What would it mean to have single-payer?

[ColbertWatcher]

It means that if you were in a car accident, the ambulance would take you to the nearest hospital.

That hospital would treat you without you or anyone in your family having to fill out forms (before or after treatment). None of the hospital staff would have to fill out insurance paperwork either.

It means you would get every test the doctor decided was necessary without having to wait for an insurance company to approve of them.

It means you wouldn't have to decide between taking the medicine the way the doctor prescribed it to you and trying to make the pills last until you get paid again. Or having to choose between buying medicine and paying rent. Or buying food.

It means that once you are released you won't have to declare bankruptcy then become homeless because the insurance company decided they didn't want to cover your illness/accident. Then the hospital overcharges you because you don't have insurance. Even though you thought you did.

It means no one--not even the nicest insurance agent--would get between you and your doctor.

It means you would be treated with dignity by the healthcare providers.

(EDITED TO MAKE MORE SENSE)

[proud patriot]

1. Just because my son is disabled I won't have to be Bankrupt

:cry: This issue is very personal to me .

[ColbertWatcher]

7. Everyone's health is personal.

We are not the commodities the insurance companies are trying to turn us into.

[kenny blankenship]

2. OMG it sounds like Hell on Earth!

Oh the humanity! Tell me, when you aren't busy corrupting impressionable wholesome minds to Socialism, are you eating babies, or just poisoning wells?

[ColbertWatcher]

9. I dip the babies in the poisoned wells.

It makes a good marinade.

Oh and abortions.

I just wish as a man I could have real abortions.

When I feel emasculated because I can only have communist abortions, I eat another baby.

[rgbecker]

3. I want it.

[ColbertWatcher]

11. We all want it.

Why should our healthcare be dependent on the vagaries of the insurance market?

[ejpoeta]

4. you forgot something....

it means you wouldn't end up losing your insurance because you can't work and be unable to get insurance because you have a pre existing condition.

[ColbertWatcher]

5. I always forget something.

But, that's why I posted it; so DU could post what I forgot to!

Thank you.

[JDPriestly]

6. It also means less litigation over all because people would not

be so inclined to sue for minor treatments such as back ailments even if they could become chronic problems. That's because people would not have to worry about how to cover their medical payments should they become uninsured.

I seriously doubt that agencies that consider the cost of single payer weigh in some of these advantages that aren't quite as direct as simply saving on administrative costs charged by health insurers.

For example, with a few words and a stroke of a pen, Congress could render the whole Workers' Compensation medical reimbursement unnecessary. That would reduce costs to employers right there. Workers' Compensation insurance has its own huge bureaucracy including all kinds of litigation and government oversight. Workers' Comp would still have to cover things like lost wages, but basic medical costs, physical therapy, etc. could be folded into the single payer system.

Combining the medical coverage now provided by Workers' Comp with single payer insurance would insure that the patient gets the right treatment and not just the treatment that benefits someone somewhere in the Workers' Comp apparatus who happens to be milking the Workers' Comp system.

I remember a Workers' Comp case that involved a drug-abuser who had suffered from diabetes for many years. While working in an office, she dropped an object that was not all that heavy on her foot (wouldn't have happened to most people; would have just bruised most people) and had to have her foot amputated -- all costs covered by Workers' Comp. I don't need to tell those of you who know how Workers' Comp works what happened in the end: The employer's obligation to pay into the Workers' Comp fund rose way, way up.

So single payer has a lot of advantages that are not readily apparent.

[ColbertWatcher]

10. "not have to worry about how to cover their medical payments" QFT. n/t

[Fumesucker]

12. Workmen's Comp is a *huge* burden on small business..

I have family members who own their own small business and they are constantly complaining about Workmen's Comp and the myriad hassles and ridiculous expense of it.

These people actually work themselves rather than just being managers and have to have WC to bid on many contracts, the WC coverage does not cover the owners, only hired help.

[ColbertWatcher]

17. Good point. Single-payer is pro-small business. This cannot be said enough. n/t

[JimWis]

8. It would mean you could retire early because you wouldn't just

work for the insurance coverage. It would mean if your job sucked, you could change and insurance wouldn't be an issue. It would mean you wouldn't need medicare, veterans insurance, medicaid, that new children's insurance, etc. (The money that is being spent for that now would fund it plus a modest payroll tax). Because every American citizen would be covered from birth to death. It would also include all dental and vision.

