they are a combination of approaches to assure that everyone is "in the system."

we can do health care better and cheaper:

my challenge has been and remains for anyone to demonstrate with research driven and academically supported data that a consumer driven health care system for the us could deliver equal health outcomes to those achieved by the uk, france, canada, nz or aus. the evidence says that the single payer systems do a better job.
paul krugman (in writing about the subprime mess) makes a point that i think applies equally to this discussion:
quote:
at a deep level, i believe that the problem was ideological: policy makers, committed to the view that the market is always right, simply ignored the warning signs.
source: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/.../edkrugman.php

source: https://allnurses.com/forums/f287/cheney-would-probably-dead-now-if-not-his-federally-funded-health-care-266468-2.html#post2537646

we already pay the highest health care taxes in the world see:

taxes already pay for more than 60 percent of us health spending

americans pay the highest health care taxes in the world. we pay for national health insurance, but don’t get it.

(woolhandler, et al. “paying for national health insurance — and not getting it,” health affairs 21(4); july / aug. 2002)

MBANurse · Dec 27, 2007

So the fact that a profit is made is what bothers you then?

What about the profits made by landlords, banks, grocery stores, farmers, car manufacturers, etc?

Should the government provide for that as well to eliminate profit and reduce the costs to Americans?

Freedom42 · Dec 27, 2007

yes... i know the bleeding hearts are going to start tugging the heart strings and say "oh the children... oh the elderly... oh humanity."
but why should we change our system from one of a private market and capitalism to one where the government grows; taxes increase and red tape abounds?]
i’ll spare you the bleeding heart chorus in favor of the bottom line: oh, the cash, the cash we would save if we simply expanded the socialized medicine that has already been in place in this country since 1965.
yes, since 1965. you do include medicare when you refer to socialized medicine, don’t you? because that’s what it is. of course, it doesn’t immediately come to mind when the subject of single-payer health care comes up. that’s probably because medicare’s got a relatively low profile compared to the big insurance companies that spend millions – millions from our premiums – to market themselves. just think: health care money actually spent on health care. is medicare perfect? no. but it works well, and i don’t hear any rallying cries to dismantle that socialized medicine program.
you say that you fail to understand that medical costs would drop under an expanded government health care system. as noted, private insurers shovel millions into marketing. then there are the administrative costs – the thousands of people employed simply to process the individual forms of hundreds of individual insurance companies. can you imagine the money that would be saved if we didn’t have to pay for all that marketing and paperwork? and how much money would we save if, as the times has reported, 20 cents of every health care dollar wasn’t going to pay for lobbyists?
we’d also save money if the system shifted its emphasis from prevention instead of high-tech interventions. who accesses care now? generally, according to you, only the people who “really need it.” the 47 million americans who lacked health coverage in 2005 – among them some 8 million children – might beg to differ. would it take longer to see a doctor? probably. what’s your contention? that 47 million people shouldn’t get health care because it would mean a longer wait for you? life, liberty and pursuit of happiness – as long as you can afford it?
this isn’t about government being, as you put it, “the biggest charity there is.” this is about overturning a system that is supposed to meet our most basic needs but fails to do so because it’s not profitable. you’re sick of paying for other people? i’m sick of paying for lobbyists, ceos, and dividends.
that brings us back to the bottom line: “how do you cut costs? first and biggest costs savings is getting rid of labor,” you write. “don't believe me? ask all the ford, gm, ibm, and mortgage employees that were let go when companies failed to meet the bottom line.” indeed, just two years ago gm said that health care alone added $1,500 to the cost of each and every one of its cars. that’s why gm’s ceo had a white house meeting to press for single-payer health care. toyota played it differently: it opted to build a plant in ontario instead of alabama, which offered tens of millions in incentives to lure those lucrative jobs there. why? because ontario already provided government health care for all of its citizens. the united states is behind all other major nations on this issue. don’t you think it’s time to level the playing field for american businesses?
princeton economist paul krugman has estimated that shifting to a single-payer system in the united states would save more than $300 million per year – and that’s if medicare were expanded to cover all of those who currently go without. frankly, i like the idea of paying less, and that’s as good an argument as any for supporting single-payer for all, not just those who are already covered by medicare.

