What is Single Payer health insurance?

[Mike03]

Pardon my ignorance, but I simply don't understand what this means? How does this differ from universal health care, or what other industrialized nations have, as outlined in Michael Moore's film "SICKO".

[fenriswolf]

1. basically single payer represents the

gov paying for insurance for the entire country. it ammounts to all us citizens paying a certain amount (health insurance tax) to the goverment and in return we are allowed to go to any hospital at any time for any reason, be treated for what ails us, walk out and not even have to worry about a bill.

[FreedRadical]

4. That would be cool...

Must be too much to expect

[Fed_Up_Grammy]

9. Taxes would go up on just about everything---there is no free lunch.

[The Magistrate]

10. Compared To What, Ma'am?

To present premiums?

To current hospital bills?

It is not like people are not paying already, and paying an amount inflated by the profits of various middle-men....

[RC]

16. Don't forget the obscene wages & bonuses, golden parachutes of the CEO and BOD's.

That alone costs the citizens billions every year. Getting the insurance companies out of the health care business would save this country more than enough to pay for Socialized medicine in this country.

[Thothmes]

31. Single payer is not socialized medicine

The hospitals, clinics, and labs are still private enterprises. They still make a profit off of their clients. A socialized system is like the VA or the Military medical system where the Doctors, nurses, lab techs are government employees and the facilities such as hospitals, clinics and labs are government owned and operated.

[RC]

49. I know what Socialize Medicine is.

This country is the only major country that does not have some version of it. Why? And you can have Socialize Medicine with private clinics and hospitals and doctors.

[Thothmes]

50. That get to set and earn there own profit margin

[Barack_America]

11. I'm assuming you make over $200-250,000 a year?

Repealing that tax cut is how each of the Democratic candidates plan on paying for their plans.

[Thothmes]

34. Lets see

By doing away with the bush tax cuts we are going to be able to fully fund a single payer health care plan, reduce public school class room size by 50%, completely rebuild the armed services, completely rebuild the infrastructure of the country, completely end our dependence on foreign oil, end homelessness, end global warming,and provide free college education throughout the country. Ya, you bet.

[fenriswolf]

13. but then again

no priemiums, co-pays, fines, fees etc, for someone paying for insurance it would prob come out to the same thing for most individuals.

[OzarkDem]

19. There are different ways to pay for it

Some plans are a mix of subsidies for low income people, letting individuals buy into or pay a monthly premium for coverage or letting employers buy into government insurance for their employees.

Several states were actually getting very close to letting employers buy into state Medicaid programs back during the Clinton years, but after the stolen election of 2000, that door slammed shut very fast. Better that people have no health insurance at all than to cause any harm to private insurance companies. :sarcasm:

[Hieronymus]

22. Cool

[Barack_America]

5. But, let's be honest. None of the candidates' proposals offer this, right?

I mean, all of them are offering to work with the existing health insurance companies to help Americans buy-in.

Of course, each of them are proposing to set up a government program to help out the poorest of Americans (with Edwards' probably being the most inclusive), but most of us would still be receiving our health care from existing insurance companies.

Am I wrong?

I feel so awkward talking about real issues, because, well, we don't do much of that around here ;)

[fenriswolf]

14. kucinich is

but i think nbc just silenced him.

[Barack_America]

Kucinich who?

Just kidding. And indeed you are correct, thanks for the correction.

[Hieronymus]

28. Edwards' plan would allow you to chose private care over single payer ..

It's a brilliant plan, because it would show people how superior the single payer plan would be .. causing the demise of private insurance.

[slipslidingaway]

45. That would be hope, but look what is being done to Medicare

now. Also which doctors would accept the government plan over doctors accepting private plans?

[Hieronymus]

20. Yes, very well stated. It's what every industrialized nation in the world has...

except the US.

[tekisui]

2. Single payer= Everybody is covered by one organization.

Not for profit.

go here for more info:

http://www.grahamazon.com/sp/

[Justitia]

3. Medicare is single payer. The gov't pays the bills, but does not provide the care. -eom

[Fed_Up_Grammy]

6. That's if the doctor accepts Medicare patients----some don't.

[Justitia]

8. Yes, absolutely. That's why Single Payer & Universal Health Care are 2 different things. -eom

[fenriswolf]

15. well single payer is universal healthcare.

[Justitia]

18. Well, not exactly, but I think I know what you mean.

Medicare is single payer (gov't pays the bills), but not universal health care because it applies to citizens over 65.

Medicaid is single payer (gov't pays the bills), but not universal health care because it applies to income limited citizens.