Oh, and no deductibles, no co-insurance, and no life time limits.

[ColbertWatcher]

14. There are many benefits.

We ave been trying to argue the GOP's lies about single-payer. I figured it would be nice to start a thread that would show what would happen when we can concentrate on our healthcare instead o how to pay for it and whatever fees the insurance companies invent.

[tularetom]

13. How would single payer change things for those of us on Medicare?

Right now I'm covered by Medicare and a supplement provided at no cost to me by my former employer. I still must pay my wife's premium for the supplement plus we were means tested into paying a couple hundred dollars a month for Part B Medicare. I honestly don't know if the supplemental coverage is worth a crap, I've never used it.

From what I'm hearing my situation wouldn't change a great deal under a single payer program. It too would probably be means tested as well and I might have to pay higher premiums than I do now. From my own selfish standpoint this is not great but If it helps get more people covered I'm OK with it.

So from the standpoint of premiums I don't see a great benefit. Hopefully it would end hassles with the insurers about what is covered and what isn't. I haven't yet made a claim under either Medicare or my supplement so I don't have any personal knowledge of how much of a pain in the ass it is. If under a single payer system there wold be no denial of service or denial of payment issues it would be well worth the higher premiums.

[ColbertWatcher]

15. I think single payer would eliiminate the insurance scam of deciding what would get covered ...

... and what would not.

Single payer means it gets paid by one entity.

The doctor, the hospital, the nurses, the pharmacy, etc.

The insurance company would not be in the equation. Off the table so to speak.

[tularetom]

23. Would we have to argue with some bureaucrat instead of an insurance company about coverage?

Or would coverage issues just disappear and all claims just be automatically accepted?

Or would there be some confusing instructions about what was covered and what was not so that the burden would still be on the patient to make medical decisions based on coverage?

[ColbertWatcher]

24. I believe the doctor would decide what would be covered.

The bureaucrats would simply shuffle the paperwork around, document everything and send checks.

I'm sure some other bureaucracy would look for abuse of the system.

I see it running more like the IRS, than any boogie man invented by the GOP.

[JDPriestly]

26. When I lived in Europe, my doctors knew what they could prescribe and

how to ask for things. I never lacked medical care my doctors wanted me to have. At one point while we were living on the European continent itself, we got a homeopathic treatment from the United Kingdom for one of our doctors that was not fully tested. We got it but it took a little longer -- not that much longer.

The Germans and Austrians included a lot of Kurs -- basically spa vacations in their coverage. That cost a lot, but was covered. Also, contrary to what Americans are lead to believe, Europeans suffer a lot from alcoholism, and Kurs -- spa vacations -- for that disease were also very generously covered.

[ColbertWatcher]

28. Thank you for posting the "socialist" perspective.

:evilgrin:

[JDPriestly]

34. I wish that Americans could enjoy the democratic socialist vacations.

I wish that Americans could enjoy the democratic socialist public transportation.

I used to think that the European system was less open to technical innovation, actually innovation of all kinds, but even in that area Europeans are way ahead of us -- speed rail, solar panels, in many areas. I don't think it is entirely because they are democratic socialist. I think it has a lot to do with the qualities they seek in their leaders. For one thing, most of the European heads of state worked hard in school and excelled academically. President Obama has a good education, but in spite of all the private schools and Ivy League universities he attended, George W. Bush was ignorant in many respects. With the exception of Berlusconi in Italy, I cannot imagine that such a foolish person could become the leader of a European country. And even Berlusconi is a very clever man.

[ColbertWatcher]

35. Well, we get what we pay for.

Our taxes are so damn low relative to every civilize nation, we shouldn't be surprised at the "quality" of our services.

[KitSileya]

50. But do you pay that much less than the rest of us?

Yeah, I pay 36% of my income in taxes, and a lot of other services and goods are taxed (alcohol, tobacco, cars, a 25% VAT on stuff, 12,5% VAT on food etc) but honestly, I cannot see that my salary stretches that much less than yours. I don't pay out of pocket for school (up to and including university), I don't pay out of pocket for health care, I have 4 weeks paid vacation, a stipend for each child I should happen to get and a year's maternity leave, public transport, and on and on. Honestly, while our tax levels may be higher (if they really are,) our standard of living is too.

