single payer system

[dilbert firestorm]

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politi...stem-explained

they have an interesting set up. some good ideas there.

I don't think this will work for USA.

california is setting up a single payer system. lets see how this plays out.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-p...426-story.html

reasons why single payer won't work, but it discusses the voluntary "public option".
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/04...-single-payer/

[WTF]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politi...stem-explained

they have an interesting set up. some good ideas there.

I don't think this will work for USA.

california is setting up a single payer system. lets see how this plays out.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-p...426-story.html

reasons why single payer won't work, but it discusses the voluntary "public option".
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/04...-single-payer/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-single-payer/

Here is another good read on the problem with our health care system.


.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by WTF

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-single-payer/

Here is another good read on the problem with our health care system.
.

article has good points.

the articles says that both the insurance companies & govts ability to set prices is weak which leads to high prices.

I notice that one solution was to let the insurance companies band together as one. problem with that as this leads to a cartel like situation or viewed as price fixing.

[Luke_Wyatt]

Good article by the OP and good comments so far- hopefully this topic can continue without someone calling names.
To the OP- do you have any idea how the state of Massachusetts is doing with their healthcare- if you remember governor Romney was one of the first to introduce a govt paid insurance which Obamacare was suppose to "mirror"?

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by Luke_Wyatt

Good article by the OP and good comments so far- hopefully this topic can continue without someone calling names.
To the OP- do you have any idea how the state of Massachusetts is doing with their healthcare- if you remember governor Romney was one of the first to introduce a govt paid insurance which Obamacare was suppose to "mirror"?

they abandoned romenycare and switched to o-care.

dont know. this is where you start hunting for articles and post a link here.

[dilbert firestorm]

so far so good, no sign of ugly face.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politi...stem-explained

they have an interesting set up. some good ideas there.

I don't think this will work for USA.

california is setting up a single payer system. lets see how this plays out.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-p...426-story.html

reasons why single payer won't work, but it discusses the voluntary "public option".
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/04...-single-payer/

Single payer would be great at keeping down prices, and bad at incentivizing health care innovation and convenience. Your best doctor would leave as soon as they could, though it might take years to destroy the current system. Think of the VA - that is single payer, how is that working out for you?

Notwithstanding all that, lots of poor people get free health care, anyway.

[LexusLover]

California can't change to a "single payer" system, since their greatest burden is the existing health care system they have for retirees, which contracted for their health care when they became employees and retired.

[Luke_Wyatt]

Ok here's the obvious question that no one has asked yet - many of you are giving good pros and cons but please tell me how are Canada and Europe able to operate heir health care system in a much better way than the U.S?
Yes I know they overall pay for it in taxes, but if you look at the money we spend on healthcare vs the results - the United States healthcare is not the best in the world not even close. We are basically not getting the bang for the buck so to speak.

[WTF]

We have universal care... we just do not have efficient universal care. Reagan signed into law that hospitals could not turn away patients. This has put a huge burden on local hospitals. That is why they do not want the current law repealed...they like it improved.

[Jackie S]

Those Government Mandates that power Singapore's system work great when you have what amounts to a totalitarian Government.

Sure, talk about how Singapore is a "Democracy". They have elections, don't they.?

It's One Party rule. They have "rules" (laws), that are draconian.

There is a fine line between the way Singapore is ruled, and the way China is ruled. Both are thriving Countries, with great economies.

Both will put you against the wall if you get out of line.

[WTF]

Jackie....that does not mean we could not have a healthcare system like Germany or France....granted Germany does not spend on their military like we do and they can put that savings into say their own citizens healthcare.



.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by WTF

Jackie....that does not mean we could not have a healthcare system like Germany or France....granted Germany does not spend on their military like we do and they can put that savings into say their own citizens healthcare.
.

why aren't you out marching in a May Day parade?

[Old-T]

Another large part of the discussion--potentially the largest part--is deciding what is "universally" covered and what is personally covered. As soon as we try to put all/most options in the same basket of services, it gets complex.

I believe we ultimately need to move towards a single payer for a set of services that are widely considered "basic expectations/good of the country". Off the top of my head I would include childhood immunizations, TB testing, and many preventative and routine services. The exact list would take a lot of discussion, and would not be static.

I think there will also be a collection of "more drastic" services that are not considered to be "generally expected". Cosmetic surgery in most cases, heart transplants, etc. The definition would essentially be "those things not identified in the first group". Those would be things that are essentially free market and would hopefully drive the innovation.

I think the focus of the discussion has to move to WHAT is covered at least as much as WHO is covered.

[WTF]

Agree Old-T...

Call me a dreamer but I thought Trump might be able to actually do that. But it appears he is scared of losing his base by working with Dems. Although he did cut deals with them on this budget...



.