hlthe2b
(106,335 posts)Compare administrative costs for Medicare versus private insurance, for instance (the magnitude of difference is staggering)
subterranean
(3,539 posts)Switzerland and the Netherlands, for example, have universal health care through private insurance companies, but they are not allowed to profit from the basic health care package. They can make profits from selling supplemental insurance, though.
Japan and Germany have multi-payer systems, too, but they also have tight government regulation of medical and drug costs, much like single-payer systems. And there are no deductibles to pay on top of the premiums.
hlthe2b
(106,335 posts)seriously proposed in this country is devoid of the profiteers.
PumpkinAle
(1,210 posts)Physicians for a National Health Program
.... is a non-profit research and education organization of 19,000 physicians, medical students and health professionals who support single-payer national health insurance.
We educate physicians and other health professionals about the benefits of a single-payer system--including fewer administrative costs and affording health insurance for the 50 million Americans who have none.
http://www.pnhp.org/
Vox Moi
(546 posts)It is important to know who that single payer is, but there are some things you can say in general.
- The single payer can negotiate even lower rates and those rates ail be consistent for all subscribers.
- The single payer has the health care medical and financial information on everyone, for life. This has immense advantages in:
- Long-term studies on risk factors, efficacy of care and continuity of care that is nearly impossible with multi-payers.
- Much better financial analysis cost/effectiveness studies, and comparative analysis among hospitals and other care-givers.
- The single payer can force standardization of best practices, safety and appropriateness and other systematic improvements in the process of care.
The single payer is dealing with people for life, not the term of a policy. that encourages the payer to look at its members as human beings and not episodes of care.
Pterodactyl
(1,687 posts)Vox Moi
(546 posts)Everyone agrees that humans and cars should be healthy. (HMO, AMO)
You might make a better car, and the corporations that make cars might consider themselves to be people but in the end it's always a question of maintenance. A single-payer system of automobile maintenance would have many of the same benefits as it would in health care. How would you like to look up a mechanic and see how his outcomes were
in the context of all mechanics? How about the maintenance and repairs required a specific model of car or truck, as serviced everywhere? Things like Angie's list lack the power of the denominator. Denominators are what Single Payer is all about.
Don't rely on Angie's list for your next bypass operation
support single payer.
Pterodactyl
(1,687 posts)There are lots of cars and lots of dealers and lots of money for the consumers involved. (And payments from people who use public transportation could help offset the costs of people who have to have cars.)
alc
(1,151 posts)Things would probably not be better if the ACA said everyone has to get a Blue Cross policy (or pick your favorite private provider). Things would be better if the government said everyone pays taxes and from those taxes the government will pay health CARE costs for everyone. No insurance involved, just everyone receives health care.
stopbush
(24,630 posts)when most people seldom use their health care?
People carry insurance to guard against a catastrophic illness or accident. That might easily cost a family $12,000 a year. The "freebies" associated with holding such insurance policies are insignificant in cost compared to the premiums paid over the year.
Paying for healthcare through the tax system makes sense. Those who need the most care get it. Those who don't need that much care don't pay ridiculous premiums and they cost the government little if anything.
The profit incentive needs to come out of the healthcare system in this country.
Pterodactyl
(1,687 posts)Pterodactyl
(1,687 posts)murphyj87
(649 posts)In a single payer system, such as we have had in Canada since 1966, everyone has access to the health care they need in Canada, regardless of income.
In the United States, 40% of Americans can't get the health care they need because they are uninsured or under-insured, so, the insurance company bureaucrat who stands between most Americans and the health care they need denies them that health care.
Americans buy into the lie that any number of Canadians go to the US for medical care. According to data from American hospitals and Canadian hospitals, only 0.11% (11 in 10,000) of Canadians ever go to the US for medical treatment while 0.72% (72 in 10,000) Americans have had go to to Canada for medical treatment. The bottom line is that for every Canadian who goes to the US for medical treatment, about 59 Americans (72/11=6.55*9 times the population=58.9) go to Canada for medical treatment.
91% of Canadians say that the health care they get in Canada is better than the insurance run health care that Americans are stuck with.
When it came to health care, 45 per cent of Americans felt Canada had a superior system, while 42 per cent thought the United States should stick with its own.
Meanwhile, the vast majority of Canadians, 91 per cent, felt that Canada's health care system was better than that of the United States.
94% of Canadians (across the political spectrum) say that the way to improve Canadian health care is with public solutions, not for profit solutions.
One view, based on the premise that health care is a commodity, believes that markets should determine who gets care, when, and how. This view may sound reasonable or even innocuous, but dont be fooled: the end game is always the same: to withdraw public funding for Canadian health care and shift costs onto individuals.
The other vision one that I adhere to believes that health care is a public good, grounded on the Canadian values of fairness, equity, compassion, and collective action. As I said in my final report as Commissioner on the Future of Health Care in Canada, Canadians view health care as a moral enterprise, not a business venture. We see it as a right of citizenship, not a privilege of status or wealth as Americans do.
If anything, that point of view is even stronger today than it was when I released my report. A recent poll by Nanos Research found that support for public health care had risen to a record-high 94%.
There are two issues at play here, said Nanos President Nik Nanos. First, health care continues to be a top issue of national concern for Canadians. The second point is that right across the board, regardless of political affiliation or other demographics, support for public solutions in health care has increased over the past three years.
Overhead for American insurance run (multi-payer) health care was over 40% and is now "only" 25% due to "Obamacare".
Overhead for US single payer Medicare is 3%.
Overhead for Canadian universal single payer health care is 1%.
Each practise of three American doctors is required to pay 3 to 5 full time employees to handle multiple payers.
Each practice of three Canadian doctors need only pay 1 PART TIME employee to handle a single payer system for all 3 doctors.
As a result, American doctors make more GROSS pay than a Canadian doctor, but, because the Canadian doctor has 12% of the office expenses of an equivalent American doctor, the Canadian doctor makes more in NET pay than an equivalent American doctor makes.
The average amount of time it takes for an American doctor or hospital to be paid by an American insurance company is 4 months.
The average amount of time it takes for a Canadian doctor or hospital to be paid by the government in Canada is 14 days.
This just scratches the surface of the difference