In the last 2 1/2 years I've had two semi-serious medical issues. I damaged my ankle in Jan 2007, which led to some serious physical therapy that didn't work well, and consequently surgery that did work well. In April, I ended up in hospital for cholecystitis, which most likely will lead to a removal of the gallbladder when I go in for my already scheduled check-up (they automatically give you an appointment 3 months after such illnesses). By December, I'm sure my total healthcare bill for the last three years won't top $600, and most of that was for the first round of physical therapy for my ankle, since I was a dolt who didn't realize how badly I had damaged it, and so the PT was elective. I could have gotten most of that back, since it turned out it was more serious than first realized, but I figured the co-pays amounted to about three day's worth of salary, and I could afford that without problems, so I decided I wouldn't reclaim it.

[kenny blankenship]

16. Some doctors don't take Medicare

If the country was on Single Payer, that kind of thing would be basically unheard of instead of fairly common. A tiny tiny fraction of doctors that serve only a few super wealthy clients would turn away patients with a national health insurance card.

[ejpoeta]

47. more and more doctors are dumping a lot of insurance companies.

the ones they have to fight with so much, i presume. It gets to a point where it's just not worth it for all the hassle. I don't really blame them.

[clear eye]

41. You'd be a least somewhat better w/ single payer, and maybe a lot better.

Because all earners, even the young and healthy, pay taxes into a single payer system, it can fund benefits w/ less deductibles than the current Medicare. The amount of taxes needed will be lower than most insured people currently pay in premiums and other medical costs, and benefits certainly more secure. If this rotten economy causes your former employer to go out of business or have to drop you, the difference will be enormous. Also there will be none of the paperwork you and your health providers now have to deal with.

There will be no "premiums". It will be taxpayer funded w/ amounts depending on income:

Here is the section of the proposed bill dealing w/ funding:

(c) Intent.—Sums appropriated pursuant to subsection (b) shall be paid for—

(1) by vastly reducing paperwork;

(2) by requiring a rational bulk procurement of medications;

(3) from existing sources of Federal government revenues for health care;

(4) by increasing personal income taxes on the top 5 percent income earners;

(5) by instituting a modest payroll tax; and

(6) by instituting a small tax on stock and bond transactions

[Kaleva]

18. I was allowed by my insurance co. to stay 6 days in the hospital

when I had a deep vein blood clot in my left leg two years ago.

[ColbertWatcher]

19. Could you afford to?

If you didn't have the insurance, could you have paid for it?

[Kaleva]

21. No

I got blood clots again last fall but they weren't in the deep veins so my doctor said I didn't require hospitalization. As I couldn't work, my wife and I became eligible for Medicaid and thus I could get the veins stripped in both of my legs. There was no way I could have afforded to do that had I not been on Medicaid.

[ColbertWatcher]

22. : (

I hope you're doing well and I wish you single-payer.

[chill_wind]

20. Excellent info. K & R. n/t

[jgraz]

25. It would mean a permanent Democratic majority

The Dems know this, yet they're still refusing to consider single-payer. :banghead:

[ColbertWatcher]

27. They can't see the voting forest for the lobbyist trees. n/t

[jgraz]

29. They see very well

It's not about party or country. It's about their personal power. An individual Dem who opposes single-payer stands to gain much more from the health insurance industry. Their party may falter, but the insurance $$ will keep their seat safe.

[ColbertWatcher]

30. Their seat is safe with votes.

I know what you're saying, but I believe that votes have more value than a mere lobbyist.

Maybe not now, but some day.

[Selatius]

33. True and false.

The working classes as a whole have far more votes than anybody in the top corporate class, but it takes a lot more energy to get poorer people to vote or to organize them into a cohesive unit, much less donate significant amounts of money. It is far easier to solicit donations from a small number of wealthy donors. This is how the wealthy gain disproportionate influence.

If you get 1000 folks from the working class to donate to you, how much money on average would each donor give? 35 bucks? 50? 100 bucks?

If you get 1000 folks from the upper 1% to donate to you, how much money on average would each donor give? 1000 bucks? 1500? 2500, the maximum legal individual limit?

This is the problem. In order to get equal face time as far as purchasing TV, radio, and newspaper ads, you would need to get several times the number of working class people to support you just to cancel out the number from the corporate class.

