It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The health care delivery system remains private. As opposed to a national health service, where the government employs doctors, in a national health insurance system, the government is billed, but doctors remain in private
A national health insurance program could save approximately $150 billion on paperwork alone. Because of the administrative complexities in our current system, over 25% of every health care dollar goes to marketing, billing,
utilization review, and other forms of waste. A single-payer system could reduce administrative costs greatly.
Most businesses would save money. Because a single-payer system is more efficient than our current system, health care costs are less, and therefore, businesses save money. In Canada, the three major auto manufacturers (Ford, GM, and Daimler-Chrysler) have all publicly endorsed Canada’s single-payer health system from a business and financial standpoint. In the United States, Ford pays more for its workers health insurance than it does for the steel to make its cars.
Under NHI, your insurance doesn’t depend on your job. Whether you’re a student, professor, or working part-time raising children, you’re provided with care. Not only does this lead to a healthier population, but it’s also beneficial from an economic standpoint: workers are less-tied to their
employers, and those that dislike their current positions can find new work
(where they would be happier and most likely more productive and efficient).
Myths about National Health Insurance (NHI)
The government would dictate how physicians practice medicine.
In countries with a national health insurance system, physicians are rarely questioned about their medical practices (and usually only in cases of expected fraud). Compare it to today’s system, where doctors routinely have to ask an insurance company permission to perform procedures, prescribe certain medications, or run certain tests to help their patients.
Waits for services would be extremely long.
Again, in countries with NHI, urgent care is always provided immediately. Other countries do experience some waits for elective procedures (like cataract removal), but maintaining the US’s same level of health expenditures (twice as much as the next-highest country), waits would be much shorter or even non-existent.
People will overutilize the system.
Most estimates do indicate that there would be some increased utilization of the system (mostly from the 42 million people that are currently uninsured and therefore not receiving adequate health care), however the staggering savings from a single-payer system would easily compensate for this. (And remember, doctors still control most health care utilization. Patients don’t receive prescriptions or tests because they want them; they receive them because their doctors have deemed them appropriate.)
Government programs are wasteful and inefficient.
Some are better than others, just as some businesses are better than others. Just to name a few of the most successful and helpful: the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, and Social Security. Even consider Medicare, the government program for the elderly; its overhead is approximately 3%, while in private insurance companies, overhead and profits add up to 15-25%.
originally posted by: redhorse
originally posted by: mikell
Another report says about 25 million more jobs on the way so they can get it at work and not be taxed for it. Of course that would require them to WORK.
Most jobs the working poor get will simply keep them at less than 40 hours so they don't have to provide insurance. I know plenty of people who work 2 or even three jobs with no insurance. They can (and often do) work 40+ hours a week and pray they don't get sick or injured.
originally posted by: ketsuko
originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: ColdWisdom
If you have income and/or assets, it would be smart of you to get at least catastrophic health insurance. At age 28, you're not likely to contract a serious disease, injuries happen without warning. (Sports, Drunk Drivers, etc.)
Catastrophic with an HSA was a smart policy for otherwise healthy individuals, even families, prior to Obamacare.
Depending upon the study, we can derive that between 20,000 and 45,000 Americans die each year due to a lack of health insurance.
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Willtell
Single payer is all fun and games until you are the one left out of the loop because you get a condition that the deficiencies of single payer do not adequately address.
I'm sure you'd be all sanguine about accepting your impending doom or new lifetime of needless suffering because you're an outlier the system will not adequately address because it isn't efficient for it to do so, eh?
originally posted by: Willtell
Stats show 20 to 40 thousand Americans die each year for lack of health insurance.
You folks just want to deny reality to justify your lack of empathy and care for the poorer American
No one here is saying single payer is Nirvana.
All systems devised by humans will be imperfect
But the health care system in America now is as if it was devised by the devil
originally posted by: spiritualzombie
I'm beginning to think Republicans would have favored Obamacare more had it actually had death panels.
originally posted by: AppreIron
The fact is by allowing both the haves and have nots access to the same quality of care, the haves quality of care decreases while the have nots may increase. This is proven affect of market forces in healthcare in both Canada and NHS; wait times increase and general quality of care decreases.