MBANurse · Dec 27, 2007

I think I caught some of your points in there.

you stated the 8 million children without insurance....

tou talked about those that could afford it....

bottom line for me?

I provide for me and mine why can't the rest of the country do the same for themselves.

BBFRN, BSN, PhD · Dec 28, 2007

I provide for me and mine why can't the rest of the country do the same for themselves.

If you truly, truly feel this way, then why have insurance at all? Someone who has higher health care costs in your insurance pool is benefiting from your good health, because you may be paying more into your insurance than you're costing. You are already providing funding for someone whose cost is higher than yours by having insurance in the first place.

For someone who has MBA in their moniker, you do seem to come from a mostly emotional place when this topic is discussed.

MBANurse · Dec 28, 2007

If you truly, truly feel this way, then why have insurance at all? Someone who has higher health care costs in your insurance pool is benefiting from your good health, because you may be paying more into your insurance than you're costing. You are already providing funding for someone whose cost is higher than yours by having insurance in the first place.
For someone who has MBA in their moniker, you do seem to come from a mostly emotional place when this topic is discussed.

Be honest with yourself...

I could posts stats and links that would project costs and provide analysis and it would not matter one iota. There are individuals here merely think that there should not be haves and have nots. They want to redistribute the wealth of others so that we all "carry our fair share" of the burden.

To me; this is just one more thing that will foster the mentality that "I am entitlted" to all the needs and wants. That is simply not the case.

This is one more thing that will burden the middle class; take money away from me and my kids and allow someone who has not worked their tail off the way that I have to reap the same benefits.

Alot smarter people than I think this is a horrible idea. I agree with them.

Freedom42 · Dec 28, 2007

Be honest with yourself...
I could posts stats and links that would project costs and provide analysis and it would not matter one iota. There are individuals here merely think that there should not be haves and have nots. They want to redistribute the wealth of others so that we all "carry our fair share" of the burden.]
MBANurse, why don't you take your own challenge? Post some stats and links -- attributed to sources -- to bolster your argument. Give us something to think about.
This isn't necessarily about haves and have nots. Some of us would like to pay less for insurance coverage. That other people would gain coverage as our own costs go down is icing on the cake for many.
I am eager to hear your defense of the current system. But your contention that you don't want to be burdened with extra costs is a non sequitur. So is your contention that this would burden the middle class, since it's the middle class that's being priced out of the insurance markets.
Surely the folks you rely on to shape your opinion of single payer have come up with some arguments that you find compelling. What are they? Why should we continue to rely on for-profit businesses for health care?

HM2VikingRN, RN · Dec 28, 2007

my challenge has been and remains for anyone to demonstrate with research driven and academically supported data that a consumer driven health care system for the us could deliver equal health outcomes to those achieved by the uk, france, canada, nz or aus. the evidence says that the single payer systems do a better job.

this question continus to remain unanswered......

Simplepleasures · Dec 28, 2007

I found a website run by businessmen advocating for a single payer healthcare system, very interesting.

Business Coalition for Single Payer Healthcare

http://www.businesscoalition.net/index.htm

Freedom42 · Dec 28, 2007

Great site, Ingelein. Thanks for posting the link.

I do disagree with the coalition's contention that under a single-payer system, we will not see wait times for health care. I think increased waits for some treatments will be inevitable if 47 million people are added to the system.

That said, I look to my own sister's experience with wait times in Canada. When she was diagnosed with uterine cancer 10 years ago, there was no wait. Her treatment was immediate. She was also fortunate to be in a large city and could take advantage of an innovative operation that was then being performed by only three surgeons in the world.

Total out-of-pocket cost: Less than $50. Because she opted for a private room.

MBANurse · Dec 28, 2007

nationalized health insurance does not insure equal access to the health care system. elderly people in canada and the united kingdom report much more difficulty in obtaining health care than u.s. seniors. while new zealand's guidelines for treatment of end state renal failure imply that age should not be the sole factor in determining eligibility, they state that "in usual circumstances, people over 75 should not be accepted." to the terminal misfortune of that nation's elderly renal failure patients, new zealand has no private dialysis facilities.
removing the medical sector from the free enterprise system tends to reduce the overall quality of health care. study-upon-study has shown the quality of health care is typically higher in the u.s. than in any other nation, including those with nationalized health insurance. the united states has lower breast and prostate cancer mortality rates than new zealand, the united kingdom, germany, canada, france and australia.
germany, sweden and australia are now establishing free-market alternatives in an attempt to alleviate problems caused by their nationalized health care systems. indeed, these countries are learning that the best course for provision of quality health care is not more patient power rather than more government power.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/medicarehealthinsurance/i/nathealthins_2.htm

from a liberal website

http://liberalorder.typepad.com/the_liberal_order/2006/03/nationalized_he.html

nationalized health care?

one of the problems with the funding of health care in the u.s. is that the individuals who consume the health care usually are not directly paying for it. the third-party payer system means that i don't incur directly the cost of consuming health care. consequently, i consume more than i would have had i paid the marginal cost of each unit of health care i do consume.

people who advocate a nationalized health care system often tout the lower cost of medical care in countries with national health care systems relative to the u.s. but health care has to be rationed no matter how it is delivered.

larry white over at the division of labor has this [color=#7d7d65]interesting post about his own travails in the u.k., and a link to this [color=#7d7d65]article.

about 800 babies are born each year under 25 weeks. medical advances mean about 39% of those born at 24 weeks now survive, and 17% of those at 23 weeks. a normal-term baby is born at 40 weeks.

the cost of treating very premature babies is high. a neonatal intensive care bed costs about £1,000 a day and very premature babies can require intensive care for four months.

research to be presented at the royal college of paediatrics conference shows babies born at 25 weeks or under cost almost three times as much to educate by the time they reach the age of six as those born at full term-£9,500 a year compared with £3,900.

professor sir alan craft, president of the royal college of paediatrics, said: "many paediatricians would be in favour of adopting the dutch model of no active intervention for these very little babies. the vast majority of children born at this gestation who do survive have significant disabilities. there is a lifetime cost and that needs to be taken into the equation when society tries to decide whether it wants to intervene."

any change to a dutch model would be opposed by parents such as those of joey mccormick, born three weeks ago at 24 weeks' gestation. doctors say he has a 90% chance of living. his father daniel mccormick, a chef from norwich, said: "the doctors behind the proposals must regard joey as a number and an expense, but to us he is our little boy."

yes, economic decisions must be made by those bearing the costs and benefits of their consumption. when a third party pays, there is an overconsumption of health care. but when politicians and bureaucrats make the relevant decisions, are we really ready to accept the outcome?

one of the reasons we pay more for health in the u.s. is that advances in medical technology allow us to take on riskier problems, and with increasing success. the long run benefits are large. a nationalized health care system would largely end the innovation and technological advances in medical care. is this worth the promise of lower health care costs? it depends on whose making the decision.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34979.html

"

health expenditures in nationalized systems are kept lower chiefly by price controls and the frank rationing of services. in canada waiting lines for many medical procedures are legendary. last year, lawyers in quebec filed a class action suit on behalf of 10,000 breast cancer patients who contend they had to wait too long for radiotherapy. the story is the much the same for britain's national health service where more than 800,000 patients are waiting for nhs operations.

us life expectancy does lag britain's (77.7 versus 78.4 years), but britons are four times more likely to die than americans while undergoing major surgery. furthermore, the most seriously ill nhs patients were seven times more likely to die than their american counterparts."

http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=4707

"

in any case, we are confident that we would never see the cost savings these doctors predict. do they think the pentagon's single-payer system has kept down the costs of military hardware? the times notes, "the system envisioned . . . would be built on the foundation of the current medicare program." but the costs of medicare at the turn of the millennium were running about 700 percent above original estimates.

plans that lower prices of a good will logically prompt consumers to demand more of it. those of us who have been caught between insurance plans know that certain "indispensable" visits to the doctor or dentist can often wait until our coverage is restored and somebody else has to pay for them. but the pnhp attempts to deny basic economics: "co-payments and deductibles are . . . unnecessary for cost containment," its website states. "