Skip to main content

View Diary: Unaffordable co-pays and deductibles, death by a million cuts for insured Americans (248 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Of course, I did not say that the current system (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chi, VClib

    "trumps" the Canadian or British system.  

    The comment said, "how could anyone possibly have any problem with single payer?" and I responded why some people do have a problem with single payer -- because there's the potential for them to see a deterioration - wait times, some "rationing" -- in the care they now get, as the links seem to indicate.

    I completely acknowledge that one can make the case that getting care to people who are now without it is worth the negatives some people will see.  In other words, the argument should be that it may well be "worth it" for some people to wait longer for hip replacement surgery if that means that someone else who previously would have been without insurance now gets care.  

    My point is that people -- well, certainly thinking people -- will not buy into the "how can anybody be opposed to single payer, since it's clearly better in every way!" argument.  Like any system, it has upsides and downsides.  For thinking people, the argument is that the upsides outweigh the downsides, NOT the argument that there ARE no downsides.

    •  You show me where, in this original comment to (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lostinamerica, Chi, JesseCW, demway, elwior

      which you are responding, it says 'how could anyone possibly have any problem with single payer?'

      Since money is fungible, (14+ / 0-)
      what is the argument against medicare for all? If the pool is everybody, then the costs go down.

      Why is there resistance to paying in for a medicare system in favor of a profit taking corporation? It would cost less, and we would get more.

      Money is money. Pooling it for citizens makes more sense than paying to be abused by insurance companies.

      Hint: It doesn't.
      •  Here's what I was responding to (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cedwyn, VClib
        what is the argument against medicare for all?
        Why is there resistance to paying in for a medicare system in favor of a profit taking corporation?
        Pooling it for citizens makes more sense than paying to be abused by insurance companies
        This, and at least one comment that followed it, implied (to me, at least) that the sentiment was that the only people who could possibly have a reason for opposing single payer were insurance companies and that "people" had no possible reason for opposing single payer.  That's what I responded to.  It is likely true that health insurance companies would vehemently oppose single payer because it would put them out of business.  It is also true that some people who presently have good health insurance are concerned that single payer will result in some longer waits and some rationing, as have been reported in the Candadian and British systems.  

        That concern is reinforced by the reports like those I linked to.  If single payer is going to become a reality, I think that the proponents have to address that concern in some way.  I don't think that single payer can become a reality unless and until those concerns are at least addressed -- either by explaining why it won't happen here, or explaining why the upside for the country as a whole outweighs the potential negatives for some.  

         

        •  The arguments in favor of single payer have (16+ / 0-)

          been articulated, studied and published for years now, and were pointed out quite simply in the post you reference. Pooling it is cheaper. Removing the profit motive means more money for care.

          Just as you will never convince 30% of the electorate that we were lied into war in Iraq, or that their Medicare actually does represent a form of socialized medicine, or that contraception is not exclusively for sluts, you won't convince all the people that single payer is in their personal best interest (even if it may be). But the majority of Americans, as recently as 2009, supported either a public option or single payer.

          If you'd like to discuss rationing, I'm happy to share recent statements from my "good" private insurance telling me the drugs, procedures and doctors that they won't cover. Rationing at its worst. And rationing that we pay a LOT of money to experience.

          •  I really didn't intend this to be a debate (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Cedwyn, VClib, nextstep

            on the merits of single payer, for many reasons, not the least of which that "single payer" can take many forms, and the potential upsides and downsides will vary with the details of any proposal.

            My only point is that many people believe that some forms of single payer systems  can potentially result in longer waits for care and in rationing.  Reports like those I linked to provide support for those concerns.  Clearly there are responses to these concerns, but that doesn't mean that those who have such concerns (fueled by reports in the so-called "mainstream" press) are crazy.

            If single payer is to become a reality in this country, those concerns need to be addressed.  Proponents need to say, "I understand your concerns, but it won't happen here because. . . " or "I understand your concerns, but it is better to have everybody covered and have some wait a bit longer for elective care because . . ."  

            •  Those concerns have been addressed. Ad nauseum. (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              WheninRome, kareylou, JesseCW, elwior, itsbenj

              Which goes to my point that you will never convince a certain slice of the population that something is the morally or fiscally responsible thing to do. There's none so blind as will not see.

              "Many people" had "concerns" about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, even after being told about the "potential" for disaster. That didn't stop our government from declaring and continuing wars there.

              If we wait to assuage all of these "concerns" then meaningful healthcare reform will never happen. Follow the money - the primary source of "concern" is from companies whose executives become wealthy by denying both care to their subscribers and access to care for millions of others.

              •  angstall - it is interesting to note that those (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                coffeetalk, nextstep

                same concerns were expressed in England, even though there is widespread support for the NHS. In response to those concerns England has allowed a private pay, parallel system to flourish by changing the laws about five years ago to allow for private healthcare. It will be much easier to have a universal coverage healthcare system in the US if we think of this like public and private schools. There should be a public healthcare system, more like Canada's than England's and everyone would pay taxes to fund it. However, no patient would be required to use it and no physician would be required to see patients, it would be voluntary. Like private schools, everyone would also have the choice to pay for care themselves, or through insurance, and physicians could limit their practice to private pay patients, or treat both as most do in England. By providing a private pay option you neuter the most powerful opponents of any single payer system, many physicians and those who already have excellent access and care.

                "let's talk about that"

                by VClib on Sun Mar 18, 2012 at 08:36:14 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  One of the problems that will (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          elwior, SingleVoter

          contribute to wait times are shortages of nurses and doctors.

          OTOH, when doctors and their staff cut out the high amounts of time they spend getting authorizations, fighting denials, etc. the more patients they will be able to see.

          It will likely come down to the decision to go with some short term problems while the system catches up with all of us who have been uninsured or underinsured for years.

          The folks who had adequate health insurance may learn what it's been like for the rest of us. That favoring the status quo so you won't suffer like others are, could delay fixing the system and create a longer repair time.

          "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

          by Ginny in CO on Sun Mar 18, 2012 at 11:37:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site