Consensus emerging on universal healthcare - but single payer is off the table

[HAL 9000 96]

Since when have liberals cared about not costing the taxpayer further taxes?

so the current wars don't cost the taxpayer anything? that was all a liberal idea, right?

National Defense is a separate issue. The best health care system in the world is useless for the dead.

PS You must have missed the news story about a possible large scale attack on US soil in the next few years.

i never said that it wasn't a separate issue.

best healthcare system in the world? one that 45 million can't afford? yes, that's fantastic.

I wasn't being funny. That's really how I feel.

wow... a lot of things are running through my mind but unlike you i have the sense to keep them to myself.

Ironic considering half your posts in this thread sound like they are coming from a 18 year old.

...

please keep the insults coming.

Assuming the Treasury funds the majority of social and national defense projects, I'd say that where money is spent clearly IS a very interrelated issue that wasn't immune to false dissociation.

[Heracles 417]

The argument seems to meander from cost to quality of care....but on both fronts, the statistics weigh in favor of a single payer system.

The World Health Organization ranks the quality of care in the U.S. at 37.

They are factoring in affordability.

[Amby 490]

Why buy a luxury car when you can buy an economy car? The mindset of many who have a lot of disposable income is to spend the money to have the best.

Because healthcare is not a car?

The main purpose of a car is to go from A to B; even the crappiest car can do that.

There is, however, a world of difference between a good doctor and a crappy one.

[HAL 9000 96]

We get into this circular argument over the cost of a single payer system over and over. It's really simple math. If the current cost per American for health care is higher than any of the industrialized nations who have national healthcare and we can provide universal coverage for all Americans at a significantly lower cost, then I don't understand the fuss. Whether your paycheck is being deducted for insurance premiums or for a special tax that pays for a single payer system, all the data shows is that it will be less money out of our pockets.

Presumably all those "socialist" countries have less corrupt/inept government than the US does.

I don't believe that either

Well maybe their healthcare systems are #######? I'd take my PPO plan over the NHS any day.

Anyone who thinks UHC will cost less is on crack. NHS is simply not an option for the US as it would require a complete overhaul of the medical system. Probably costs trillions to setup. UHC is the only option and will come at a cost. IE Increased taxes for individual taxpayers. What Fancy Pants fails to realize is that in countries like Aus we the taxpayer foot the bill by paying up to 3% in extra an Medicare levy on income taxes.

And yet Australians are somehow doing worse than Americans?

I do agree with you though- a complete overhaul of the cost to provider structure has to be done- likely at a price tag far less than the trillions you assume it to cost. Furthermore, the initial costs tend to be diluted out over time as less future (and significantly greater than the initial investments) expenditure is needed to tweak the system if we base healthcare as a reactive pay-as-you-go arrangement.

The argument seems to meander from cost to quality of care....but on both fronts, the statistics weigh in favor of a single payer system.

The World Health Organization ranks the quality of care in the U.S. at 37.

They are factoring in affordability.

If they are then it says quite a lot about cost right there.

[Amby 490]

If there's universal healthcare, we should exclude everyone over 70. We should decide, as a nation, that people over 70 aren't worth saving.

Or at least that poor people over 70 aren't worth saving.

Those who have accomplished something and have a nice retirement account can pay for it themselves.

I agree. If there's anything more pathetic than a poor person, it's an old poor person.

Note to self: Deny saying this when you're poor.

Poor people in general piss me off. I don't mind the ones that are trying to make their life better but the ones who just think they are entitled to all of this free sh*t really piss me off. They deserve to die miserable and poor without free healthcare.

What about rich people who act like they are entitled to free stuff? I don't even know if what you wrote was supposed to be sarcastic or not, so I'll just hold my tongue about the rest. I don't like saying outrageous insensitive things.

Please elaborate.

[rocks 494]

Since when have liberals cared about not costing the taxpayer further taxes?

so the current wars don't cost the taxpayer anything? that was all a liberal idea, right?

National Defense is a separate issue. The best health care system in the world is useless for the dead.

PS You must have missed the news story about a possible large scale attack on US soil in the next few years.

i never said that it wasn't a separate issue.

best healthcare system in the world? one that 45 million can't afford? yes, that's fantastic.

