Tell Me Again How A Single Payer System Would Cost Too Much.

[liberalnarb]

[KG]

1. ACA is the best we could hope for!

because obama!

[calguy]

2. How about first you tell me

How such a bill would even get on the floor of the GOP controlled Congress. Until we get a Dem majority all this talk is nothing but pure fantasy. Time to get real.

[Ed Suspicious]

4. Because fuck congress. Get on board or find new work.

[liberalnarb]

5. Its a little thing called voting.

And what would you're definition of "get real" be? Forget progress and just bow down to the gop?? How about you get real. Sickening, sickening. Democrats used to believe in progress. Now its just "We can't do that because the republicans won't like it."

[Doctor_J]

9. So give up!

Nothing can be done!

[SammyWinstonJack]

15. Time to get real......pure fantasy...NO WE CAN'T.

Brought to you by the Defeatist campaign.

[Springslips]

32. The subject was cost.

How does getting it on the floor of Congress change how much it cost?

Weird, just plain weird response.

[NickB79]

35. Step One: Elect a president who can rally the people to vote the fuckers out

And get that Democratic majority.

So please tell us, how does giving up get us closer to that Democratic majority instead?

[mike_c]

3. because American exceptionalism....

The cost argument is smoke and mirrors for domestic consumption. Much of the rest of the world just does it. If they can provide universal health care, surely the wealthiest nation on Earth can find a way.

[daleanime]

16. +1

[questionseverything]

6. i notice no one ever says

we can't afford that bomb!

[ljm2002]

10. Pre-cisely! n/t

[HughBeaumont]

33. Or "That Corporate Welfare". Or "That Corporate Bailout".

[Doctor_J]

7. They mean it will cost the insurance and drug companies too much

What did you think they meant?

I work for a small company, and thus have to get my insurance through the company plan. Since Heritage Care was passed, my premiums, copays and deductibles for me & spouse have reached more than a third of my take-home pay. For the new people its about half. what a disgrace.

[burrowowl]

20. You said it!

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. at implementation, you asked a policy question.

Implementing the system has a but load of upfront cost as the system moves from a butt load of private systems, to a single public (The ACA actually has done some of the work already with the electronic charting requirement) . Once that is done... you can expect actual costs to drop by orders of magnitude bellow the present hybrid, mostly private for profit system.

So to be honest, you would have a spike, a year or two... and then a precipitous dip. So after 10 years, the usual time line for things like this... overall you will see a drop in costs, and I will gladly eat my hat if the savings are not significant.

When people talk it will cost too much... ask the stupid question... do you mean the first 6 months, maybe first two years? If they do (and I highly doubt they know that), you got 'em

[mhatrw]

11. Nobody spends more for less, but we need our current system because ...

[ZX86]

12. This is what happens when

you let Republicans frame every issue and apologize for your core beliefs whenever challenged.

It's not even a complicated issue. It's simple math. Yet Democrats can't communicate this simple message to the American people when it could fit on a bumper sticker.

[mountain grammy]

13. +1000

[AgingAmerican]

18. Stockholm Syndrome

Creeping fascism

[Spitfire of ATJ]

14. Nobody can explain how a for profit system costs less than one run at cost....

It's like buying retail instead of factory direct.

[Octafish]

17. These are the wealthiest times in human history.

Yet buy partisan consensus says Austerity for you, People. We need tax cuts and more war.

Go shopping. Watch tee vee. Drink more cola.

[Overseas]

34. Reporters always ask How You Gonna Pay for healthcare and very rarely about bloated military budget

So frustrating during the debating going on in this political season.

How you gonna pay for national health security?

I've heard that resistance to giving us what so many other countries have is that it will give our people too positive a view of government.

[ErikJ]

19. The blood sucker bankers, AKA for-profit health insur co's

suck about $400 billion yr out of the system is one of the biggest reasons. We the People could easily be the "bankers" for health care at a much lower cost.

[raouldukelives]

21. It would cost shareholders too much.

The more those in pain can be made to suffer, the better the dividends.

It is the main fear neocons in our party have. Having to work towards the betterment of others lives instead of just themselves.

