Skip to main content

View Diary: DK Elections Policy Weekly Open Thread: What Issues Are You Interested In? (256 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Single-payer actually saves money (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    uclabruin18, BeloitDem, Mark27, MichaelNY

    A LOT of it in fact.  Study after study prove this.

    Intelligence agencies keep things secret because they often violate the rule of law or of good behavior. -Julian Assange-

    by ChadmanFL on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 12:09:12 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Overall yes (0+ / 0-)

      But think about it, it would probably cost a lot of money to implement and would likely require tax increases as essentially some of the money required to operate the health care system would need to shift from the insurance companies to the government. Would regular people and businesses save a lot of money with a well-implemented single payer? Of course but I can't imagine implementation be cheap or easy. California has had trouble with basic governance for a long time and I want to see them get their shit together before going to single-payer because I don't want it done on the cheap and I want these 2/3 majorities to stick around.

      29, M, Swingnut, CA-38 resident. Chairman of the DKE Ginger Left-handed caucus. Huge Angels, Lakers, Bruins, Kings, Galaxy fan. Follow me on Twitter: @Artesialove

      by uclabruin18 on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 12:15:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  who does single-payer save money for? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      okiedem

      the government, consumers, or the economy?

      •  It leads to much less spending society-wide but of (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        course government spending and taxing would have to rise a lot to pay for that since health costs are effectively paid for public by tax revenues rather than by private insurance preimums

        27, originally OK-1, currently NY-10. Former swingnut.

        by okiedem on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 02:53:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  All 3 (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mark27, MichaelNY, ChadmanFL

        -America spends more government money on healthcare per capita and gets worse results than countries with single payer because we're propping up a grossly inefficient and uncompetetive private system. The ACA does some stuff to make the private system better in this regard, but it's not perfect.
        -Consumers save money from single payer because they're not paying for for crazy private profit driven by executive salaries and unnecessary tests. Also, even if you get really sick, you're still just paying the same amount in taxes.
        -The economy saves money because lack of government funded healthcare hinders growth. A single payer system means there are no more medical bankruptcies and people feel more comfortable taking a risk and starting a new business because they won't lose their healthcare.

        Single payer is a win for everyone.

        •  Although I am very much in favor of single-payer (0+ / 0-)

          I have a hard time believing it wouldn't require greater government expense. It would take an enormous amount of cost saving to offset the expense of healthcare being paid for by government revenues rather than by insurance premiums. I know that other countries have much lower healthcare costs than the United States but it seems unlikely that moving to a single-payer system would reduce costs to Medicare and Medicaid to such an extent that moving to a Single-payer would be revenue neutral.

          27, originally OK-1, currently NY-10. Former swingnut.

          by okiedem on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 03:11:06 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Examples Across The Globe..... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            okiedem, MichaelNY, ChadmanFL

            .....indicate it costs less.  So much money gets lost in our health care delivery spider web and its perverse incentive curves in a way that isn't the case in single-payer systems.  And typically the more direct government administration of the health care system (like Britain), the lower the costs as a percent of GDP.  Countries like Germany and Switzerland that maintain a de facto insurance model are cheaper than the US, but more expensive than government-run health care systems.  There would be some sacrifice in the form of rationing though.  I can't say with authority how much of the rationing storyline is a right-wing scare tactic and how much of it is real, but if you have a non-life-threatening knee surgery scheduled in a single-payer nation, you're probably not gonna get the surgery scheduled for next week.

            •  I'm not disagreeing you (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mark27, uclabruin18

              Healthcare spending as a percentage of GDP would likely fall quite substantially if we were to move to a single-payer system. However, government spending would likely rise because any cost savings in VA, Medicare and Medicaid would likely be more than offset by the costs of providing care the strong majority of the population that is not covered by one of these programs.

              27, originally OK-1, currently NY-10. Former swingnut.

              by okiedem on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 04:04:08 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site