The VA is single payer (and could be argued, socialized medicine), but not universal because it only covers veterans.

Single payer denotes how the bills get paid (a single payer collects taxes, disburses pymt for bills), but universal health care addresses access to medical services.

[OzarkDem]

21. Medicare for all would be single payer and universal

Some of the more popular single payer health care plans being considered in Congress would extend Medicare coverage to everyone.

Doctors would have to take Medicare patients or they would have no practice.

[Justitia]

23. Exactly. If Medicare was open to everyone, it would be both. -eom

[democrat2thecore]

24. Bingo -nt

[Thothmes]

38. Only if you mandate

that the medicare program is the only legal system in the country. You would have to ban any medical practices that are paid for by any means other than by the U.S. Government. This would end the medical insurance industry in the country It also means you the tax payer would be paying for boob jobs and butt remakes.

[Justitia]

39. Ridiculous. Medicare excludes cosmetic surgery. -eom

[Thothmes]

46. It does exclude elective cosmetic surgery,

It will pay for reconstructive surgery due to burns, accidents, mastectomies. But if Single payer becomes the only source of medical payment authorized in this country, they I expect they will have to pay for elective surgeries also. Otherwise the system will have to allow people to opt to pay for some facets of health care not covered by the public system. Voila, a duel medical system, one public paid for by taxes, one private, paid for by those folks that have the deep pockets.

[Justitia]

47. Healthcare systems around the world exclude cosmetic surgery, incl our private one here.

If you want cosmetic surgery in France, for example, you pay for it out of your own pocket. Ditto Canada, etc.

Just like if you have health ins here in the US, private health insurance also excludes cosmetic surgery.

Nothing about purchasing cosmetic surgery would change - it would remain an elective expense.

[slipslidingaway]

35. Yes and if we have the competing plans that Edwards proposed

some doctors may not accept the government insurance.

I'll keep my private plan for awhile to see how it all shakes out.

[fenriswolf]

41. me and the wife had a kid

Now this was not planned and I am pro choice but we decided to allow the birth. We would have had a hard time paying. Her mom went bezerk and my parents just got done going through bankrubcy. medicare saved our life. The program works and is a life saver.

[Justitia]

7. forgot to add: Universal health care refers to access, in other words, every citizen has access to

health care regardless of ability to pay.

Single payer is more narrow, it refers to HOW medical care is paid for, Universal Health Care denotes WHO receives it.

Does that help?

[OzarkDem]

25. And single payer can be universal

if we want it, and if Congress passes a law to establish it.

See HR 676, Rep. John Conyers bill in Congress.

[Justitia]

27. Yes, I've always thought Medicare For All was the easiest. Why reinvent the wheel? -eom

[OzarkDem]

29. I agree

but it appears some in the medical profession don't care for it. It seems they're looking for some different options, like Medicare, but more attractive to providers.

[Barack_America]

33. Enormous Insurance lobby, for one...n/t

[Thothmes]

40. Some physicians in private practice for another

The medicare reimbursment rates have been static or reduced for many years now to control cost of the program. Many physicians in the local area will not take any new medicare patients because they believe they lose money on them.

[Barack_America]

12. Helpful link. Comparing plans.

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/issues/index.html#/context=index/issue=health

disclaimer: not entirely comprehensive, but a good synopsis.

[FreedRadical]

17. I'd just like to get my teeth fix,

and not see people go broke trying to keep their children alive.

[Barack_America]

26. Hmm, dental. I don't know if anybody has a plan for that...

Good point.

[no name no slogan]

30. I believe DK's plan also includes dental

His 2004 plan did. I would assume his 2008 plan is pretty much the same.

[slipslidingaway]

32. HR 676 not for profit single-payer would cover dental, mental

health and prescription drugs.

Currently there is about 700 billion dollars that goes to profits and administrative costs, if those dollars were used for actual care instead things would be quite a bit different.

[Blue Congress]

36. exactly- eliminate the middleman and paperwork and everyone can be covered

Unlike the other candidates, Kucinich is already fighting for this legislation for the American people. If the other candidates really cared, they would use their time on National TV to support him in this legislation. The list of cosponsors is growing, there is not excuse to not support Kucinich's well thought out plan. The only ones who suffer who be the insurance companies.

We might need to bypass the corporate sponsored top tier president and replace the US congressmembers who will not sign onto this legislation with decent caring Americans who will.

[no name no slogan]

42. Unfortunately, that's probably how it will happen

Between congress, and more businesses turning to the government, because they can no longer to cover their employees medical benefits.

That's how it eventually happened with Canada. It doesn't get talked about much, but business was a big part of Health Canada's formation. They got sick of paying escalating health insurance premiums and finally went to the government for help.