I wasn't being funny. That's really how I feel.

wow... a lot of things are running through my mind but unlike you i have the sense to keep them to myself.

Ironic considering half your posts in this thread sound like they are coming from a 18 year old.

...

please keep the insults coming.

Assuming the Treasury funds the majority of social and national defense projects, I'd say that where money is spent clearly IS a very interrelated issue that wasn't immune to false dissociation.

indeed. aficionado obviously gets a kick out of insulting people to feel superior.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

1. Myth One: The United States has the best health care system in the world.

• Fact One:
  The United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990
• Fact Two:
  The United States ranks 20th in life expectancy for women down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960
• Fact Three:
  The United States ranks 21st in life expectancy for men down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960.
• Fact Four:
  The United States ranks between 50th and 100th in immunizations depending on the immunization. Overall US is 67th, right behind Botswana
• Fact Five:
  Outcome studies on a variety of diseases, such as coronary artery disease, and renal failure show the United States to rank below Canada and a wide variety of industrialized nations.
• Conclusion:
  The United States ranks poorly relative to other industrialized nations in health care despite having the best trained health care providers and the best medical infrastructure of any industrialized nation

1. Myth Two: Universal Health Care Would Be Too Expensive

• Fact One:
  The United States spends at least 40% more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country with universal health care
• Fact Two:
  Federal studies by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting office show that single payer universal health care would save 100 to 200 Billion dollars per year despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits.
• Fact Three:
  State studies by Massachusetts and Connecticut have shown that single payer universal health care would save 1 to 2 Billion dollars per year from the total medical expenses in those states despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits
• Fact Four:
  The costs of health care in Canada as a % of GNP, which were identical to the United States when Canada changed to a single payer, universal health care system in 1971, have increased at a rate much lower than the United States, despite the US economy being much stronger than Canada’s.
• Conclusion:
  Single payer universal health care costs would be lower than the current US system due to lower administrative costs. The United States spends 50 to 100% more on administration than single payer systems. By lowering these administrative costs the United States would have the ability to provide universal health care, without managed care, increase benefits and still save money

1. Myth Three: Universal Health Care Would Deprive Citizens of Needed Services

• Fact One:
  Studies reveal that citizens in universal health care systems have more doctor visits and more hospital days than in the US
• Fact Two:
  Around 30% of Americans have problem accessing health care due to payment problems or access to care, far more than any other industrialized country. About 17% of our population is without health insurance. About 75% of ill uninsured people have trouble accessing/paying for health care.
• Fact Three:
  Comparisons of Difficulties Accessing Care Are Shown To Be Greater In The US Than Canada (see graph)
• Fact Four:
  Access to health care is directly related to income and race in the United States. As a result the poor and minorities have poorer health than the wealthy and the whites.
• Fact Five:
  There would be no lines under a universal health care system in the United States because we have about a 30% oversupply of medical equipment and surgeons, whereas demand would increase about 15%
• Conclusion:
  The US denies access to health care based on the ability to pay. Under a universal health care system all would access care. There would be no lines as in other industrialized countries due to the oversupply in our providers and infrastructure, and the willingness/ability of the United States to spend more on health care than other industrialized nations.

1. Myth Four: Universal Health Care Would Result In Government Control And Intrusion Into Health Care Resulting In Loss Of Freedom Of Choice

• Fact One:
  There would be free choice of health care providers under a single payer universal health care system, unlike our current managed care system in which people are forced to see providers on the insurer’s panel to obtain medical benefits
• Fact Two:
  There would be no management of care under a single payer, universal health care system unlike the current managed care system which mandates insurer preapproval for services thus undercutting patient confidentiality and taking health care decisions away from the health care provider and consumer
• Fact Three:
  Although health care providers fees would be set as they are currently in 90% of cases, providers would have a means of negotiating fees unlike the current managed care system in which they are set in corporate board rooms with profits, not patient care, in mind
• Fact Four:
  Taxes, fees and benefits would be decided by the insurer which would be under the control of a diverse board representing consumers, providers, business and government. It would not be a government controlled system, although the government would have to approve the taxes. The system would be run by a public trust, not the government.
• Conclusion:
  Single payer, universal health care administered by a state public health system would be much more democratic and much less intrusive than our current system. Consumers and providers would have a voice in determining benefits, rates and taxes. Problems with free choice, confidentiality and medical decision making would be resolved

