I'm not saying I cannot be convinced, but for instance saying you are cutting out the 31% middleman, you are replacing it with another bureaucracy and that is not necessarily cheaper. The point should not be to claim dollar savings, but to say that if you want to have health care for everyone you need to make a public plan open to everyone that wants it. Medicare for all, open enrollment, no premium. How's that?
This way people have a real choice, they aren't forced into the government pool until they decide it's a better deal than the private insurance they have now.
Single-payer systems are NOT intrinsically socialized (i.e., government-run) medicine; only the payment system is through the government. In every single-payer system I've seen, people can still choose their own physicians etc.
Am I mistaken, whig, or do you live in Canada? If so, you probably haven't come face-to-face with how bad things are in the U.S. I have, and it's really ugly. Don't talk to me about "real choice" until you've talked to me about how to obtain dependable healthcare without going bankrupt.
Oh, and "another bureaucracy" could be as simple as adding everyone to Medicare regardless of age. I encountered the Medicare "bureaucracy" in my father's final illness; it worked smoothly. As an issue in the current debate, that one is bogus... like everything else the insurance companies push.
(And now back to hurricane prep... I'm ready to ride out a moderate storm here, but I'm not ready if I have to evacuate next week.)
I've not really decided, whig, if single payer is the best. Posting this info just helps me understand the various systems out there.
Steve, do you have a to-do list for evacuation? What do you pack? Do you put all your stuff by the door or in your car (running the risk of someone stealing all that is precious to you)?
I've not had to do this, but have some sort of idea for the inevitable earthquake that will shake us here in Southern California.
"It's a choice to sign up, or not. Exactly how is this a bad idea?" - whig
whig, first, my apologies for misidentifying your location. It's been my good fortune to encounter lots of both Canadians and Californians on threads discussing health care; clearly I confused you with another commenter.
It's not a bad idea, but it's not as good as if everyone is in the same pool. Insurance company cherry-picking is not the only way risks can be unevenly distributed (thus driving costs up for high-risk individuals and for, in this case, Medicare). If healthy individuals self-segregate out of the universal system, the cost of that system will, for certain, increase. No, if we don't have everyone in the system, it won't really solve the problem of universal health care at an affordable cost. And yes, you're right; at present, it matters a great deal which state one lives in... to my regret.
ellroon, yes, I do have a list, and I'm in the process of locating things on that list, but not yet actually packing them. Unlike earthquakes, hurricanes unfold slowly and, to a limited extent, predictably. If Dean comes to Houston (at this point, we just don't know), it will do so just under a week from today, maybe Wednesday or Thursday. There will be plenty of time to carry stuff to the car a few items at a time, as for a disorganized family trip. :)
Steve, my concern is not to drive down health care costs as much as to ensure universal health care. I hope you see the important difference. If saying open enrollment, Medicare for all with no premium is more expensive than single-payer, so what? It's still a whole lot cheaper than what we've got which is emergency room triage based.
Don't let your idea of the perfect be the enemy of the good, I can see a lot of opposition to single-payer and if I'm not completely sold on it you are going to have a really hard time selling the American people. It might be a good idea but maybe not achievable in the short term.
Open enrollment, Medicare for all without premium is a win-win for everyone, I cannot even think of a reasonable person disagreeing.
By the way, what about letting the HMOs bill Medicare and code share? I think Kaiser Perm does this. Why can't this simply be the model, it's a combined system and maybe the private plans offer more things like chiropractic and whatever...which I do get if I want now.
18 comments:
I'm not convinced this is the right solution.
I'm not saying I cannot be convinced, but for instance saying you are cutting out the 31% middleman, you are replacing it with another bureaucracy and that is not necessarily cheaper. The point should not be to claim dollar savings, but to say that if you want to have health care for everyone you need to make a public plan open to everyone that wants it. Medicare for all, open enrollment, no premium. How's that?
This way people have a real choice, they aren't forced into the government pool until they decide it's a better deal than the private insurance they have now.
whig, read the FAQ.
