single payer vs. public option

[Kaleva]

Is there a divide here at DU between proponents of the two? I'm for a single payer system such as promoted by Rep. John Conyers and Senator Bernie Sanders and do believe a public option alternative is giving the Dutch a few more fingers to plug the ever increasing number of holes in the collapsing dike of American health care.

Last night, I sent an e-mail to my congressman, Bart Stupak (can't believe I miss spelled his name though!) and called his D.C. office this afternoon asking that he consider co-sponsoring John Conyer's bill. I think the public option plan is a flawed compromise and it'd be best if we go the all or nothing route and hold out for a single payer plan.

[glowing]

1. I agree.

[county worker]

2. I doubt that a single payer plan will ever pass Congress.

You'd have to pass it with 51 Senators and Obama would have to sign it. I don't think that will ever happen.

Also, there is no compromise with a single payer. Everyone would be forced to pay their own medical bills or go in to the government system. The cost is also prohibitive and I understand few here would agree with me on that. I am sure that if we had a single payer system, at some point medical care would have to be rationed. We would have many more people in our plan than Canada has so that model is not a valid comparison.

I know I am not in the majority but I am sure I am right about what I say. I use to work in the health care industry for quite a few years. Basically we are calling for the replacement of greedy insurance companies with the federal government. I agree the insurance companies are a great evil in the health care delivery system but I also believe we need to cure the ills there before we go to a single payer.

Single payer is like having Medicare for all. Medicare already pays less than the cost of the medical procedures. Doctors and all others in the health care delivery field would have to lower their incomes. I don't think that is ever discussed along with the idea that we would need to increase the number of care givers over and above what we have now. We don't have the facilities to take in everyone who could or would need care when the single payer hits the streets. We don't have the bureaucracy in place and that would take years to build up along with the information technology increases that would to be in place.

[Oregone]

10. Medical care is already rationed

And no, using single payer does not mean it will be.

"We would have many more people in our plan than Canada has so that model is not a valid comparison."

Canada has multiple provincial plans operating side by side that allow regional autonomy. Its a completely comparable model, as long as the US was to follow the same outline.

The US also has a higher GDP and more health facilities. An argument based on population is silly.

"I also believe we need to cure the ills there before we go to a single payer."

You cannot cure capitalism. Shareholders will ensure a business does whatever it must to generate more gross profit for them. Single-payer is the cure.

"Single payer is like having Medicare for all"

Single-payer is like having an effective medicare for all. Medicare can use its own improvements.

"We don't have the facilities to take in everyone who could or would need care when the single payer hits the streets"

So its ok to leave people on the streets? Just the ones who cant pay as much?

"We don't have the bureaucracy in place and that would take years to build up along with the information technology increases that would to be in place."

Single payer requires little "bureaucracy". IT is in fact not even necessary at all, as people have done this since the 70s.

You are coming up with every little tiny excuse, which are all full of lies for the most part.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/what_is_single_payer.php

[robinlynne]

15. Congress has single payer healthcare! I don't see them offering to give it up.

[Kaleva]

20. The military has socialist style medical care

There is no movement to change that. When I was in the hospital for a few days while in boot camp, I wasn't confined to bed and thus got put on working parties such as passing out and picking up the food trays for those confined to be, cleaning the head (bathroom) swabbing the decks (floors) and hauling out the garbage to the dumpsters.

[robinlynne]

23. and how would you rate your health care?

[sandyd921]

3. Problem is a number of our progressive groups

and unions were afraid to back an all-out single payer system. Thought they couldn't get the support. Some of us feel that we have been sold out on this. As far as I'm concerned the public option is the middle (fall-back) position in negotiating and you don't start with your fall-back position.

[sandnsea]

5. Uhm. It's fall back time.

They're writing the bills right now. You do get that don't you.

[county worker]

6. The problem is a number of our progressive groups have not thought the matter through.

I don't understand why if you had a public option why you feel the need to force everyone into it.

You'd be covered by your public option why do you care if I have a private option? Why can't you compromise on that?

[robinlynne]

16. exactly. but Democrats always do, except for the great few.