1. Myth Five: Universal Health Care Is Socialized Medicine And Would Be Unacceptable To The Public

• Fact One:
  Single payer universal health care is not socialized medicine. It is health care payment system, not a health care delivery system. Health care providers would be in fee for service practice, and would not be employees of the government, which would be socialized medicine. Single payer health care is not socialized medicine, any more than the public funding of education is socialized education, or the public funding of the defense industry is socialized defense.
• Fact Two:
  Repeated national and state polls have shown that between 60 and 75% of Americans would like a universal health care system (see The Harris Poll #78, October 20, 2005)
• Conclusion:
  Single payer, universal health care is not socialized medicine and would be preferred by the majority of the citizens of this country

1. Myth Six: The Problems With The US Health Care System Are Being Solved and Are Best Solved By Private Corporate Managed Care Medicine because they are the most efficient

• Fact One:
  Private for profit corporation are the lease efficient deliverer of health care. They spend between 20 and 30% of premiums on administration and profits. The public sector is the most efficient. Medicare spends 3% on administration.
• Fact Two:
  The same procedure in the same hospital the year after conversion from not-for profit to for-profit costs in between 20 to 35% more
• Fact Three:
  Health care costs in the United States grew more in the United States under managed care in 1990 to 1996 than any other industrialized nation with single payer universal health care
• Fact Four:
  The quality of health care in the US has deteriorated under managed care. Access problems have increased. The number of uninsured has dramatically increased (increase of 10 million to 43.4 million from 1989 to 1996, increase of 2.4% from 1989 to 1996- 16% in 1996 and increasing each year).
• Fact Five:
  The level of satisfaction with the US health care system is the lowest of any industrialized nation.
• Fact Six:
  80% of citizens and 71% of doctors believe that managed care has caused quality of care to be compromised
• Conclusion:
  For profit, managed care can not solve the US health care problems because health care is not a commodity that people shop for, and quality of care must always be compromised when the motivating factor for corporations is to save money through denial of care and decreasing provider costs. In addition managed care has introduced problems of patient confidentiality and disrupted the continuity of care through having limited provider networks.

1. Overall Answer to the questions Why doesn’t the US have single payer universal health care when single payer universal health care is the most efficient, most democratic and most equitable means to deliver health care? Why does the United States remain wedded to an inefficient, autocratic and immoral system that makes health care accessible to the wealthy and not the poor when a vast majority of citizens want it to be a right of citizenship?

http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm

[Heracles 417]

Anyone who thinks UHC will cost less is on crack. NHS is simply not an option for the US as it would require a complete overhaul of the medical system. Probably costs trillions to setup. UHC is the only option and will come at a cost. IE Increased taxes for individual taxpayers. What Fancy Pants fails to realize is that in countries like Aus we the taxpayer foot the bill by paying up to 3% in extra an Medicare levy on income taxes.

And yet Australians are somehow doing worse than Americans?

I do agree with you though- a complete overhaul of the cost to provider structure has to be done- likely at a price tag far less than the trillions you assume it to cost. Furthermore, the initial costs tend to be diluted out over time as less future (and significantly greater than the initial investments) expenditure is needed to tweak the system if we base healthcare as a reactive pay-as-you-go arrangement.

The question is does the W.H.O. quality of health care list actually equate to quality of life. No.

Anyone who thinks UHC will be a walk in the park and be cheaper is delusional. You guys have some of the best doctors in the world. These doctors would have to take a dramatic pay cut for NHS to work. NHS is simply not an option in America without changing the entire country. From the system of government to the way tax is collected. UHC with reasonable regulation is the only viable solution for the US. Consequently tax payers will still need to pay a separate UHC tax levy to cover this. There is no other way.

Edited December 2, 2008 by Aficionado

[Heracles 417]

indeed. aficionado obviously gets a kick out of insulting people to feel superior.

I am not insulting you at all. But only people who don't know what they are talking about bring up the war and say this would have funded health care.

