• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The basic idea of a Single Payer Health Care System doesn't seem wrong

Crossroads

Active member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
408
Reaction score
70
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
This is actually going to be a very short post but...

Isn't the risk in an insurance pool less when the insurance pool is larger? If, instead of all Americans being divided into different insurance companies, they were all pooled into one LARGE insurance pool, wouldn't that in and of itself lower the cost of insurance?
 
This is actually going to be a very short post but...

Isn't the risk in an insurance pool less when the insurance pool is larger? If, instead of all Americans being divided into different insurance companies, they were all pooled into one LARGE insurance pool, wouldn't that in and of itself lower the cost of insurance?

No, as there is no competition (monopoly).
 
Name one time in history the government has been able to do something cheaper than the free market.
 
No, as there is no competition (monopoly).
That's not true. Companies must compete for government contracts, which lowers cost.

In contrast, there's no competition in healthcare now. People aren't given enough information to make an informed choice even when they have more than one viable choice at any given location at which they have an immediate pressing need.

Ironically, single payer is a better market solution than our current system, because the current system is by and large merely localized monopoly power over perfectly inelastic demand.

Name one time in history the government has been able to do something cheaper than the free market.
SMUD.
 
I suppose these lefties will continue to defend this monstrosity with their dying breath.
It won't change anything, reality can't be wished away.
There is something waiting in the wings that will overshadow this issue with such violent force
that not having insurance coverage will be the furthest thing from your mind.
 
That's not true. Companies must compete for government contracts, which lowers cost.

In contrast, there's no competition in healthcare now. People aren't given enough information to make an informed choice even when they have more than one viable choice at any given location at which they have an immediate pressing need.

Ironically, single payer is a better market solution than our current system, because the current system is by and large merely localized monopoly power over perfectly inelastic demand.


SMUD.

Incorrect. It may seem cheaper in a direct sense because the government is doing it for "free", but it's still funded by tax payer money and being the government is largely less efficient and less cost oriented than a free market enterprise.

Try again.

And we don't need single payer. There's no reason we can't just have an opt-out option like Germany.
 
This is actually going to be a very short post but...

Isn't the risk in an insurance pool less when the insurance pool is larger? If, instead of all Americans being divided into different insurance companies, they were all pooled into one LARGE insurance pool, wouldn't that in and of itself lower the cost of insurance?

Yes. that is exactly how it works. There are currently multiple plans available to chose from under medicaid. Insurance companies complete for the government contract. If this were the case and private insurance was an option only for the few who could afford it, the government would control the costs for doctors and hospitals who accepted government sponsored coverage. A big part of why the costs for care were driven up in the first place was because insurance companies took a bigger and bigger bite out of fees for themselves(but they did not pass that savings onto their clients they just pocketed a bigger profit) so providers had to increase their costs so that they could net enough. If you charge $75 for an office visit and the insurance co say's that needs to be $50 you might be screwed. So if you jack your price up to $150 and the ins co says that has to be $75 you get what you wanted despite them but the consumer/patient suffers. When you add the fact that it is a service we HAVE to have they can do whatever they want. Health care should not be a for profit product. Think about it...they make more money if you die....they make more money by creating loop holes to keep you from getting the care you need how does that make sense. They make less money taking care of you and providing what you need so why would they do it?
 
That's not true. Companies must compete for government contracts, which lowers cost....

I'm confused. After the one company is successful in garnering THE government single payer contract how do the others stay in business (without subscribers) until the next open bid process begins. It is true that there are many NOW competing for these but once single payer is active why would the others be needed?
 
I'm confused. After the one company is successful in garnering THE government single payer contract how do the others stay in business (without subscribers) until the next open bid process begins. It is true that there are many NOW competing for these but once single payer is active why would the others be needed?
That's valid. I'd say it be addressed in forming the policy. I imagine regular evaluations would be standard.
 
That's valid. I'd say it be addressed in forming the policy. I imagine regular evaluations would be standard.

So you WOULD agree that there is potential for monopoly (as opposed to #4 above)...? I don't see how 'forming the policy' or 'regular evaluations' would keep those 'not under contract' insurance businesses solvent without subscribers. Can you expound on this?
 
Name one time in history the government has been able to do something cheaper than the free market.
Well... there's the rest of the Industrialized world.. and Here of course.

Medicare reimbursement (Universal Healthcare for seniors) is the Near equalizer and clearly something that would Lower our relative costs.

U.S. Doctors' Pay Much Higher Than Their European Counterparts
U.S. Doctors' Pay Much Higher Than Their European Counterparts by Newspaper Contributors on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent

If you get your Hip replaced in the United States, the orthopedic surgeon who performs the procedure will earn, on average, about $4,000 from your private insurance company, assuming you have one.