Single-payer systems are NOT intrinsically socialized (i.e., government-run) medicine; only the payment system is through the government. In every single-payer system I've seen, people can still choose their own physicians etc.
Am I mistaken, whig, or do you live in Canada? If so, you probably haven't come face-to-face with how bad things are in the U.S. I have, and it's really ugly. Don't talk to me about "real choice" until you've talked to me about how to obtain dependable healthcare without going bankrupt.
Oh, and "another bureaucracy" could be as simple as adding everyone to Medicare regardless of age. I encountered the Medicare "bureaucracy" in my father's final illness; it worked smoothly. As an issue in the current debate, that one is bogus... like everything else the insurance companies push.
(And now back to hurricane prep... I'm ready to ride out a moderate storm here, but I'm not ready if I have to evacuate next week.)
I've not really decided, whig, if single payer is the best. Posting this info just helps me understand the various systems out there.
Steve, do you have a to-do list for evacuation? What do you pack? Do you put all your stuff by the door or in your car (running the risk of someone stealing all that is precious to you)?
I've not had to do this, but have some sort of idea for the inevitable earthquake that will shake us here in Southern California.
Steve, I'm not in Canada, I'm in California.
By the way, it makes a difference what state you are in. It was much worse for me in Pennsylvania.
I think maybe Steve thinks I'm opposing universal health care, and I'm not.
I'm just saying open enrollment, Medicare for all with no premium.
It's a choice to sign up, or not.
Exactly how is this a bad idea?
"It's a choice to sign up, or not.
Exactly how is this a bad idea?" - whig
whig, first, my apologies for misidentifying your location. It's been my good fortune to encounter lots of both Canadians and Californians on threads discussing health care; clearly I confused you with another commenter.
It's not a bad idea, but it's not as good as if everyone is in the same pool. Insurance company cherry-picking is not the only way risks can be unevenly distributed (thus driving costs up for high-risk individuals and for, in this case, Medicare). If healthy individuals self-segregate out of the universal system, the cost of that system will, for certain, increase. No, if we don't have everyone in the system, it won't really solve the problem of universal health care at an affordable cost. And yes, you're right; at present, it matters a great deal which state one lives in... to my regret.
ellroon, yes, I do have a list, and I'm in the process of locating things on that list, but not yet actually packing them. Unlike earthquakes, hurricanes unfold slowly and, to a limited extent, predictably. If Dean comes to Houston (at this point, we just don't know), it will do so just under a week from today, maybe Wednesday or Thursday. There will be plenty of time to carry stuff to the car a few items at a time, as for a disorganized family trip. :)
Steve, my concern is not to drive down health care costs as much as to ensure universal health care. I hope you see the important difference. If saying open enrollment, Medicare for all with no premium is more expensive than single-payer, so what? It's still a whole lot cheaper than what we've got which is emergency room triage based.
Don't let your idea of the perfect be the enemy of the good, I can see a lot of opposition to single-payer and if I'm not completely sold on it you are going to have a really hard time selling the American people. It might be a good idea but maybe not achievable in the short term.
Open enrollment, Medicare for all without premium is a win-win for everyone, I cannot even think of a reasonable person disagreeing.
For the record, it would take a lot of convincing to get me to drop my current plan. It was hard to get and I'm well treated.
I'm not an example of cherry-picking. I'm expensive. Very expensive.
And I just found out I have osteoporosis of the spine, so that won't help matters.
Osteoporosis of the spine... whig, I am sorry. Can you take lots of calcium? Any kind of medicine to stop/prevent/slow it? That truly sucks.
I think intravenous drugs will be required, something called a bisphosphonate. I have to make an appointment with the orthopedist next week.
And yes, calcium.
By the way, what about letting the HMOs bill Medicare and code share? I think Kaiser Perm does this. Why can't this simply be the model, it's a combined system and maybe the private plans offer more things like chiropractic and whatever...which I do get if I want now.
Btw I've misunderstood how Kaiser does things before and I'm sure I will again, so don't assume I'm right about anything to do with them.
Of course I have even less idea how Medicare operates.
I think the confusion and misunderstanding of the health care system suits the HMOs just fine....
Post a Comment