[rocks 494]

Anyone who thinks UHC will cost less is on crack. NHS is simply not an option for the US as it would require a complete overhaul of the medical system. Probably costs trillions to setup. UHC is the only option and will come at a cost. IE Increased taxes for individual taxpayers. What Fancy Pants fails to realize is that in countries like Aus we the taxpayer foot the bill by paying up to 3% in extra an Medicare levy on income taxes.

And yet Australians are somehow doing worse than Americans?

I do agree with you though- a complete overhaul of the cost to provider structure has to be done- likely at a price tag far less than the trillions you assume it to cost. Furthermore, the initial costs tend to be diluted out over time as less future (and significantly greater than the initial investments) expenditure is needed to tweak the system if we base healthcare as a reactive pay-as-you-go arrangement.

The question is does the W.H.O. quality of health care list actually equate to quality of life. No.

Anyone who thinks UHC will be a walk in the park and be cheaper is delusional. You guys have some of the best doctors in the world. These doctors would have to take a dramatic pay cut for NHS to work. NHS is simply not an option in America without changing the entire country. From the system of government to the way tax is collected. UHC with reasonable regulation is the only viable solution for the US. Consequently tax payers will still need to pay a separate UHC tax levy to cover this. There is no other way.

nhs doctors can also work privately if they wish?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why buy a luxury car when you can buy an economy car? The mindset of many who have a lot of disposable income is to spend the money to have the best.

Because healthcare is not a car?

The main purpose of a car is to go from A to B; even the crappiest car can do that.

There is, however, a world of difference between a good doctor and a crappy one.

Slightly O/T but its perhaps not a coincidence that some of the highest quality cars are not only the most expensive, but also the most inefficient

Anyone who thinks UHC will cost less is on crack. NHS is simply not an option for the US as it would require a complete overhaul of the medical system. Probably costs trillions to setup. UHC is the only option and will come at a cost. IE Increased taxes for individual taxpayers. What Fancy Pants fails to realize is that in countries like Aus we the taxpayer foot the bill by paying up to 3% in extra an Medicare levy on income taxes.

And yet Australians are somehow doing worse than Americans?

I do agree with you though- a complete overhaul of the cost to provider structure has to be done- likely at a price tag far less than the trillions you assume it to cost. Furthermore, the initial costs tend to be diluted out over time as less future (and significantly greater than the initial investments) expenditure is needed to tweak the system if we base healthcare as a reactive pay-as-you-go arrangement.

The question is does the W.H.O. quality of health care list actually equate to quality of life. No.

Anyone who thinks UHC will be a walk in the park and be cheaper is delusional. You guys have some of the best doctors in the world. These doctors would have to take a dramatic pay cut for NHS to work. NHS is simply not an option in America without changing the entire country. From the system of government to the way tax is collected. UHC with reasonable regulation is the only viable solution for the US. Consequently tax payers will still need to pay a separate UHC tax levy to cover this. There is no other way.

nhs doctors can also work privately if they wish?

Dentists do...

indeed. aficionado obviously gets a kick out of insulting people to feel superior.

I am not insulting you at all. But only people who don't know what they are talking about bring up the war and say this would have funded health care.

Why not - couldn't we simply have borrowed the same money and spent it in a different area?

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

private health insurance is a benefit at almost every company I worked for in the UK - at my last job there the premium was paid by my employer.

[Heracles 417]

http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm

The other nations like Canada tend to have NHS which is different to the UHC (UHS). NHS means the government runs and owns the majority of the hospitals etc. That is simply no longer an option in the US. It would cost trillions to buy that stuff.

Using your car example, the united states health care system is the equivalent of a BWM. It is one of the best in the world but obviously not affordable to all. The solution is not to buy all the BMWs and then turn them into 1998 Chrysler Neons, for all to have. As the end result would be that everyone ends up with a #### and dangerous car.

Edited December 2, 2008 by Aficionado

[rocks 494]

nhs doctors can also work privately if they wish?

Dentists do...

exactly.

[rocks 494]

indeed. aficionado obviously gets a kick out of insulting people to feel superior.

I am not insulting you at all. But only people who don't know what they are talking about bring up the war and say this would have funded health care.

umm? yes, you were trying to insult me. perhaps you should read the tos and be more careful of what you say to people.

i brought up the war because of this comment. perhaps if you read the thread first you might not go around being needlessly rude to people.

Since when have liberals cared about not costing the taxpayer further taxes?