Single Payer

[MoValley John]

Also, prenatal care is available through most county health departments. I venture to say that if you are poor, you can receive free or reduced prenatal care in Wichita, you can in Omaha. Many moms, both with insurance and without, skip prenatal care.

[MoValley John]

https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/infographics/dramatic-increases-in-maternal-opioid-use-neonatal-abstinence-syndrome

https://www.google.com/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/37851654

The number of addicted babies born in The US vs. England isn't even close. We are birthing addicted babies at a shocking rate.

And this is just one reason our infant mortality rate is high.

[ShockerPrez]

Simple, more access to healthcare by the lower economic classes. Single payer probably won't affect you or I, Mr. Prez, but it would affect the poor. Our system isn't broken because somebody making $200,000 can't see a doctor. It's because somebody making $20,000 can't afford to.

My question was not cost based. I understand that aspect perfectly. My question has to do with the supply of healthcare.

In other words:

You believe that the number of healthcare facilities, just numbers, hospials, clinics, doctors, etc.

1. Will remain steady and or increase.

2. Will deliver as good or better quality

Under single payor?

[Aargh]

Sometimes government control sucks. Sometimes the free market sucks. The idea that one of these systems is the answer for everything is demonstrably false.

I believe you have won the thread.

[MoValley John]

One simple thing to look at the next time any of you visit a US hospital.

Wheelchairs.

Yes, wheelchairs. They are huge! You can't find a normal wheelchair where my wife works, they are all bariatric. Every single one. Built for fatasses, I can have my 11 and 13 year-old sons sit side by side, and still have room for a duffel bag in between them. These wheelchairs cost a bunch, add to healthcare costs and give next to zero return. Except you can wheel around 600 lb. Whales that drive up healthcare costs and drive down outcomes.

Seriously, next time you're in a hospital, check out the wheelchairs.

[MoValley John]

1stSeniorCare-Convaquip-930-bariitric-capacity-wheelchair-xl-huge_1024x1024.jpg
xxl-wheelchair.jpg

Check out the wheelchairs!

[ShockerPrez]

Dang, just thought of this too...

Will the government cover services provided by religious hospitals?

[MoValley John]

The nice whelchairs are extra wide and have an oxygen bottle attached. That way, the 700 lb. fatass can get pushed to the cafeteria to sneak some donuts that are off menu, all the while, have oxygen to help ofset their smoking induced emphyzema.

[Aargh]

Anyway. My point is, how does single payor make our healthcare system better, independent of cost?

Not worried about cost. How does our life expetancy and infant mortality rate improve when single payor is the law?

The anti-ObamaCare group has had 7 years to come up with a better solution and failed. ObamaCare does not seem to be working well. There's also the possibility that the current administration and/or Congress might "defer" some payments that would totally break it.

Health care was broken before ObamaCare ever came along. I suspect the price increases we've seen aren't completely out of line with what we would have seen if ObamaCare didn't exist.

Is there another solution besides single payer, where everybody shares costs so those who need care can afford it? Set it up like Medicare - a flat tax that everyone pays. Don't put a cap on it. That would give us universal health protection, which the libs want, and it would be done with a flat tax, which the conservatives favor. A system like that seems to be a reasonable way out of the current situation.

(Libtard addition) Probably need some type of cost controls in place. Why do we pay higher prices for drugs than the rest of the world? Why is a tetanus shot billed at $280? Why is a 10-minute visit to a specialist to have a spot in a nose cauterized billed at nearly $800?

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

My question was not cost based. I understand that aspect perfectly. My question has to do with the supply of healthcare.

In other words:

You believe that the number of healthcare facilities, just numbers, hospials, clinics, doctors, etc.

1. Will remain steady and or increase.

2. Will deliver as good or better quality

Under single payor?

You originally asked two questions:

1. How does single payer make our system better, independent of cost?

Well, to reiterate what I said earlier in the discussion, the issue with healthcare in this country isn't quality or quantity. It's that it is not cheaply available to everyone. So what you're asking isn't the thing single payer would fix. And in fact, it's not much of a problem at all. So I don't know why you're asking how single payer would fix something that isn't a problem. It would likely have little to no impact on number of hospitals/clinics/etc., though I suppose an argument could be made that these would increase due to demand from additional patient visits.

2. How would life expectancy and infant mortality rates improve?

One of the disadvantages of our current system is that it is more difficult for lower income people to obtain preventative care and disease treatments than it is for higher income people. By improving the rates of these underserved classes, our overall rate would improve. Again, single payer wouldn't likely to affect you and I much, but it could have a dramatic positive impact on low income people. In the end, that's good for all of us.

[MoValley John]

The anti-ObamaCare group has had 7 years to come up with a better solution and failed. ObamaCare does not seem to be working well. There's also the possibility that the current administration and/or Congress might "defer" some payments that would totally break it.

Health care was broken before ObamaCare ever came along. I suspect the price increases we've seen aren't completely out of line with what we would have seen if ObamaCare didn't exist.

Is there another solution besides single payer, where everybody shares costs so those who need care can afford it? Set it up like Medicare - a flat tax that everyone pays. Don't put a cap on it. That would give us universal health protection, which the libs want, and it would be done with a flat tax, which the conservatives favor. A system like that seems to be a reasonable way out of the current situation.

(Libtard addition) Probably need some type of cost controls in place. Why do we pay higher prices for drugs than the rest of the world? Why is a tetanus shot billed at $280? Why is a 10-minute visit to a specialist to have a spot in a nose cauterized billed at nearly $800?

Obamacare will break regardless of what is done. If you remember back when it passed, they taxed businesses for two years before they offered a penny in payouts. That was to satisfy paygo rules. In year 11, Obamacare is under water. The timeclock has begun for both the right and the left to blame each other. Is it the left's fault for passing the diaster or the right's for not fixing it?

[jdshock]

Dang, just thought of this too...

Will the government cover services provided by religious hospitals?

Does Medicare?

It's not like the government isn't already in the business of paying for a whole lot of medical services.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

Probably need some type of cost controls in place. Why do we pay higher prices for drugs than the rest of the world? Why is a tetanus shot billed at $280? Why is a 10-minute visit to a specialist to have a spot in a nose cauterized billed at nearly $800?

Adam Ruins Everything had a interesting take on this recently. I'll see if I can find the clip.

Here it is:

[ShockerPrez]

Does Medicare?

It's not like the government isn't already in the business of paying for a whole lot of medical services.

I know, that was just me being snarky.

[ShockerPrez]

You originally asked two questions:

1. How does single payer make our system better, independent of cost?

Well, to reiterate what I said earlier in the discussion, the issue with healthcare in this country isn't quality or quantity. It's that it is not cheaply available to everyone. So what you're asking isn't the thing single payer would fix. And in fact, it's not much of a problem at all. So I don't know why you're asking how single payer would fix something that isn't a problem. It would likely have little to no impact on number of hospitals/clinics/etc., though I suppose an argument could be made that these would increase due to demand from additional patient visits.

2. How would life expectancy and infant mortality rates improve?

One of the disadvantages of our current system is that it is more difficult for lower income people to obtain preventative care and disease treatments than it is for higher income people. By improving the rates of these underserved classes, our overall rate would improve. Again, single payer wouldn't likely to affect you and I much, but it could have a dramatic positive impact on low income people. In the end, that's good for all of us.

I just dont see that incentive to enter the medical field as a doctor or a business increasing. And single payor will inevitably lead to rationing, I fear.

Even Obama admitted that.