Why do people vilify multi-payer universal health care proposals?

[enid602]

from Daily Kos:


Private insurers in the Netherlands cover around 1/3 of the costs, about the same as in the United States. The Dutch system has long had a hybrid public-private arrangement, as has Germany, France and, actually, the US. The US spends more on government-provided insurance than it does on private insurance. What this means is that it doesn’t matter whether a nation retains private insurance. What matters is how it does so.

This is a fundamental point, and unfortunately many progressives have been blind to it because they have become committed to the belief that insurers are either downright evil or necessarily have interests at odds with the interests of the individual, and thus single-payer is the only solution. This was the point of bonddad's recent recommended diary, and as much as I appreciate his work, on this topic he is completely and utterly wrong.

Both the naïve left and right want to ignore the reality of systems like those in Germany and the Netherlands. These nations are an embarrassment for those on the right who claim that government intrusion always reduces choice and creates inefficiency. But the are also inconvenient to that part of the left that believes private enterprise is fundamentally incompatible with health care.

Fortunately, universal health care is coming and the right will lose this debate. But what is coming is almost certainly not single-payer.

more at link. . .
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/18/213620/164/418/...

[Bright Eyes]

1. As long as those who can't afford health care receive help from

the Government, then private health insurance is fine for those who can afford it.

[enid602]

3. single or mult

I don't think anyone on this board would dispute that help needs to come from the government, by they do seem to object should that help be administered by private insurance companies. They seem to feel that universal health care is not possible unless it's single-payer, but the Netherlands, France and Germany seem to do OK with multi-payer. I'm not wild about the Obama argument that the ideal is single-payer, but because we have this hybrid system that's so entrenched, we can't yet have mandated, universal coverage. I say we should go for it now.

[Lars39]

2. Story's missing.

[enid602]

5. maybe this will work

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/18/213620/164/418

[Lars39]

9. Says can't find link.

[enid602]

11. strange

It's hit and miss. I got the story only four times out of 10 tries. Sorry, I don't know what the problem is. It seems to go to the right page, and then is redirected to a blank 'state of the notion' page. The last time I tried it, it was redirected to the blank page, and then finally redirected once again to the story. Go figure.

[Lars39]

12. I've never been able to navigate that site very easily.

:hi:

[originalpckelly]

The writer of this story has started universal healthcare with free colonoscopies for the rich.

OMG! Are you fucking nuts?

Let's put it this way, if you're not a nurse/doctor/etc. person providing direct care to the person (in other words, you're an investor) you're a sick piece of shit making money off the SUFFERING of other people.

That doesn't mean for profit medicine is bad, it means that FOR INVESTOR PROFIT medicine is bad. The only people who should be profiting are those actually doing the hard work of taking care of someone!

Even if we went to single payer, drug companies, medical supply companies, and other halo industries would still be for investor profit, not for employee for profit.

[ReformedChris]

4. There is tremendous rage directed at the HMO's and Insurance Companies here..

I think most people in favor of Single Payer (like myself) would like nothing more than to see these companies that deny people care and care only about the ulmighty dollar fall. But I also understand that our politicians are not going to take such a drastic step anytime soon, so I can see how this KOS article is on the money. I just hate the idea of Government Subsidizing and allowing these companies continue to profit endlessly off of the sick! :puke:

[enid602]

8. multi

Seems to me it would be a good place to start to try to work with these companies to see if we can change their mind-set. Then, if they don't play ball, transition to single-payer. But I'm curious that multi-payer has worked in so many other industrialized countries; I'm not sure that it wouldn't work here.

[endarkenment]

6. France and Germany are quite different from the Netherlands

The Netherlands went to their multi-insurance system in 2006.

"Prior to 2006 (and since 1990) there were two separate systems of insurance finance, public and private. The public insurance system was paid for by a specific income tax. Everyone earning less than a certain threshold income could make use of the public insurance system. However, anyone with income over that threshold was obliged to have private insurance.

Between 1947 and 1990 there had been no private health insurance operating in the Netherlands."

wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_The_Netherlands

Germany has the world's oldest universal health care system, with origins dating back to Otto von Bismarck's Health Insurance Act of 1883. As mandatory health insurance, it originally applied only to low-income workers and certain government employees, but has gradually expanded to cover virtually the entire population.<6> Currently 85% of the population is covered by a basic 'Statutory Health Insurance' plan, which provides the standard level of coverage. The remainder opt for private health insurance, which frequently offers additional benefits. According to the World Health Organization, Germany's health care system was 77% government-funded and 23% privately funded as of 2004.<7>

wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care.

The French system is complicated but everyone pays into the basic universal single payer system. That covers 70-80% of costs. People are free to buy 'top-up' insurance to cover the other 20-30%.
http://www.frenchentree.com/fe-health/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=197

[enid602]

10. France/Germany

The French habit of 'top up' insurance is also becoming popular in Canda. Germany's had universal health care since 1883? I guess we were a little late in abolishing slavery, too.

[cosmik debris]

7. Insurance companies insert a filter

between the provider and the consumer of the services.

They also insert a layer of bureaucracy (cost) between the provider and the purchaser.

Neither of these is necessary or desirable in my opinion.

[enid602]

13. sure

But, as so many other industrialized countries have found out, the existence of insurance companies is not necessarily an insurmountable barrier to attaining universal coverage.

[drm604]

14. Using private insurers keeps the costs up.

Their profits, CEO salaries, and overhead add to the cost of health care without adding anything to actual health care. They also add to the cost by making it necessary for providers to deal with multiple forms and bureaucracies.

Also, keeping them in the loop maintains the incentive towards providing as little care as possible. They make money by denying care.