[sandnsea]

4. Holding out for Nader worked well n/t

[ejpoeta]

7. I think people aren't as divided as some on the msm would suggest.

We all want the same thing, and some think that anything but single payer is not going to work. Some think that we are going to get screwed. I think that a public option is the way to get to single payer. Most will go to the public option, that is what the republicans keep saying because it is true. there are a lot of people who don't have insurance... and there are a lot of people who have crappy insurance and insurance they just can't afford. I think that given a TRUE public option, that the costs would be competitive and they will probably find they have a lot less hassles. Eventually, most would end up in it, i believe.

[Oregone]

8. Two very different approaches

Single-payer advocates are suggesting a radical change in the insurance system to provide better and more affordable care, a result which has empirical evidence supporting it.

The "public option" approach is the tinkering of the current broken system to appease those hurting with a halfway acceptable solution, while still keeping the private insurers in place and happy. Unfortunately, this tinkering approach is not supported by any similar successful models in the world, and it is more based on hope (and no, hybrid systems like Germany are worlds apart).

The approach to the crisis (as well as the results each promise) couldn't be more radically different.

[Kaleva]

9. If insurance co.'s find a plan acceptable, then it's unacceptable

[Cleita]

18. Well said.

:thumbsup:

[chill_wind]

11. K & R to the GP. n/t

[jgraz]

12. But... single-payer wouldn't be bi-partisan!!!!!

:banghead:

[girl gone mad]

13. I think the public option is a recipe for failure..

because it does nothing to address the problems in the system. It will do nothing to bring down costs. Many people will still be left out.

[Sebastian Doyle]

14. First choice would be single payer

Reluctant second choice would be a true public option, as described by Dr. Howard Dean.

Third choice: Do absolutely NOTHING. A bad bill (mandatory corporatism or bullshit "co-op" fallacy) would be WORSE than leaving the fucked up status quo.

And if it ends up being option #3, then the next thing to do is form a third party that WILL do the right thing, and FUCK these corporatist assholes once and for all.

[Cleita]

17. Public option would be workable if it was an extension of what we have

already like Medicare and Medicaid. It would have to be updated and made more comprehensive with the holes plugged to keep private insurance out. It would still cover the elderly, the poor and disabled, but there should be an option for companies, unions and individuals to buy into it if they no longer want to be screwed by the private sector. However, it seems like the giveaway is going to be going to the private sector and it's going to be called a public option. They will use this opportunity to phase out Medicare and Medicaid. People should be livid instead of applauding it.

[HughMoran]

19. So no reform for another 37 years then

Single payer seems so very unlikely - I would rather get our foot in the door with a public option and it's lower cost will show that it's the best option.

[jeanpalmer]

21. The public option might be history

They were discussing this on McLauglin last night. The CBO's estimate of cost for a public option that covers all the uninsured came to $400 billion/year. To cover 16 million of the uninsured, the cost was $160 billion. Apparently, Obama was staggered by the cost.

Where can they come up with this kind of money, with the deficit at $1.8 trillion? The $400 billion option seems out of the question. I'm just guessing, and there was s suggestion on McLaughlin to the same effect, that Obama will go with some kind of stripped down version that will provide insurance to a few more people or spread a limited benefit over a larger number of people. And he'll tax the gold-plated insurance policies to raise the limited money needed.

Let's face it, the money's not there. I've read that the savings from a single payer would pay for single payer. But looks like single payer isn't being considered. And with public option being too expensive, what's the alternative?

Too bad they don't consider the option of ending these wars and cutting the military budget. How can you fund healthcare if you're spending $650 billion a year on these wars and other Pentagon spending. Plus more on related spending. Doesn't make any sense. But apparently there are no plans to cut there either. Until people can connect the lack of funds for social programs to the military budget, there's gonna be little progress on health care imo. And the bad thing about that is, even if they were to cut back on the wars over time, interest on the increasing debt would eat up all the defense savings. The only way they could do it is if they ended those crazy wars within 6 months. Then there would be a $150 billion surplus to work with. Cut another $100 billion out of the Pentagon, and you'd have a good part of the funding necessary. At some point, people have to make the connection. Politicians could help them do it, but they're not inclined to. So just kiss off a major overhaul of healthcare.

[armyowalgreens]

22. It truly is all or nothing...

Hybrid systems for healthcare will likely fall apart. The government plan would end up being underfunded and everyone would go running over to the welcoming private insurance industry.