Single Payer

[shockfan89_]

Everyone parrots, the government is inefficient duh! And yeah we all have stories of the post office/tag officce/dmv sucking. But I challenge you to notice why they suck, typically it's becomes some dumbass got inline without all the paperwork and dick around with their phone for 15 minutes trying to see if somehow they have it there, or sometimes even worse they brought ALL the paperwork, they have no idea what all they have and spend the next 30 minutes sifting though it, while a clerk tries their best to help find the necessary documentation. Most studies though conclude that private vs public sector efficiency is very ambiguous and industry has more impact on efficiency than ownership. That's not to say the government is best at anything or worst, it really is case by case.

I disagree, the government is inefficient at EVERYTHING. The best run government program is way inferior to the worst run non-government company. Also, we already have single payer healthcare, it's called the VA, and it sucks! The reason the post office, tag office, and DMV suck is because they are government run. They can't terminate lazy employees, they have hours that only benefit themselves, not their customers, they make ridiculous policies that make no sense to anyone, they waste money since they have an ever-increasing budget, they don't innovate or improve. Name one large government program that is efficiently run and not plagued with waste, fraud, and abuse.

[MoValley John]

What are the causes of the high price of healthcare? How does single payer reduce those? What are the trade offs for the reduced prices? Is that a net positive?

This is the question that needs to be asked. No, single payor, by itself, changes nothing. I'm not opposed to single payor, but if we replace the current system with single payor, nothing has been fixed.

[ShockerPrez]

Price controls.

And rationing...

Wait, we already have rationing, but no, it will be good, better rationing because government will be deciding.

So it's cool.

[wufan]

According to this article we can do single payer coverage for 1.4 trillion. The gov currently spends 1.4 trillion on healthcare. Why don't we already have single payer? http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...yer-system-be/

[ShockCrazy]

I disagree, the government is inefficient at EVERYTHING. The best run government program is way inferior to the worst run non-government company. Also, we already have single payer healthcare, it's called the VA, and it sucks! The reason the post office, tag office, and DMV suck is because they are government run. They can't terminate lazy employees, they have hours that only benefit themselves, not their customers, they make ridiculous policies that make no sense to anyone, they waste money since they have an ever-increasing budget, they don't innovate or improve. Name one large government program that is efficiently run and not plagued with waste, fraud, and abuse.

You are incorrect. Single payer is Medicare/Medicaid. The VA is single PROVIDER. Which I don't think is optimal.

[shockfan89_]

You are incorrect. Single payer is Medicare/Medicaid. The VA is single PROVIDER. Which I don't think is optimal.

Thank you for the correction, but the net result is the same, both Medicare and Medicaid are bloated, wasteful, bankrupt government programs too.

[ShockCrazy]

Thank you for the correction, but the net result is the same, both Medicare and Medicaid are bloated, wasteful, bankrupt government programs too.

They are bloated and bankrupt, but it's the nature of the current system. It features the highest costing patients without gaining as much from the lowest cost/risk.

[ShockCrazy]

Oh my God. I can't even fathom how lost you are. It would take pages and pages of text just give you the slightest glimpse of what shareholders bring to the table.

I will add this, if shareholders didn't bring VALUE, and if shareholders didn't absorb RISK, no corporation would be public. Oh, and stock price has everything to do with a corporation's ability to borrow and operate. But no, shareholders bring nothing.

I think it's time for me to have a drink.

Share price is a representation of how they borrow and operate, but to say a stock price is necessary for borrowing is false. My argument is that private shareholders bring no value to the healthcare industry specifically(not shareholders as a whole, who in private industry do provide value). You think for one second shareholders of say UNH bear any actual risk? If it were going under you don't think they wouldn't get a bailout just as the auto industry did? Why is it public hospitals function without profits? How is it that so many non-profit hospitals seems to provide quality care? Why is it we seek profits in the health insurance industry?