[slipslidingaway]

43. By that time we'll be in such bad shape IMO, according to some

reports those eligible for Medicare will double in less than 20 years.

At the same time SS will need to be funded (2013-2017) because they spent the Two Plus Trillion dollars extra that the baby boomers had paid into the system since the 1980's SS overhaul.

Add in the health care costs of returning vets which will be massive, more soldiers are living, but they will have very high care costs for years to come.

Trade deficits, loss of manufacturing, resources being depleted etc.

We need to start building that not for profit system now, it will take years to do.

Another point is that our companies will be paying less for health care, they have sought cheaper labor abroad as health care costs increased.

Some doctors may take a hit on their salaries, but many would be happy to do away with all the paperwork and malpractice insurance.

There would be money set aside for malpractice as well, that's part of the package we'll never hear about.

:(

[slipslidingaway]

44. And welcome to DU...

:hi:

[slipslidingaway]

37. Health Care Timeline...snips from 1930's and 1940's

http://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/history.htm

1930's

"The Depression changes priorities, with greater emphasis on unemployment insurance and "old age" benefits.

Social Security Act is passed, omitting health insurance.

Push for health insurance within the Roosevelt Administration, but politics begins to be influenced by internal government conflicts over priorities..."


1940's

"Prepaid group healthcare begins, seen as radical.

During the 2nd World War, wage and price controls are placed on American employers. To compete for workers, companies begin to offer health benefits, giving rise to the employer-based system in place today.

President Roosevelt asks Congress for "economic bill of rights," including right to adequate medical care.

President Truman offers national health program plan, proposing a single system that would include all of American society.

Truman's plan is denounced by the American Medical Association (AMA) , and is called a Communist plot by a House subcommittee."

[rasputin1952]

48. Under Single Payer HC, your tax dollars would go to a HC

system that would essentially do what private HC does now, but at a lower cost, and there would be no "denial" of medical care, particularly preventative care.

It should be understood that under current HC provisions offered by by the private sector, care has diminished, been refused to some of those covered, does not recognize pre-existing conditions as viable under most coverage and decisions on coverage is not designed to help the patient, but rather increase profits for the companies that offer such insurance.

Under a good UHC plan, people would be allowed to maintain their current coverage if they so desired, but I think that the savings to companies and individuals would be dramatic. Say someone pays $300 a month for coverage out of pocket for the policy alone. Then there is a deductible, physician/clinic/pharmacy co-pays and a considerable amount paid by the company to get and maintain the plan in the first place.

The money sent to insurance companies goes into a pool, and if you need surgery that costs $6000+, those in the pool have subsidized your care. One is contributing to their care, but they are not "paying" for it, someone else is. the same thing would happen under UHC, everyone would be paying something into a pool that would be used to take care of health problems. The only difference is, it has been paid for out of the Treasury. You get to choose the your doctor, your clinic/hospital/pharmacy, (something that insurance companies only do "in network", unless you pay an extra on your premium, or out of pocket for up to 50% of the cost), etc.

The biggest problem would be fraud, just as it is in Medicare. Vigorous prosecution of medical personnel would abuse the system. There is also a sever lack of monitoring physicians performance throughout the various states. There are bad doctors that make bad decisions. Some of these understandable, errors are made, but Medical Boards should be looking at complaints seriously, and if a pattern emerges where a physician makes a lot of them, they should be disciplined, either by taking courses and up to suspending and revoking licenses on a nationwide basis, not merely a state basis, (which happens very rarely).

Some of the cost could be covered easily by removing our troops from the Middle East, using generic medications where they are applicable, buying meds in bulk and distributing them quickly and efficiently, and thereby keeping costs to a minimum.

All necessary procedures would be covered, (I feel that elective procedures and cosmetic procedures should be dealt with on a case by case basis. If someone wants botox, they should pay for it, but if someone needs cosmetic reconstructive surgery because they were burned, they should receive that under UHC.

In a nutshell...there would be a decrease in cost, better and accessible health care, and no one would be refused care, thereby saving untold lives and misery. The individual would pay something into the fund via taxes, but they would be saving by not paying a premium, the best case scenario is that financially, it would be a wash.

One other thing, a lot has been said about the British, German and Canadian models, and how they "fail"; it is imperative to take the best from each one and discard the 'bad' ideas that haven't worked. We are fortunate that there is a template already out there that we could work from. No one has ever said that we "have" to follow plans that have failure embedded in them.

I realize this is merely a synopsis, as there are many other aspects, but this should give you enough to start looking at UHC as viable.