Why I think single payer is not Obama's leading option.

[flamin lib]

It ain’t a good reason but it’s the best I can think of.

Health care is a large part of the economy, $2.2 trillion. If single payer were instituted many of the insurance companies’ stocks would collapse making a barely recovering economy fall back into recession. Also, because of the burdensome paperwork to collect, there are a lot of people employed both at doctor’s offices and in the insurance offices who would lose their jobs increasing unemployment.

If single payer were made an option beside the current employer driven system many employers would off-load health care to the single payer plan. When that happens, and it will, in sufficient numbers see the above paragraph.

What to do? Make health insurance less attractive to the for-profit corporations. Make them cover everybody, treat every illness, lift caps on treatments, trim profit margins and limit executive compensation. Over a relatively short time the opposition to single payer will diminish because the insurers simply won’t want to participate any more. The size of that sector will necessarily shrink at a manageable rate and then single payer can become the preferred health care solution without destroying the fragile economy.

Like I said, it ain’t a good reason or a good solution but it seems to me to be the only reasonable explanation of why Obama, who openly espoused single payer as a Senator, has backed away from single payer (for now).

[mmonk]

1. There is no problem with the rest of our jobs being an option.

Besides, they could provide supplemental health insurance or one of the hundereds of other things insured in our society.

[flamin lib]

6. Not quite sure what you mean???

Yeah, the insurance companies will transition to other forms of coverage, i.e. casualty, high risk business endeavors and the like. How do you think those $ million hole-in-one golf promotions are paid for? Heck, I've even seen wedding insurance offered.

The key, IMO, is the "transition" that has to happen in a reasonable and orderly fashion. Fast enough to keep the single payer option viable but slow enough to allow the industry to survive.

[mmonk]

9. What I meant is there is no concern of government about thousands

of other jobs lost in the US in other industries.

[flamin lib]

11. There wasn't in the past, hense the off-shore tax incentives and other

policies that encouraged killing jobs here.

However, I'm seeing some genuine concern over employment levels now. Energy policy is an example. Gong to green technology can't be out sourced. Even if you buy every component form off shore somebody has to assemble the infrastructure to make it happen. Those windmill towers won't assemble themselves ya' know.

First Obama has to stop the bleeding before he can reverse the unemployment trend.

[mmonk]

12. Seems to me it's all trading jobs.

One must keep theirs and the others denied to insure theirs.

[OregonBlue]

2. I've been thinking the same thing. Grassley has already said that a public plan is a no go

because it will be too popular.

[Joanne98]

3. No excuse. If single payer isn't included millions of people will DIE!

Because once the parasites get over this hump they will SCREW EVERYBODY WITH A VENGANCE!

They are already planning it as we speak. The financial sector is killing the country. They killed the mortgage industry making millions of families homeless, they killed the economy putting millions of people out of work. They killed the auto industry with greedy bond holders.. Now the insurance bloodsuckers will kill Americans for real.

This is pretty simple. They are PARASITES! They only feed off the host. They provide NOTHING.

I guess the county can drop dead before anybody cares.

It's all the same thing..

Banks
Mortgage
Credit cards
Hedge funds
Insurance
Commodity futures
BONDS
FOREX
THE MARKET
WALL STREET!

They are SUCKING THE LIFE OUT OF US!

I see no relief they have captured Washington.

And if you're satisfied with your health insurance LOOK OUT!

They are coming after you as soon as this is over.

[Romulox]

4. Corporate lobbyists/corporate dollars. nt

[Oregone]

5. Thats why I would of opposed abolishing slavery

Think of all the newly unemployed folk. :)


Would the economic stimulus provided from single-payer offset the job loss in the insurance/billing industry? That would negate this reason.

[flamin lib]

8. The slavery comparison is Affirming a disjunct:.

However the other comment is cogent.

"Would the economic stimulus provided from single-payer offset the job loss in the insurance/billing industry?"

I believe the answer is a resounding YES! Only issue is the transition. Falling never hurts anyone. It's the sudden stop at the end. Gotta' allow for a better landing for that sector of the economy.

Just being pragmatic, that's all.

[Oregone]

13. As for the slavery comment (which was silly)

I'm pointing out that sometimes public policy can create a dilemma, whereas consequences from policy can in fact be negative, but are are they as destructive as the absence of policy itself? UHC may cause insurance/billing unemployment, but is that problem as bad as millions dying or being sick from easily treatable sickness? Is that as bad as people already in economic turmoil from not having it? You need to weigh all the options in the dilemma and see if the negative consequences merit challenging the status quo. You can always point to "what ifs" that may happen, but they may not be all that important at all compared to the "wrong" that is currently happening.

[flamin lib]

15. That's all the OP was saying, that there are consequences to

any policy that have to be weighed. Whether or not we agree with the implementation of policy is up to each of us.

I've seen a lot of "corporate money and lobbyist" as the reason for not going immediately to Single payer. I'm simply pointing out that there are other issues at stake.

It's like being in front of those maps in the Mall. There's an arrow that says, "You are HERE." You want to be THERE and have several routes ranging from jumping over the handrail to the ground floor (the shortest route) to getting back in your car and driving to another Mall entrance. Somewhere between lies a solution that is probably better than either although not convenient.

[ellacott]

14. I also agree with you

The insurance industry is so entrenched in healthcare that you can't just switch to single-payer in a few months.

We have to address malpractice insurance that doctors have to pay. Many people don't want to address this because it involves tort reform. Healthcare costs have to be reduced. The cost of education for physicians needs to be reduced. There is a shortage of Primary Care physicians.

Many feel that enrolling everyone in Medicare is the answer but Medicare is not presently structured to handle 300 million new subscribers. Many doctors today don't even take Medicare patients because of the lower fees and increased paperwork.

There are many other things that have to be worked out before we can have a competent single payer system.

Obama has said if he were starting from scratch he would be for single payer. He feels that we have to transition to single payer.

[Warpy]

7. Forcing them to play by some common sense rules

in order to stay in business will work, along with the initial switch to Medicare tied to an arbitrary age, say 50. That would prevent most companies from dumping all their workers off the plan at once, too, while making the business a lot less attractive by taking the obscene profit out of it.

Unfortunately, I haven't heard any of this proposed except forcing them to take all comers. Premiums won't be capped and they won't be forced to provide actual care. Executive "compensation" will continue at obscene levels.

I have absolutely no faith in a corrupt government to do anything beyond saving the corporations.

[flamin lib]

10. reply to wrong post. sorry

edited to move reply