Poll: Whos is in favor of a single payer Health Care System?

[ShokWaveRider]

There are purposely only 2 options Yes or No. Please make the assumption that the funding would be based Income Tax deductions (for All), and based on income levels, as in most other countries that adopt Single Payer.

Everyone would get the same level of coverage and have the ability to purchase upgrades such as private rooms etc. separately. Sort of like Medicare. If one wants to use a private medical institution they can do so at their cost. Using this system EVERYONE would be covered regardless of income and means for the basic coverage.

 

[pb4uski]

While this thread is likely to become bacon-bait, I'll weigh in while it lasts.

I would favor something in between, where all citizens are required to have health insurance (so those without are not a burden to society if they have an adverse heath event) and where the cost is scaled to income (like some not-for-profit medical clinics do - so it is affordable for all as well), but I would want to retain the freedom of choice, personal responsibility and competition of private health insurance. One could argue that I just described Obamacare (if they can get it to work).

 

[RunningBum]

Yes, but I wonder if it should only be for preventative measures and necessary procedures. There should be more cost-sharing for optional surgeries and treatments. Heart attack -- fully covered. The ACL reconstruction on my knee -- only partial coverage, or pay extra for a policy to cover these things fully. I could have skipped surgery, and one doc even recommended trying that first, but I chose the surgery because of my very active lifestyle. I wouldn't have wanted to wait a year for that surgery because people who really didn't need it figured they might as well get it done for free.

 

[unclemick]

Absolutely. Then I can up my ancient 84.6 life expectancy on my withdrawal calc. to 91. Heh heh of course I already did that. Then I can live as long as my ancestors(Finns and Swedes)? Or become happy as Dane?

Nah. I'd rather scream and yell while watching football. That durn Brady beating my Saints.



heh heh heh - well past 65 I'm in the bleachers eating popcorn on this one. Note - I went 12 years early in ER (age 50-62) without any health insurance.

So I don't recommend anybody listening to me.

 

[haha]

I think everyone should have whatever they want, whenever they want, from whomever they want, and the rich should pay for it, perhaps by a tax on single malt whisky or craft spirits. To inject an element of personal responsibility, I prefer that some small % of surgeries be randomly assigned to euthanasia rather than the scheduled operation.

Bread and circuses for all, and call girls for the emperors friends. 24-7 UFC matches beamed from satellites, and The View too.

Ha

 

[nvestysly]

While this thread is likely to become bacon-bait, I'll weigh in while it lasts.

I would favor something in between, where all citizens are required to have health insurance (so those without are not a burden to society if they have an adverse heath event) and where the cost is scaled to income (like some not-for-profit medical clinics do - so it is affordable for all as well), but I would want to retain the freedom of choice, personal responsibility and competition of private health insurance. One could argue that I just described Obamacare (if they can get it to work).

I definitely think somewhere in-between is the answer. There is at least one European country that provides a subsidy based on income (I think it's Switzerland but I'm not certain). For those that have low income much of their premium is covered by the subsidy. For higher incomes, the subsidy tapers off. Everyone buys their own insurance and nobody knows who receives the subsidy/voucher because it doesn't matter. I think this type of system could replace Medicaid and Medicare. Everyone buys insurance and depending on your income the taxpayers subsidize your premium or not. With this system you don't have to be pushed into one plan or another - you buy what you want, how much you want, etc. Seems like a great idea to me.

When PPACA was in its incubation stage I wrote to Representatives, Senators and the President but did they care? Apparently not, we ended up with PPACA and all its problems.

 

[NW-Bound]

Perhaps we have undue influence from our neighbor up north, who's closest to us.

However, if one looks at other countries with universal healthcare, which is what is really wanted, then he will see that France, Germany, Switzerland, and Japan are examples of systems that are not single-payer. The above are the better known ones, and there's more.

One needs to know that there are more than just a single way to solve a problem.

 

[NW-Bound]

Recently, I stumbled across the blog of a woman (now deceased) who lived in a country with a single-payer system. Her cancer had metastasized to her spinal column, causing a lot of pain.

She had to sit and wait for 2 hours (!!!) in a hospital, to wait for her blood drawn in preparation for her palliative chemo treatment. She asked the nurses if she could cut to the front of the line, due to her terminal illness. The answer is "NO!".

Where I am, for a blood test, I could walk to a clinic with doctor's order in hand, no appointment necessary, have my blood drawn and walk out of there in 15 min at the quickest, or a 30 min wait on Monday morning (people are fasting for the test hence everyone goes early).

My insurance company sent me copies of the bills, hence I know the costs for everything. A CBC blood test: $16 total. A more complete test typically ordered for an annual exam, plus a urine test: less than $70.

It was quicker than getting my tires changed at Costco, and costs less than anything an automechanic would charge me.

