"I estimate that my overhead would drop 15 percent immediately with single-payer. "

[abumbyanyothername]

http://www.timesnews.net/article.php?id=9015187

<snip>

In recent surveys, two-thirds of Americans have favored universal coverage. The dissenting third probably fears the cost of covering the 50 million uninsured. But as it is, the U.S. spends far more on health care than anyone in the world. We just don’t get much for our money.

<snip>

Pluralistic insurance options will not work. We may soon prove it again at the national level, though it has been proven already by individual states many times: Oregon in the ’80s, our own TennCare in the ’90s, and the 2006 Massachusetts plan, which is failing now. Making it mandatory to buy health insurance does not make it affordable. We need single-payer insurance.

<snip>

A survey of 5,000 physicians published last year showed that 59 percent favored national health insurance, up from 49 percent just five years earlier. Only 17 percent of doctors were still strongly opposed. The American College of Physicians has advocated universal health care for over a decade. Their only debate has been whether to continue with a pluralistic system of private insurers, government payers and nonprofits or endorse a single-payer system.

In the past year, they have endorsed single-payer as a legitimate, if not preferable option. I estimate that my overhead would drop 15 percent immediately with single-payer. Doctors and hospitals commit substantial overhead costs to keep up with multiple carriers and their denials and varying benefit packages. It seems hospitals employ more billing clerks than registered nurses. On the insurance side, Medicare spends three percent on administrative overhead while private insurers spend from 15-27 percent additionally on marketing, shareholder profits, and salaries and bonuses that can individually exceed $10 million a year for each of their executives. It is estimated that over $350 billion would be saved by moving from our current system to an improved Medicare-for-all system.

That is enough to cover the 50 million uninsured Americans. Granted, single-payer will unmask some serious problems, like the impending collapse of primary care. Most internists and family physicians are at full capacity now and cannot absorb 50 million newly insured people. Nevertheless, it is the logical first step to provide a structure to improve our ailing health care system.

<snip>

[FiveGoodMen]

1. K&R

[Greyskye]

2. kick to go along w/ the recs

:thumbsup:

[Jane Austin]

3. Ours would drop, too.

It would be one of the best things ever for real small businesses.

[abumbyanyothername]

4. Apparently

It would be good for patients.
It would be good for doctors.
It would be good for small business.
It would be good for Medicare (less chronic conditions in old age).
It would be good for the GM's and F's of the world (move costs to general pop allowing them better opportunity to compete).

Now lessee, who wouldn't it be good for . . . .

Insurers.
Big Pharma (fewer sick people and especially more people treated by primary care physicians means fewer pills sold).

You do the math.

[Wednesdays]

5. K&R

:kick:

[abumbyanyothername]

6. thx nt

[ColbertWatcher]

7. "hospitals employ more billing clerks than registered nurses." Damn. k+r, n/t

[Lugnut]

8. K&R n/t