General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSingle-Payer National Health Insurance
Single-Payer National Health InsuranceSingle-payer national health insurance is a system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health financing, but delivery of care remains largely private.
Currently, the U.S. health care system is outrageously expensive, yet inadequate. Despite spending more than twice as much as the rest of the industrialized nations ($8,160 per capita), the United States performs poorly in comparison on major health indicators such as life expectancy, infant mortality and immunization rates. Moreover, the other advanced nations provide comprehensive coverage to their entire populations, while the U.S. leaves 51 million completely uninsured and millions more inadequately covered.
The reason we spend more and get less than the rest of the world is because we have a patchwork system of for-profit payers. Private insurers necessarily waste health dollars on things that have nothing to do with care: overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing departments as well as huge profits and exorbitant executive pay. Doctors and hospitals must maintain costly administrative staffs to deal with the bureaucracy. As a result, administration consumes one-third (31 percent) of Americans health dollars, most of which is waste.
Single-payer financing is the only way to recapture this wasted money. The potential savings on paperwork, more than $400 billion per year, are enough to provide comprehensive coverage to everyone without paying any more than we already do.
Under a single-payer system, all Americans would be covered for all medically necessary services, including: doctor, hospital, preventive, long-term care, mental health, reproductive health care, dental, vision, prescription drug and medical supply costs. Patients would regain free choice of doctor and hospital, and doctors would regain autonomy over patient care.
Physicians would be paid fee-for-service according to a negotiated formulary or receive salary from a hospital or nonprofit HMO / group practice. Hospitals would receive a global budget for operating expenses. Health facilities and expensive equipment purchases would be managed by regional health planning boards.
A single-payer system would be financed by eliminating private insurers and recapturing their administrative waste.
Modest new taxes would replace premiums and out-of-pocket payments currently paid by individuals and business. Costs would be controlled through negotiated fees, global budgeting and bulk purchasing.
The links below will lead you to more specific information on the details of single-payer:
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-resources
Matariki
(18,775 posts)And now.
msongs
(67,381 posts)Skittles
(153,138 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)Larry Ogg
(1,474 posts)Is touted by free market predators as being socialist, not to mention that it might kill the incentive of those whose only talent is that of a really good con-artist.
Unfortunately, it's this predatory thinking that has assimilated both political Parties, the sanctity of culture, and public institutions alike.
But then, why would it be any different, after all, the predator class pumps hundreds of billions of dollars into the campaign coffers of both political parties, just so they can convince hundreds of millions of people that they somehow have a choice in how their being screwed. And that all of this unbridled greed, and legalized corruption is anything but, and is somehow the best system the World has to offer.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)It absolutely needs to happen.
I hear the argument from some on this site that Obamacare is a step towards single payer, but in my opinion it's precisely the opposite, a bail-out for the private corporations that were so ravenous they were going to profit their way to extinction, so we gave them a guaranteed, expanded customer base.
I know there's some mechanism to allow states to petition to obtain a waiver so that they can pursue a single-payer program, or at least that's my understanding. Is it legitimate? Will waivers actually be granted so a state, such as Vermont, can pioneer this?
Thanks for the OP, we should be posting OP's about this every single day until we get it.
TexasTowelie
(112,070 posts)The most obvious point is that having healthy workers results in improved productivity.
I also want to point out all of the administrative expenses at individual companies. Think about what happens each year as the execs and HR shop for insurance plans. Most of the individuals involved with those decisions begin with only marginal knowledge to make those type of decisions and must be brought up to speed by those with more experience. Then there is that annual meeting with the employees to explain their new health plan options and inevitable questions that most people know, but there is always someone that is clueless. I dreaded those meetings because so many people would discuss personal situations and I really didn't want to know their business...
It adds up to a bunch of wasted time that could be used to address actual business instead.
MADem
(135,425 posts)For the thirty seventh frigging time. It's what they do instead of doing the business of We, The People.
We have as much chance of seeing single payer in the near term as we have to see a flying pig that sings God Bless America while farting out a beat to accompany the tune.
In sum--not gonna happen. It would be nice if this was on the table for discussion, at least, but it's not a viable option in the immediate outyears. It's just not.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)It simply keeps us locked in to exorbitant premiums for insurance that we can't, after the premium, afford to use. Because we're still not done paying deductibles and copays. The ACA NEEDS to go away, in favor of actual health CARE.
The reason why single payer is not on the table for discussion is that those who crafted the ACA didn't ALLOW it on the table. The DEMOCRATS didn't allow it.
But if the House doesn't want ACA, you think they'll want single payer? Use your noggin!!
They want poor people to hurry up and die, without any insurance. If they get sick, they want to take everything a person has, until they have nothing left and their family is left destitute.
They don't want taxes to go up for ANY reason--they don't want "modest" tax increases--they want major tax decreases.
They don't want to have to care for the least of their brothers.
The American people got the best deal they are gonna get, for now. And they almost didn't get that.
Pigs will fly before you see Single Payer so long as there's a preponderance of Republicans in Congress. So press on, but don't hold your breath or you will turn blue.
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)And they did nothing to try and advance the issue.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)Freddie
(9,258 posts)That's what happened in Canada; one of the provinces started a single payer system and it was so successful and popular it spread. Watch for Vermont in the next few years. If they can make it work and attract people and businesses (and $$) to the state, more states will consider it. The ACA gives states the flexibility to develop their own ways of expanding coverage; single payer is the most logical one so of course most states don't even have it on the radar. Give it time.
Response to ErikJ (Original post)
mother earth This message was self-deleted by its author.