I think I figured out your philosophy...you are worried about hospitals getting their money, you are worried about Doctors getting their money, you are worried about insurance companies getting their money, and you are worried about Pharma getting their money.
The only people that you are not concerned about is the consumer - take what you can get and like it!!
Peace
I am using sarcasm to make an example of what people out there sound like. Of course I think there are possibilities in the middle....and I've mentioned them many times. A two-tiered system could have the potential of working wonderfully...but the minute I mention a two-tiered system with subsidies for those who slip through the cracks...oh no...that would be
unfair to anyone who wouldn't be able to afford something better than they might get through the public system! "Healthcare is an entitlement", and whatever kind of care the richest people are willing and able to pay for is the same kind of care that everybody should get - therefore, the rich people need to make sure that whatever they are willing to pay for, they also need to subsidize the same kind of care for the poor people.
I think I've figured out your philosophy. The consumer should never have to pay for their healthcare at the time of service, because healthcare is an entitlement, and if the consumer has no money, well, the doctor is
obligated to give charity! We should have no concern or fear that shortages could develop in a single-payor system, because the comapssionate gov't will always make sure that there is plenty of money to go around, and even if the economy does not allow for enough money to go around, we all know that doctors are
all compassionate and charitable human beings who would continue to work, even if their pay doesn't justify the training and hours they have to put in....moreover, we all know that those young and talented potential doctors will surely
not even think about potential salaries vs workload when considering the careers they choose. They are only going to be in it for the charity, and they will WANT to become doctors if only to be assured that noone has to wait for service in our country.
C'mon - I am simply a realist. I have a heart AND a brain. I want the most amount of people to get care, especially when it comes to critical illness.
This is a stupid example, but I think it will get my point across. Let's say I wanted to sell sandwitches to raise money for a charitable event (a health fair). I could charge $5 for each sandwitch, or I could charge $100 for each sandwitch. The liberal would say..."obviously, I could raise the most amount of money if I just charged $100 for each sandwich; people will buy them anyway, because they are compassionate, and after all, this is a charity." The conservative would say "Noone would buy my sandwitches for $100....I could sell a lot more of them for $5 each, and raise a lot more money for my charity."
Liberals think if we run out of money for healthcare, we can just keep taxing the evil rich until they have no more money than the average poor person. They have no concept that rich people might not be willing to be taxed that much, and that rich people might voluntarily reduce their salaries to avoid taxes. At some point, money could run short and shortages could develop....especially in a country where everyone expects the best. Thinking about negative side affects in a single-payor system is realism and should be taken into consideration.