A comparably educated and trained surgeon doing the same operation on a privately insured patient will get about $2,200 in England, $2,000 in Australia and $1,340 in France, according to a new study published this month in the journal Health Affairs.

If you're covered by Medicare or Medicaid in this country, the difference in price is considerably less, suggesting that Government programs are Better price bargainers than private insurance companies.
But your orthopedic surgeon still will get more from Medicare for a first-time, uncomplicated hip replacement — about $1,600 — than surgeons typically earn through publicly financed health programs in the United Kingdom ($1,200), Australia ($1,000) or France ($700), the study found.

The research, conducted by two professors of public health at Columbia University, clearly illustrates what should be obvious about the disproportionately large percentage of the U.S. economy — 16% — that goes to health care.

We spend more in the United States for doctors' services because U.S. doctors charge Higher prices than doctors in other countries.

The new study also looked at prices primary care physicians charge for office visits and found a similar pattern, but with narrower differences. Under private insurance, U.S. doctors charge an average of $133 for an office visit, versus $129 in England, $45 in Australia and $34 in France. Under Public health systems, physicians in England actually get more than their U.S. counterparts on average — $66 as opposed to $60 — while Australian doctors earn $34 and French physicians $32.

The researchers found no evidence to support other explanations for higher prices in this country. "Higher physician fees — rather than the higher costs of practicing, the volume of services provided, or medical school tuition expenses — are the main drivers of higher spending for physician services in the United States," concluded The Commonwealth Fund, which helped pay for the study.
[......]
Looks like it's cheaper Everywhere through public healthcare.

Thought it's Not the only factor, Doctor pay is one Big reasons we pay so much for Healthcare. There's not really any competition in Medicine. You Need X, you can't/don't want to spend time shopping around, and even if you do, it costs you.
It's less conducive to private competition than say, Car insurance.
 
Last edited:
That's valid. I'd say it be addressed in forming the policy. I imagine regular evaluations would be standard.

To prove how wrong you are take a look at how defense contractors make most of their money. Not on the original equipment they sell but the spare parts to get the tanks and planes going. Same is true here, companies would lowball to get the contract then raise prices as the years go on.

Single payer may be the best solution, but not for the reason mentioned here.
 
So you WOULD agree that there is potential for monopoly (as opposed to #4 above)...? I don't see how 'forming the policy' or 'regular evaluations' would keep those 'not under contract' insurance businesses solvent without subscribers. Can you expound on this?
That's a good point, but contracts are not necessarily an all-or-nothing deal, either. With the right system, businesses that are on the right track can stay solvent without monopoly control. I imagine any functional single-payer system realistically involves a heterogenous field of contracts of varying size and spread.

Yes, there's potential for monopoly. I never said there wasn't. There's plenty of ways to end up with effective monopoly, one combination of which has resulted in our system today that allows extraordinarily high prices for healthcare. The idea is that there is also potential for less effective monopoly than the current system, if the policy is built right and the government is held accountable to it. Single payer works. We know it does, because so many other single-payer countries have more accessible healthcare than we do.
 
Last edited:
To prove how wrong you are take a look at how defense contractors make most of their money. Not on the original equipment they sell but the spare parts to get the tanks and planes going. Same is true here, companies would lowball to get the contract then raise prices as the years go on.

Single payer may be the best solution, but not for the reason mentioned here.
Hmm, ok. Would you say that monopoly is inevitable in single payer? If so, is it a problem and if so, how is it best dealt with?
 
Some things would obviously be cheaper. Look at insurance billing. A healthcare provider needs to be able to send bills for insurance reimbursement to many different insurance companies. What each insurance company will cover differs. How the insurance company want the reimbursement sent to them will differ as well. Some insurance companies may require an x-ray be done before a certain procedure while others may not. So we have a large layer of bureaucracy in place that affects not only the billing but also how the healthcare provider provides care. It's very easy to imagine that if instead of many insurance companies with different requirements and systems a healthcare provider dealt mostly with a single entity with only one set of requirements that money would be saved in at least the one area.
 
No, as there is no competition (monopoly).

It's EMPIRICALLY not true that healthcare costs more in single payer, it costs A LOT LESS. EMPIRICALLY .... (you can do market theory all you want, the results are in, single payer is more efficient, better care, and cheaper).
 
Name one time in history the government has been able to do something cheaper than the free market.

Post Office,
Security,
Housing,
healthcare, (the results are my friend, we see single payer countries and market based healthcare countries)
Roads and transportation,
Energy
Insurance

I can go on if you'd like.
 
Incorrect. It may seem cheaper in a direct sense because the government is doing it for "free", but it's still funded by tax payer money and being the government is largely less efficient and less cost oriented than a free market enterprise.

Try again.

And we don't need single payer. There's no reason we can't just have an opt-out option like Germany.

THe government is less cost oriented yes ... but it is also more RESULTS orientated and less PROFIT orientated.

