Once Its Greatest Foes, Doctors Are Embracing Single-Payer

Jan 2014
16,162
6,165
south
The point of Universal Health Care, or Single Payer (if you prefer), is to provide an acceptable standard of health care for every member of society (irrespective of financial standing). It is as simple as that. It is not to introduce 'creeping socialism', nor is it a method of facilitating 'death panels', neither is it intended to reduce choice or diminish the income of medical practitioners.

The fact is - a healthy population is a happier and more productive population, and making both reactive and preventative health care free at the point of delivery provides an incentive to have regular medical examinations, and to treat minor ailments in a timely manner. It is much easier (and cheaper) to deal with a nasty cold, than it is to deal with pneumonia.

But of course, we all understand that nothing is free and the piper must be paid. The most equitable (and relatively painless) way of funding healthcare is by means of income taxation - it also spreads the burden across the entirety of the population, in the same manner as the maintenance of the armed forces, the justice system, the fire brigade and the transport systems. Those with little income pay relatively little and those with income in the millions pay proportionately more. No one goes without food or shelter as a result.

Universal health care systems vary across the world, but they are the norm for developed nations, and they all have one thing in common - guaranteed healthcare for every member of society - irrespective of financial abilities. Surely that is an aim worthy of putting aside fears of creeping socialism, or other ideological concerns?
how correct you are. that is precisely the view that I have proposed for a long time. unfortunately, this is America, where logic does not prevail for many citizens. as you may have noticed, Americans are more inclined to operate by different standards - notably greed, emotions and control.
 
Sep 2013
41,604
33,054
On a hill
how correct you are. that is precisely the view that I have proposed for a long time. unfortunately, this is America, where logic does not prevail for many citizens. as you may have noticed, Americans are more inclined to operate by different standards - notably greed, emotions and control.
Dont republicans read their children the story, Stone Soup?
 
Likes: OldGaffer
Jan 2014
16,162
6,165
south
I'm fully aware of the story - and sorry to crush your normal take on it. but, for some, it becomes "don't be like those poor folk who have to cooperate to have enough to eat - be like us rich folks who can pay their own way and don't need help and don't need have to share".
 
Apr 2012
57,332
42,148
Englewood,Ohio
By Shefali Luthra AUGUST 7, 2018

When the American Medical Association — one of the nation’s most powerful health care groups — met in Chicago this June, its medical student caucus seized an opportunity for change.

Though they had tried for years to advance a resolution calling on the organization to drop its decades-long opposition to single-payer health care, this was the first time it got a full hearing. The debate grew heated — older physicians warned their pay would decrease, calling younger advocates naïve to single-payer’s consequences. But this time, by the meeting’s end, the AMA’s older members had agreed to at least study the possibility of changing its stance.

snip

Organized medicine, and previous generations of doctors, had for the most part staunchly opposed to any such plan. The AMA has thwarted public health insurance proposals since the 1930s and long been considered one of the policy’s most powerful opponents.

But the battle lines are shifting as younger doctors flip their views, a change that will likely assume greater significance as the next generation of physicians takes on leadership roles.

Once Its Greatest Foes, Some Doctors Are Now Embracing Single-Payer
________________________________________________________________________

It seems that young doctors are more inclined to see health care as a right, and would rather deal with a government insurance system rather than, what they view, as a more complex mix of private insurance, and coverage.

With that in mind, I doubt that the republican preference for a wider range of plans sold across state lines would win the support of many young doctors.
I am with the younger Doctors. Having a new young one I am impressed with his take on my Healrh care.

It would be so much simpler not to deal with umpteen Insurance companies.
 
Apr 2012
57,332
42,148
Englewood,Ohio
I have been a fierce critic of single payer in the past. After spending enough hours debating about it and learning about how the new health care law was intended to work, and why it was so imperative that something be done about health insurance in 2010-11, I've changed my attitude about it.

I could name 3-5 changes we could make to PPACA (or provisions we could add to it) and we would basically have single payer. Consolidated, they would be:

1) No employer mandate, instead offer tax breaks or other incentives to companies that discontinue providing health insurance if they pass along at least 80% of their savings to employees in wages. One example of such an "incentive" is to reinstate the "Cadillac Tax" and make it applicable to all companies that insist on continuing to buy their employees' health insurance, starting in 3 years (giving them that amount of time to decide to stop).

2) Make everyone eligible for subsidies, assuming their insurance costs more than (x)% of their mAGI. No family glitch, no 400% poverty level subsidy cliff, no disqualification for subsidies based on an employer's offer of coverage. Literally everyone should be eligible for subsidies if the cost of insurance exceeds a certain % of their mAGI. Some people will not need the subsidies if the total cost of premiums is still less than 9.5% of their income, but there should be no one that is arbitrarily excluded and screwed over.

3) Restore the individual mandate, but allow people to buy skinnier, higher-deductible plans than are currently allowed.

4) Loosen the restrictive rules around HSAs. Let everyone set up an HSA regardless of the insurance plan they choose. Make it easier for people to save some of their own money for health needs.

If we did these things, it would cause a) health insurance to become divorced from employment, b) every individual to independently choose the insurance they feel is right for them, 3) those that are currently being arbitrarily hosed by the law's glitches and provisions would get a more fair deal, leveling the playing field for customers, 4) everyone's personal health insurance expense to be a function of their income, which is an inherent feature of single payer.

The one major downside? It would cost more federal dollars. Whoopdy doo. We're spending the money already anyway, just doing it stupidly and arbitrarily unfairly.

That was the best post I have seen in a long time! Think about running for office?
 
Apr 2012
57,332
42,148
Englewood,Ohio
Medicare definitely does not participate in "death panels" Neither does Medicaid. I have seen approvals from Medicare that have shocked me. For example, hip replacements for patients who are in their late 80's to 90's if they are healthy enough systemically to undergo the surgery...knowing full well the patient will never get out of a wheel chair and proposed the surgery for pain relief. I saw it with my own Mother. Her final expenses in the hospital was near a 1/2 million dollars for her last admission. She was 85 years old, zero kidney function, heart failure and they still put her on 3 days of therapeutic dialysis which included round the clock observation with one nurse in ICU. She was also vented and heavily sedated. They were hoping to rest her kidneys with a CHANCE they start functioning again.
I know many people in their late 80’s, even a couple over 90 have knee or hip replacements that are free of the awful pain, walking just fine. A recent case was a woman who fell, laid for 24 hours until her daughter found her, had a hip replacement and is fine. Medicine has changed so drastically in the last 10, even 5 years replacements have become common place.
 

Similar Discussions