PS. The above woman lived in the capital city of a large major country with a single-payer system, not in a boondock in a remote corner of a continent. Needless to say, I will keep this country nameless, but will provide the link to her blog detailing the treatment she received if someone sends me a PM.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

Recently, I stumbled across the blog of a woman (now deceased) who lived in a country with a single-payer system. Her cancer had metastasized to her spinal column, causing a lot of pain.

The last time WHO did a study of health care by country, the U.S. was first in cost (by a wide margin) and 38th in quality.

A more recent study on the health of the population of 17 developed countries, all with some form of universal care except the U.S., the U.S. came in dead last -

New Health Rankings: Of 17 Nations, U.S. Is Dead Last - Grace Rubenstein - The Atlantic

 

[NW-Bound]

While I do not claim to be a healthcare expert, I think the high healthcare cost in the US is due to hospitalization costs, not the routine health care as I pointed out in the examples above. Additionally, the cost for end-of-life treatment is horrendous in the US, and it is going to go a lot higher. That's what needs to be addressed.

Regarding quality of service, I myself have no problems (and I have been using a lot of healthcare recently so can speak out of real experience), and other older family members like my parents and parents-in-law who are on Medicare do not have any complaints. Of course, the geezers in my family do not have to pay much out-of-pocket, so they do not have problems with costs. They often do not even know what something really costs, while I do mine because of my high deductible.

The above said, the quality of service may be lousy in some rural parts of the US. I just have the fortune to be in a metropolitan area with plenty of healthcare providers.

 

[haha]

The last time WHO did a study of health care by country, the U.S. was first in cost (by a wide margin) and 38th in quality.

A more recent study on the health of the population of 17 developed countries, all with some form of universal care except the U.S., the U.S. came in dead last -

New Health Rankings: Of 17 Nations, U.S. Is Dead Last - Grace Rubenstein - The Atlantic

None of these other countries has a population even remotely like the US. Look how many excess US deaths are caused by people killing other people. Most of these other countries have much better educated populations, more law abiding, more literate and enumerate. On a population wide basis, Americans are astoundingly stupid, ill educated, violent group. Also, the sheer size of our country means that some things are more likely to be lethal here than in much smaller, more densely populated countries.

Ha

 

[txtig]

I'm amazed that a majority of the members of this forum (or at least a majority of those who have voted so far) favor a single payer system. This group tilts very heavily towards a philosophy of self-responsibility, self-reliance and independent thinking. I can't reconcile how such a group would be willing to hand over responsibility for their health care to our federal government!!

 

[haha]

I'm amazed that a majority of the members of this forum (or at least a majority of those who have voted so far) favor a single payer system. This group tilts very heavily towards a philosophy of self-responsibility, self-reliance and independent thinking. I can't reconcile how such a group would be willing to hand over responsibility for their health care to our federal government!!

They think they can keep their taxable incomes low enough to get somebody else to pay for their care.

Ha

 

[daylatedollarshort]

I'm amazed that a majority of the members of this forum (or at least a majority of those who have voted so far) favor a single payer system. This group tilts very heavily towards a philosophy of self-responsibility, self-reliance and independent thinking. I can't reconcile how such a group would be willing to hand over responsibility for their health care to our federal government!!

The U.S. is one of the few developed countries without some form of universal, government involved health care system, and our health care costs are much higher than other countries with higher rated systems by a quite a wide margin.

I think many people here have had the opportunity to travel and see the way the rest of the world works.

 

[MuirWannabe]

Ok.

But this is really getting serious. Maybe not an issue for us men in the later stages of life. But what about my children?

Eating bacon lowers sperm quality, study shows | Fox News

 

[NW-Bound]

The U.S. is one of the few developed countries without some form of universal, government involved health care system, and our health care costs are much higher than other countries with higher rated systems by a quite a wide margin.

I think many people here have had the opportunity to travel and see the way the rest of the world works.

Again, universal health care is not synonymous with single-payer, and most people only know of the latter.

I have traveled to many developed Western countries. However, I know or learn nothing about their healthcare system in my travel. Most of what I learned was from watching documentaries and researching on the Web.

 

[explanade]

Assuming that single payer means there would be negotiated pricing done on a national scale, something that is prohibited for prescription drugs currently.

 

[Fishingmn]

Regarding quality of service, I myself have no problems (and I have been using a lot of healthcare recently so can speak out of real experience), and other older family members like my parents and parents-in-law who are on Medicare do not have any complaints. Of course, the geezers in my family do not have to pay much out-of-pocket, so they do not have problems with costs. They often do not even know what something really costs, while I do mine because of my high deductible.

Umm... Medicare is a form of a single payer system. It's the private payer system that is in question.

And while you've had good experiences my daughter went into a clinic for a splinter removal (5 minutes) and got an $840 bill (love the coding systems) so for every good story there are lots of bad ones too.

 

[Alan]

Perhaps we have undue influence from our neighbor up north, who's closest to us. However, if one looks at other countries with universal healthcare, which is what is really wanted, then he will see that France, Germany, Switzerland, and Japan are examples of systems that are not single-payer. The above are the better known ones, and there's more. One needs to know that there are more than just a single way to solve a problem.

Those countries are good examples but the government is in control of the prices, and health insurance companies have to be non-profit. I believe all countries with universal health care have very heavy government control, even if delivery of the services comes from the private sector.

 

[Fishingmn]

They think they can keep their taxable incomes low enough to get somebody else to pay for their care.

To me the real question is whether one believes there should be a right to healthcare.

If one believes that we should have all have personal freedom to make our own choices and live with the consequences that's fine but leaving 50 Million people to go to the emergency room as their only option isn't really healthcare.

 

[ShokWaveRider]

I'm amazed that a majority of the members of this forum (or at least a majority of those who have voted so far) favor a single payer system. This group tilts very heavily towards a philosophy of self-responsibility, self-reliance and independent thinking. I can't reconcile how such a group would be willing to hand over responsibility for their health care to our federal government!!

This is not true. I have been part of 2 similar systems Canada & UK. While not perfect, and I am not a great supporter of the British system, they are better than what we have currently in the USA. I have had Major surgery in both systems as well as the USA, and the care was just as good in each system. Other than having to share a room in The UK and Canada, there was no real difference that I could put my finger on.

The biggest improvement of the others over the system in the US is the noticeable lack of big brother (Insurance Company) making the health decisions as opposed to what Americans are so afraid of, and of course the total lack of paperwork, deductibles and copays. In the 2 above mentioned "Single Payer" systems, I noticed I always got SERVICE FIRST! Not "Can I see your insurance Card". I have experienced this FIRST hand. When I had to have a Pacemaker, I had to wait until approval was received from the insurance company before I was operated on.

I know you hear all sorts of stories to the latter, but PLEASE respect I talk from actual personal experience not here say.

Overall having experienced 3 medical systems I would vote for the Canadian system hands down. Please do not bring up waiting times or other negatives, I have had to wait just as long if not longer for "some" procedures in the US than Canada or the UK for that matter. Remember, None are perfect, some things will fall through the cracks. But "Death Panels" give me a break. Remember what an earlier poster wrote + my 2c: In a nutshell 80% of America are borderline illiterate, they (in part) are the ones fueling the notions like death panels and excessive waiting periods for everything, it simply is not true.

If one draws a line down the middle pros vs cons the "Single Payer system wins hand down. Again I am writing from personal and family experience not here say.

 

[NW-Bound]

Umm... Medicare is a form of a single payer system. It's the private payer system that is in question.

And while you've had good experiences my daughter went into a clinic for a splinter removal (5 minutes) and got an $840 bill (love the coding systems) so for every good story there are lots of bad ones too.

Nobody in his right mind would say that the US system does not need reform.

When I said I was happy with my healthcare, I was discussing the quality of care. I was also quite content with the low cost of routine care, as a couple of examples that I described.

Here's another one. Last year, I needed to have a cyst removed from my back. It was just a benign sebaceous cyst. The cost for an initial consultation, the minor surgery, then a follow up was $380. I thought that was quite reasonable to pay the dermatologist that, compared to what I just paid my mechanic to replace my auto A/C: $350 for labor.

Now, I have recently incurred heavy expenses for treatments at a hospital. I would be very unhappy if I did not already exceed my deductible of $10K/year, and my insurer did not bear the full brunt of it (I knew what they paid).

It's the hospitalization that is expensive. No one has done anything to see how it can be reduced.

 

[NW-Bound]

Those countries are good examples but the government is in control of the prices, and health insurance companies have to be non-profit. I believe all countries with universal health care have very heavy government control, even if delivery of the services comes from the private sector.

Fine.

But again, people are just so quick to say that single-payer is the only way to go!

 

[haha]

It's the hospitalization that is expensive. No one has done anything to see how it can be reduced.

You are certainly correct. Yet for some reason that I have never had explained, US hospitals are mostly on the verge of bankruptcy. Why is this?

Ha

 

[nun]

The US has two major health care problems; access and cost. It seems obvious that market forces have not kept costs down in the US as shown when you compare the cost of care and outcomes of the US with other developed countries.

Having grown up in the UK with NHS and then lived in the US for 27 years I far prefer the UK system because of the universal access and the lack of paperwork, worry and the need to pay when care is given. But it's an anomaly among world systems because it came about after the catharsis of WWII and the Labour Government had a mandate to implement socialist policies. Such a system, or even universal Medicare, will never be adopted in the US, but a system similar to the Japanese one might if the US can recognize the need for regulation before the vested interests cause the system to collapse under unsustainable expenses.