Germany has a public not for profit healthcare system.
 
Well... there's the rest of the Industrialized world.. and Here of course.

Medicare reimbursement (Universal Healthcare for seniors) is the Near equalizer and clearly something that would Lower our relative costs.

U.S. Doctors' Pay Much Higher Than Their European Counterparts
U.S. Doctors' Pay Much Higher Than Their European Counterparts by Newspaper Contributors on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent

Looks like it's cheaper Everywhere through public healthcare.

Thought it's Not the only factor, Doctor pay is one Big reasons we pay so much for Healthcare. There's not really any competition in Medicine. You Need X, you can't/don't want to spend time shopping around, and even if you do, it costs you.
It's less conducive to private competition than say, Car insurance.

Most successful countries are multipayer, not single payer. The thread suggested single payer, which I believe is a terrible option because it forces people to do something they don't want to do, and makes it so that there is no competition. Countries like Germany who have multipayer and an opt-out option for public healthcare have it down.

Post Office,
Security,
Housing,
healthcare, (the results are my friend, we see single payer countries and market based healthcare countries)
Roads and transportation,
Energy
Insurance

I can go on if you'd like.

All of those are cheaper for the end consumer, not cheaper all in all. Try again.

THe government is less cost oriented yes ... but it is also more RESULTS orientated and less PROFIT orientated.

Germany has a public not for profit healthcare system.

You are completely wrong. The healthcare system is for profit, and it is multipayer. It also has an opt-out ability. Why would anyone be opposed to that? Single payer is bull****.
 
It's EMPIRICALLY not true that healthcare costs more in single payer, it costs A LOT LESS. EMPIRICALLY .... (you can do market theory all you want, the results are in, single payer is more efficient, better care, and cheaper).

I never said it did cost more. But one has to actually look at the data more in-depth. For example being a single payer system doesn't mean your Government provides the care rather Government contracts out the care giving like in Canada or in the UK where the medical services actually work for the State.
 
THe government is less cost oriented yes ... but it is also more RESULTS orientated and less PROFIT orientated.

Germany has a public not for profit healthcare system.

LOL, Have you seen UK and Canada results?


And Germany has a two tier system. What is required by law to be cover which is known as Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung (Law-enforced health insurance) and comes from the sickness fund and they have Private Krankenversicherung (Private Health Insurance).

I lived and worked in Germany for 2 years and still live there 3 months out of the year. Their sickness fund is akin to Medicaid and Medicare and paid for the exact same way (FICA, employer-employee contributions). You can opt into the sickness fund and still buy outside additional insurance. You can opt out and buy your own if you have income greater then $68,000 or roughly 25% of Germans. In Private Insurance you can choose what you pay for (outside of mandatory coverage), so if you don't want to pay for whatever, you don't have to.

A Major difference is between the US and Germany is Germany has a pay as you go system for their sickness fund. Which means each year money is collected and paid out that year. There is no reserve funds. So when Germany's population ages (as it is) the costs will be getting costlier and costlier.. As 2011 Germany spends 12% of it's GDP in Health Care costs. US its at 17%. A few small changes like annual checks up being covered by the State and you lower the cost massively in the future.. as it's a preventative care that saves the most.
 
...Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung...

The main health insurance issue in Germany is obviously that no one can say the name of their system without having to take two or three breaths.
 
The main health insurance issue in Germany is obviously that no one can say the name of their system without having to take two or three breaths.

Look at the spikes in cost in Germany in it's public fund and then you'll see the real problem.

But only in US. It's actually pretty easy to say. If you'd have to take 3 breaths to say Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung then you would also have to for statutory health insurance in English. The English language comes from Jutland tribes of the Saxons, and Angles. That would be Germanic people or to be specific, Northern Germany in the region of Schleswig-Holstein today. ;)
 
Most successful countries are multipayer, not single payer. The thread suggested single payer, which I believe is a terrible option because it forces people to do something they don't want to do, and makes it so that there is no competition. Countries like Germany who have multipayer and an opt-out option for public healthcare have it down.
.....
Yes, but your challenge was to show Government has done Anything cheaper].
I met that challenge quite handily. (Medicare)

I also pointed out Healthcare isn't as conducive as other industries/services to competition.
 
Last edited:
Yes, but your challenge was to show Government has done Anything cheaper].
I met that challenge quite handily. (Medicare)

I also pointed out Healthcare isn't as conducive as other industries/services to competition.

Actually you did nothing of the sort.

You named a government program on the verge of bankruptcy that is highy subsidized and that still takes forced contributions from citizens. That'd be like a government program that sells people new cars for $100. You can't sit there and act like the government magically manipulated the market into making cars cheaper, they simply bought the car at or above market value then subsidized it with your own tax money to get it down lower.

I think the fact that you chose a program on the verge of bankruptcy proves my point anyway.


 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom