Should the US adopt a single-payer health care system? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2024, 02:41:04 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Should the US adopt a single-payer health care system? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: ?
#1
Yes (D)
 
#2
Yes (R)
 
#3
Yes (I/O)
 
#4
No (D)
 
#5
No (R)
 
#6
No (I/O)
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 99

Author Topic: Should the US adopt a single-payer health care system?  (Read 6292 times)
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


« on: October 15, 2014, 01:46:35 PM »

No, but we already pay for it so I'm not going to complain if someone brings sanity to the current insane Medicare/Medicaid system by creating catastrophic single-payer without raising taxes. As long as we don't dive headfirst into some socialist boondoggle, like comprehensive single-payer insurance or nationalized healthcare assets, we'll be fine. I'd prefer not to mess with a public option, either, just reform the current tax-exemption rules, especially for plans with flat-rate copay.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


« Reply #1 on: October 29, 2014, 01:59:06 PM »

A public option and ACA-style markets with a mandate along with the repeal of tax benefits for company insurance would probably work better with less effort.

As awesome as the end result of single-payer would be, it would be a nightmare to implement.

We already have single-payer in the form of Medicare and Medicaid, but politicians in both parties restrict access so only 1/3 of the population receive the benefits. Republicans are terrified of the political implications derived from creating single-payer insurance for catastrophic medicine, though, it would be a huge boon to the economy. Democrats are terrified of the political fallout and ideological compromise associated with swapping pork-dispensaries for entitlements that actually work.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


« Reply #2 on: November 04, 2014, 07:25:25 PM »

I heard of such a scheme in the Atlantic but what would be catastrophic and when would end of life termination of care be determined or how?
I'm guessing that anything short of catastrophic care could then be taken care of in Walmart or Walgreens or something like that?

Non-catastrophic coverage would be provided by private insurers. The reason for the catastrophic/non-catastrophic distinction is that catastrophic care doesn't function as a marketplace.

I'm not sure of the exact services or end-of-life limitations because I'm not a government healthcare actuary, but we have about $200B in failed end-of-life services so we have a place to start making reforms.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


« Reply #3 on: November 18, 2014, 12:54:13 PM »


Nader is so lost I doubt he'll ever find his way back.

Corporate America is not behind the current healthcare system. In fact, an overwhelming majority of employers would prefer to get out of the healthcare industry completely, and focus on their core competence, which is not healthcare management.

We've created a trillion dollar entitlement industry that powers NGOs, like AARP. Furthermore, the industry is politically protected by both Republicans and Democrats. The former support Medicare/Medicaid because their voters abuse it, and the latter lend support because it's their political turf.

We can only dream of a day when corporate America turns on the government-funded healthcare industrial complex, and they force through reform or they make Medicare and Medicaid available to everyone, without raising taxes.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


« Reply #4 on: November 23, 2014, 03:58:55 PM »

The brief window of opportunity we had of having a single-payer system on par with the National Health Service in Great Britain was in the immediate post-war years.  We missed it.  And there is nothing to suggest that such a window will open again in the immediate future, not with the suspicious -almost paranoid- attitude of the American people toward their government (if you were a census worker or with the civil service, you'd know), which hasn't improved after six years of this administration.  

Considering how painful and difficult it was to pass Obamacare, not to mention its lingering unpopularity, introducing single-payer would meet an even worse reception from the American people, already suspicious of government overreach with Obamacare.  

Single-Payer is dead on arrival.  Count on it.  

Single-payer and nationalized healthcare are not similar concepts. I'm not particularly keen on single-payer health insurance, but we've never been closer to having it than now. Medicare and Medicaid didn't exist immediately following the post-war era so the government had no experience administering healthcare. Furthermore, the programs have been abused to such an extent that they cost as much as single payer.

We could have single-payer tomorrow but for all of the people who refuse to reform Medicaid and Medicare.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.031 seconds with 15 queries.