[Recursion]

22. Most of those aren't single payer; the only single payer system has above-average costs

In that list only Canada is single payer, and its costs are above that list's average.

[Adrahil]

23. I do not think it would cost too much, but....

Last edited Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:30 PM - Edit history (1)

I do not like the idea of there being only one option for coverage. What if Congress not to cover contraception? Abortion under any circumstances? What if they require bariatric surgery for obese patients with diabetes?

I DO want to see a public option, however.

[rickford66]

24. What about "wait times" ?

We continually hear about long waiting times with single payer systems. I had the best BC/BS plan before retiring and had to make appointments with specialists a year in advance. I only got in within a week if I "lied" and said I had pain. Less insured people means shorter lines. And more insured people means longer lines. We need more public financing of health care workers of all disciplines so that those who really want to do the work and have the aptitude to do the work, but can't afford the tuition, can get the education. Then they can get paid a reasonable salary without the huge debt hanging over them.

[Pathwalker]

25. I have a question no one has yet to answer:

Would single payer include those medicare supplemental insurance policies currently offered through insurance companies? Without them, my husband and I would now be in the throes of bankruptcy, as would any senior who suffered a serious medical emergency.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

27. Single payer would pay all costs

for covered procedures. There would be no need for supplemental insurance.

[Pathwalker]

28. Promise?

[notadmblnd]

26. When they say it would cost too much-

They don't mean it is not do-able financially for the American public. They mean it would no longer be profitable for insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and politicians.

It would cost the powers that be too much.

[Jarqui]

29. Bureaucracy of the US system

http://obamacarefacts.com/single-payer/

The United States has arguably one of the most bureaucratic health care systems in the world. Over 31% of every health care dollar goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. Because the U.S. does not have a unified system that serves everyone, and instead has thousands of different insurance plans, each with its own marketing, paperwork, enrollment, premiums, and rules and regulations, our insurance system is both extremely complex and fragmented.

In America, Medicare operates with just 3% overhead, compared to 15% to 25% overhead at a typical HMO. Provincial single-payer plans in Canada have an overhead of about 1%.

The economic fat in the present healthcare is a BIG problem. Single payer is THE BEST at getting costs under control.

UK is single payer and so is Australia (not on the chart).

Americans could still overpay their doctors, nurses, etc and just reduce on "paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc"

If Americans don't like Bernie's approach (where he's trying to also fix income inequality), imagine reducing "paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc" and with it eliminate 28-30% of your healthcare premiums and deductible.

It's a no brainer. And when you do that, employing people is cheaper to help keep American jobs. American products cost less to make, etc. Americans have more money to spend that helps the economy. It's win, win, win and the only real losers are the health insurance companies and CEOs

If America spends about $1 trilllion on private healthcare, 30% is $300 billion less per year. Again, the only losers are the big heath insurance companies and CEOs

[tk2kewl]

30. it will cost Wall Street and the insurance companies too much in lost profit

But to borrow from a lovely and eloquent actress "fuck them"

[Jarqui]

31. Here's something to consider on Hillary's position with single payer

The following is a list of healthcare related companies who lobbied the government in 2014 and probably have a financial stake in the single payer debate - against it because it lowers prices or wipes out their insurance profits.

On the left is what they paid Hillary for speaking fees and on the right is their portion of the $45.7 million they spent on lobbying

http://time.com/3889577/hillary-clinton-paid-speeches-lobbyists-influence/
$225,500 General Electric (GE Healthcare) $20,085,000
$335,500 Biotechnology Industry Organization $10,186,000
$225,500 Pharmaceutical Care Management Assn $4,284,916
$265,000 Advanced Medical Technology Association $3,392,000
$125,000 Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals $3,008,000
$225,000 Xerox Corp (Healthcare Solutions) $1,435,000
$225,000 Premier Health Alliance $1,258,696
$225,500 Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers $1,083,180
$225,500 National Council for Behavioral Health $600,356
$100,000 California Medical Association $350,000
==========
$2,177,500

I suspect 2013 isn't that different. Her campaign has also taken a few million from healthcare groups. And then there's the Clinton Foundation ... ??

I think it's at least fair to note and ponder the above.