Hey guys can we not call it single payer?

[Stewart]

This is a real bugbear for me. It's a nit-pick, but it's really, really, really really irks me.
Supporters of reform often say that they want a 'single-payer' system.
But calling it 'single payer' is a loaded word, like 'socialized medicine.' and actually non correct. Single-payer implies an undesirable market condition known as a monopsony (the opposite of a monopoly) where there would be only one provider of healthcare. This is obviously not a desirable outcome. In truth most of the other countries that you think of as single payer aren't. Whilst it true that country like Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia all have large government insurance pools that cover all citizens and supply large percentages of the countries healthcare. They are not single payer, as they all have thriving private health insurance sectors.
To find a true single-payer system we must travel to North Korea and even then there is a rumoured underground medical system, that would even rule it out.

Single-payer just isn't a word that is used outside America, and whilst I can accept most other Americanisms, even been corrupted by them, Single-payer is just a term that really, really bothers me.

Thanks

Normal programmed viewing will resume in 3...2...1

 

[Daktoria]

Certainly.

Single-payer is actually worse than UHC because it only talks about the supply, not the demand, side of the equation. It requires that everyone supplies the same pool, and then outsources health care demand to private providers. This lets the government do absolutely nothing but simply collect money like a professional miser who's just trying to get in the way so bureaucrats can have jobs to do.

That said, I'm not sure if you understand single-payer yourself.

 

[Stewart]

You lost me, my translator isn't working today.

Come again?

And how do into understand single-payer?

 

[ttwtt78640]

This is a real bugbear for me. It's a nit-pick, but it's really, really, really really irks me.
Supporters of reform often say that they want a 'single-payer' system.
But calling it 'single payer' is a loaded word, like 'socialized medicine.' and actually non correct. Single-payer implies an undesirable market condition known as a monopsony (the opposite of a monopoly) where there would be only one provider of healthcare. This is obviously not a desirable outcome. In truth most of the other countries that you think of as single payer aren't. Whilst it true that country like Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia all have large government insurance pools that cover all citizens and supply large percentages of the countries healthcare. They are not single payer, as they all have thriving private health insurance sectors.
To find a true single-payer system we must travel to North Korea and even then there is a rumoured underground medical system, that would even rule it out.

Single-payer just isn't a word that is used outside America, and whilst I can accept most other Americanisms, even been corrupted by them, Single-payer is just a term that really, really bothers me.

Thanks

Normal programmed viewing will resume in 3...2...1

I think you are VERY mistaken in saying "single payer" would allow private insurance as well, that makes no sense. What you are confusing with single payer is, in fact, a transition from TRUE single payer (where only cash gets you to the head of line, like Canada was) to a two tier system (like UK and Austrailia) where the public option (prior single payer) is so bad, e.g. long waits for care, that many are willing to pay more (on the side) to get more services, more providers and be seen sooner.

What PPACA lacks is a "private option", other than cash, to get OPTIONS is impossible, since minimum AND maximum benefits and risk factors (and amounts) for premiums and what percentage of your income must/must not be spent on it. In other words, PPACA has 100% gov't control over ALL private medical care insurance, even their allowed "overhead" (which includes profit). The big lie is that you may keep what you HAD, but NONE actually can as that plan that you had did not include MANY of the new mandated "no out of pocket expense" items tha PPACA demands, thus its premium cost goes up, thanks to Obama.

There is virtually nothing in PPACA to lower costs, it is MAINLY about gov't control and RAISING the cost of medical insurance, taxes and providing income redistribution (gov't subsidies) to add tens of millions of "free loaders" to the "existing" system. Yes he did!

Canada IS GOING (back to) private now : In Canada, a move toward a private healthcare option - Los Angeles Times

http://www.settlement.org/sys/faqs_detail.asp?faq_id=4001254

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada

 

[Daktoria]

Yea, the OP seems to be confusing health care payment with health care provision. He's right that most people don't understand the difference, but then he commits the exact same fallacy.

 

[imagep]

To me the words "single payer" would indicate that only one party pays, and I would expect that that one party would be the consumer. Like I go to the doctor and I pay my bill, just like I go to the grocery store and I pay my bill. I would call socialized medicine "second party payer" as the second party (the doctor) would be part of the government, who pays. I would call any other system "third party payer" or "multiple party payer".

My version of single payer is not really such a bad system, it cuts out a lot of paperwork and costs, it eliminates the middleman, and it gives consumers the incentive to price shop, and health care providers the incentive to become more efficient and to compete on price. Health care prices would drop like a rock, and if one can afford to fill up their car with gas, or to buy groceries, or to get a tatoo, or to purchase a carton of smokes, or a bag of weed, they could afford to go to the doc.

 

[ttwtt78640]

To me the words "single payer" would indicate that only one party pays, and I would expect that that one party would be the consumer. Like I go to the doctor and I pay my bill, just like I go to the grocery store and I pay my bill. I would call socialized medicine "second party payer" as the second party (the doctor) would be part of the government, who pays. I would call any other system "third party payer" or "multiple party payer".

My version of single payer is not really such a bad system, it cuts out a lot of paperwork and costs, it eliminates the middleman, and it gives consumers the incentive to price shop, and health care providers the incentive to become more efficient and to compete on price. Health care prices would drop like a rock, and if one can afford to fill up their car with gas, or to buy groceries, or to get a tatoo, or to purchase a carton of smokes, or a bag of weed, they could afford to go to the doc.