Obama is a great example of small donors being able to outspend the few large donors. The vast majority of his money came from small donors during his presidential run, and he outspent McCain by leaps and bounds, but the political situation was such that Obama was easily able to tap into the national anger at Bush and the Republicans (and sadly some Democrats) who enabled his reckless policies. However, this is not an every day occurrence. It's kind of rare that the national mood is so anti-incumbent.

[Cleita]

31. It means we'd be living in Canada.

Also, we would be more competitive in the international market because our industries wouldn't be dragged down with for profit health insurance expense.

It means that people could change jobs because they wouldn't have to worry about losing their health insurance.

It means you could go on vacation and get treated no matter where you are in the USA because everyone has the same insurance card and every clinic knows what to do with it no matter where you are.

[ColbertWatcher]

36. You make some very good points. n/t

[krispos42]

32. It means your car insurance drops by a third

A big chunk of your premium is for injuries that you or the person you hit.

With USP, that cost goes *poof*.


And nobody would stay with a sucky employer or in a dead-end job with with a jackass of a boss simply because they (or their family) need the insurance. Starting your own small business, being an entrepreneur, would become a hell of a lot safer and easier.

[ColbertWatcher]

37. Yup. I believe the best way to "sell" single-payer is ...

... by showing how it will help small businesses.

Insurance companies are anti-small business. Pure and simple.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. Some observations on what would not change from the modern system

The ambulance will STILL take you to the APPROPRIATE facility. If you are a code trauma to your regional trauma center NOT the closest hospital... but you would not have to pay for that ride, or the rest of the story. (Well you did, in taxes already)

Forms, yes you would still fill them, but not for payment, but who the hell are you? And your family would still be called, regardless. Next of kin and all that.

As to the tests you should also get what is necessary, not meant to pad a balance shit, like happens today.

Health care providers will and still DO treat you with dignity. Those who don't, even now, don't belong in the field.

These are necessary corrections to an otherwise well meant post.

[ColbertWatcher]

42. Thank you.

What I meant about being treated with dignity was that if you were able to see a healthcare professional.

For an insurance company denies you the chance to see a healthcare professional, that's what's undignified.

[Taitertots]

39. What would it mean?

I'd see a doctor for the first time this millennium.

My father won't be put into the poor house while we take care of my mother, who is dieing of cancer.

I won't be put into the poor house when my father passes.

[kath]

40. It would mean that if your college-student child was diagnosed w/ cancer and had to quit school for

awhile, her insurance wouldn't disappear, bankrupting your family.

[Lugnut]

43. Wow.

Where do I sign up? Oh yeah. It's only a dream.

[ColbertWatcher]

45. It doesn't have to be.

It happens in other industrialized nations.

There's no reason why it can't happen here.

[B Calm]

44. Employers would pay you more money. You would be free

to tell your cheap labor employer to go to hell.

[ColbertWatcher]

46. And let the market decide which businesses would remain open. n/t

[Kber]

48. Employment would increase for a couple of reasons

1. Busines owners like my husband could afford to to hire about three more people if he could reduce his health care costs by 35 - 50% (I am assuming he'd pay something in increased taxes, but it would be offset by decreases in health insurance coverage). That's the simplest and fastest job creation we will get.

2. More people would be able to start their own businesses, even single employee consulting, for example, if they didn't have to worry about health insurance. This would increase employment in severeal ways: First - there are the new businesses themselves. Second, some of the new business owners would be leaving "corporate" jobs, which may be filled by talented people who don't want to work for themselves. Third, some of these new businesses will eventually hire people, directly creating jobs. Lastly, more people working means more people buying stuff, which means more people making stuff, which means more jobs.

[ColbertWatcher]

49. You are correct. People who oppose single-payer are anti-small business. n/t

[Raineyb]

52. Not to mention that without worrying about health care people could feel

free to change jobs if they want. There are so many people who are stuck in jobs they cannot stand but they stay because of the health benefits. If they were free from worrying about how to cover their health care they'd be freer to change jobs or start businesses, which as you've already noted would mean more jobs and more people buying stuff.

Of course Republicans don't want people to actually have more choices or to be free, they prefer the illusory freedom involved in being able to buy more foreign manufactured crap but I digress.

[reprehensor]

51. You won't go bankrupt...

if you need open-heart surgery, etc.

[ColbertWatcher]

54. That's right.

Thank you.

[Solly Mack]

53. K&R