[MoValley John]

Everyone parrots, the government is inefficient duh! And yeah we all have stories of the post office/tag officce/dmv sucking. But I challenge you to notice why they suck, typically it's becomes some dumbass got inline without all the paperwork and dick around with their phone for 15 minutes trying to see if somehow they have it there, or sometimes even worse they brought ALL the paperwork, they have no idea what all they have and spend the next 30 minutes sifting though it, while a clerk tries their best to help find the necessary documentation. Most studies though conclude that private vs public sector efficiency is very ambiguous and industry has more impact on efficiency than ownership. That's not to say the government is best at anything or worst, it really is case by case.

http://www.who.int/healthsystems/topics/financing/healthreport/P-P_HSUNo39.pdf

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...m99Q_bV0wvjZOA

Took my son to get his first drivers license. Had every form filled out correctly, every correct piece of id on hand. All done correctly, by the book. Went 45 minutes before it opened, because if you don't, you wait all day. First person there, still had to take a number. First person took the forms, stamped them, sent us to another person eho verified id's and names on form. Sent us back to the first person who took us to the back room. In the back room, first person did eye exam, then told us to wait. New person calls our number and eants my son to take written test. Explained that the written test was waived becaise he passed a certified drivers ed program. Guy tells me that we needed to have the form verified, explained we did. Guy looks at our pile of papers, sees the waiver, sends us back out to guy number 2 to fix his mistake. Guy number 2 looks at our paperwork, looks at his paperwork, puts a check in the waiver box and sends us to the back room..... again. Guy in the back room looks over the form and says it will be 20 minutes before hevcan take the road test. I said I thought like the written test, the road test is waived upon completion of a state certified drivers ed program. The guycscratches his head, says that is correct but their form doesn't indicate he completed. Sends me back out front....again... so the nimrod can check another box....again. Go back into the back room, again, guy looks over stuff, again enters a bunch of stuff in his computer and tells my son congratulations. Takes his photo, then sends us next door to the treasurers office where we wait in line, pay for the license, wait for a paper copy and then go home. Actual license came in the mail three weeks later.

EFFICIENCY!

[MoValley John]

Share price is a representation of how they borrow and operate, but to say a stock price is necessary for borrowing is false. My argument is that private shareholders bring no value to the healthcare industry specifically(not shareholders as a whole, who in private industry do provide value). You think for one second shareholders of say UNH bear any actual risk? If it were going under you don't think they wouldn't get a bailout just as the auto industry did? Why is it public hospitals function without profits? How is it that so many non-profit hospitals seems to provide quality care? Why is it we seek profits in the health insurance industry?

I'm not even gonna try. Pointless.

Edit.... I'll give one more stab at it. If private shareholders provided no value, all insurance companies would use as much cash on hand to buy back and retire as much of their stock as possible. They would quit caring about stock price, not pay dividends, reducing stock value more quickly allowing them to retire more stock, faster. They don't.

[wufan]

According to this article we can do single payer coverage for 1.4 trillion. The gov currently spends 1.4 trillion on healthcare. Why don't we already have single payer? http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...yer-system-be/

Seriously! Why is the uber-efficient government paying the exact same amount for partial coverage that B Sanders plan costs to insure everyone?

[ShockCrazy]

I'm not even gonna try. Pointless.

I'm asking honest questions. Why do we accept it? Honestly. Why is it soooo important that health insurance remain a private entity? What are the benefits? I'm looking for honest reasoning as to what we gain by having for profit health insurance companies. Maybe single payer doesn't work, what if health insurance had to operate as a non-profit?

[wufan]

I'm asking honest questions. Why do we accept it? Honestly. Why is it soooo important that health insurance remain a private entity? What are the benefits? I'm looking for honest reasoning as to what we gain by having for profit health insurance companies. Maybe single payer doesn't work, what if health insurance had to operate as a non-profit?

Insurance agencies give jobs to people. They take the premiums and invest them in other businesses that employee other people. This activity creates tax revenue.

[ShockCrazy]

Insurance agencies give jobs to people. They take the premiums and invest them in other businesses that employee other people. This activity creates tax revenue.

But according to everyone if the government were in charge it would take 3 times as many people! Think of all the tax revenue! And all those people could then invest in businesses! /sarcasm since I probably need it

[ShockCrazy]

I'm not even gonna try. Pointless.

Edit.... I'll give one more stab at it. If private shareholders provided no value, all insurance companies would use as much cash on hand to buy back and retire as much of their stock as possible. They would quit caring about stock price, not pay dividends, reducing stock value more quickly allowing them to retire more stock, faster. They don't.

Seems like a bit of an over simplification. The board dictates the direction of the company through selection of executives. The board is elected by the shareholders. Why would the shareholders elect a board who would not seek profits for the shareholders in a publicly traded company?