Exactly. PPACA is "single payer" only for the poor (that payer is, of course, ONLY the taxpayers), everyone else still pays for both "private" medical care insurance and likely some extra out of pocket for MOST of any care actually recieved. Even then PPACA has the usual "income redistribution" component as well, all that earn "too little" are subsidized by those that earn "too much". Yes he did!

 

[Stewart]

I think you are VERY mistaken in saying "single payer" would allow private insurance as well, that makes no sense. What you are confusing with single payer is, in fact, a transition from TRUE single payer (where only cash gets you to the head of line, like Canada was) to a two tier system (like UK and Austrailia) where the public option (prior single payer) is so bad, e.g. long waits for care, that many are willing to pay more (on the side) to get more services, more providers and be seen sooner.

Either you fail at comprehension or I am not a very good writer because you have completed missed the point I was trying to make. My point was to point out to those who say they want 'single-payer' either generally aren't referring to what is actually a single payer system. People on this board have described 'single-payer' as system used in the UK, but as you correctly pointed out there is a large private insurance market. This by it's very definition means that it's not 'single-payer.'

Single payer implies that there is a single payer for a good or service, this does not happen in any developed system. But I agree with you, 'single-payer' where the USG has a monopsony in healthcare services is not a desirable outcome. What we have to realize that the best healthcare reform is achieved by getting a private/public mix right and recognizing what each is good at.

As for the rest, this isn't about PPACA at all.

 

[Stewart]

To me the words "single payer" would indicate that only one party pays, and I would expect that that one party would be the consumer. Like I go to the doctor and I pay my bill, just like I go to the grocery store and I pay my bill. I would call socialized medicine "second party payer" as the second party (the doctor) would be part of the government, who pays. I would call any other system "third party payer" or "multiple party payer".

At least that isn't what most people believe it means and I think it's a case of you changing the meaning of terminology. Therefore I respectfully disagree with your conclusion. What you describe I would classify as 'individual-payer' or something like that. 'Single-payer' implies there is only one payer in the market, not in each transaction in the market

But really I would happily see 'singe-payer' eradicated, because it is such a misnomer.

 

[274ina]

This is a real bugbear for me. It's a nit-pick, but it's really, really, really really irks me.
Supporters of reform often say that they want a 'single-payer' system.
But calling it 'single payer' is a loaded word, like 'socialized medicine.' and actually non correct. Single-payer implies an undesirable market condition known as a monopsony (the opposite of a monopoly) where there would be only one provider of healthcare. This is obviously not a desirable outcome. In truth most of the other countries that you think of as single payer aren't. Whilst it true that country like Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia all have large government insurance pools that cover all citizens and supply large percentages of the countries healthcare. They are not single payer, as they all have thriving private health insurance sectors.
To find a true single-payer system we must travel to North Korea and even then there is a rumoured underground medical system, that would even rule it out.

Single-payer just isn't a word that is used outside America, and whilst I can accept most other Americanisms, even been corrupted by them, Single-payer is just a term that really, really bothers me.

Thanks

Normal programmed viewing will resume in 3...2...1

Actually you are all wrong on this.

Single payer is Public funds pay to many many private HC providers. So you have all kinds of choice.
Universal Health Care is public funds pay for public HC providers. Agian you can pick any Dr or Hospital to go too.

See the typical American has NEVER gotten HC outside USA and is totally ignorant to how it works.........
That is why the SCAREY word SOCIALISM has such a great effect in USA......LOL

 

[Aberration]

Actually you are all wrong on this.

Single payer is Public funds pay to many many private HC providers. So you have all kinds of choice.
Universal Health Care is public funds pay for public HC providers. Agian you can pick any Dr or Hospital to go too.

See the typical American has NEVER gotten HC outside USA and is totally ignorant to how it works.........
That is why the SCAREY word SOCIALISM has such a great effect in USA......LOL

And may we continue to be totally ignorant of how it works.

 

[StillBallin75]

I understand where your coming from Stewart, but I have to disagree slightly. Single-payer means exactly what it says - it means that there is a single entity responsible for the financing of healthcare costs, the state. It says absolutely nothing about how healthcare is delivered and it certainly doesn't imply that there is only one provider of healthcare, and to add to that monopsonies are not always undesirable, especially when it comes to public goods including healthcare, education, and defense.

 

[Stewart]

I understand where your coming from Stewart, but I have to disagree slightly. Single-payer means exactly what it says - it means that there is a single entity responsible for the financing of healthcare costs, the state. It says absolutely nothing about how healthcare is delivered and it certainly doesn't imply that there is only one provider of healthcare, and to add to that monopsonies are not always undesirable, especially when it comes to public goods including healthcare, education, and defense.

Clearly I haven't made my point very clearly, because that's exactly what i'm saying. Single payer refers to how the healthcare is funded. In it there is a single pool of funds which is used to pay for healthcare services for the collective. There are no alternate methods, at leas in who I define it i.e there is one, singular, unitary - payer. Just like it's inverse the monopoly this is not a desirable condition. Of the goods you mentioned only one defence is actually a Monopsony, this is because the other two aren't public goods. It is my firm belief that neither education nor healthcare are most effective in a Monopsony. If we were in a fascist state that decided to teach creationism in it's schools, there is no alternative. Likewise a single-payer system is not desirable because it ignores the efficiencies of the market that private health insurance as an alternative can create. Through a hybrid system with multiple payers can the optimum be achieved. Is this not what those who cry for single-payer want?