Re-Thinking Single Payer

You are correct, but from a different perspective, if a company figures they will spend 20% of their revenue on “Labor”, You would have to include the percs thrown in to the employees as part of that 20%. In this case the perc is healthcare.

So now you drop the healthcare and say the labor pot now drops to 12%. That same company may opt to give raises to their employees to keep the original 20% figure. This would help them to retain quality employees that are already trained to do the required tasks. No company that I can think of likes employee turnover.

It does not matter what we think, It matters what dems or republicans are willing to propose…

I think Obama care was the best the dems could come up with. Because the insurance companies paid for it. Reps are to chicken to propose anything.

The left should be supporting non-govt free clinics. The rest should be free market. I’m for outlawing employers picking health insurance providers. Let the employee do that.

The left says they like Norway,and I have yet to meet a leftist who actually knows how that system runs…

And there will always be companies like Costco who offer decent wages (according to their employees) and companies like Amazon who pay the absolute minimum. Or companies like Walmart who subsidize their compensation packages with Federal programs. You can’t legislate away human nature. But you can pass legislation to keep the playing field level.

So in some ways, having single payer would level the playing field.

China does a lot of importing to this country. They have single payer. As a result, they should be able to produce a product cheaper because they do not have to provide their workers with heath care. May not be a big deal on cheap stuff, but look at the automobile industry. If we are importing cars from countries that have single payer, the car companies should be able to make them cheaper than we can if our mfrs have to pay for employee health care,

So single payer good, unions bad? I’m not seeing the argument here. I’m in favor of single payer over the bs we have now. I’m just not in favor of OUR government being in charge of it. The same government that is beholden to the corporations that “have to provide their workers with health care.” Nevermind that the bs we have now is the reason corporations “have to provide their workers with health care” now and also why EVERYONE is supposed to be required to have health insurance. . I’d much rather be paid the difference in wages and be able to choose my own insurance provider instead of being stuck with whoever my employer chooses. I’d rather go back to before the ACA, but those days are gone. I also believe Unions would still have their place if they also hadn’t succumbed to greed like the corporations and as a result weren’t more concerned about collecting dues than actually representing their members. Such are the times we live in though. In no small part, thanks to crap like the ACA being passed. Just wait for all the unintended consequences after single payer is passed.

I can’t take on each of the things you mentioned but single payer is inefficient in the countries that have it. Long waits, people dying for long waits happen. Now, I had a long exchange with Adroit over on another thread, which goes over costs of stuff. Adroit has responded, but I hope you take a look at this, scroll down some, it starts off talking about Obamacare, but also goes into the single payer debate. There are two posts that I did. Biden takes 32-point lead over Sanders - #71 by matt1618

And I do go over the inefficiencies that are prominent in the single payer. Now, we can get universal health care without having to go to single payer. By looking at that, you can get some ideas that I have. Many of the costs that are more expensive in the US, is because of the US being highest in the world in obesity, by far have the most mris and mammograms, which are more expensive, we have worse drug addictions that the rest of the world, that also leads to more expenses than other countries, and those problems will exist regardless of whether it is employer based or single payer.

As I noted, in my response (2nd post), we spend 3.5 trillion total, but you know medicare, Medicaid, VA, chip program, other public health care spending is 1.6 billion and there are rampant inefficiencies in the US public health care system. But the private health care system spends 1.9 billion to cover 188 million people, and is more effective in our system, than public. To imagine that the public system can cover 188 million for cheaper than the additional 1.9 billion that is paid right now is not possible, it will probably be more expensive than what we pay now (more than 3.5$ billion). And the taxes would go way, way, way up to make up for it. Elimination of private insurance would be death to many people. In medicare right now, and with the expansion of Medicaid, people died waiting, check out my documentation. 30% of health facilities are not taking Medicaid payments because it is underpaying. The private health insurance is making up the difference. Even in Medicare, many medicare people have to have private insurance because medicare does not take care of enough medical expenses. In addition, because of medicare/Medicaid underpayment, private insurance has to make up for it. In UK and Sweden, where they have single payer, many who can afford it get private insurance to make up for the public sector inefficiencies. In Canada we get about 70,000 a year coming to the US to get care in US facilities because they don’t want to wait. You will see that documented in my piece.

Long wait times goes hand in hand with public insurance only. Now, I see the best way of getting universal health care is borrowing ideas from Switzerland, Japan, Germany, they remain predominantly private but don’t have the waiting lines (which leads to people going blind in UK), and other things that I document. They have universal care, but its basis is not single payer, but get the right mix so that everybody is covered. So people in the situations that you mention can still get help. Yes, you still have to have some government mix for people such as you mentioned, but still retain private care overall.

One of the things that I recommended was that we get a true market oriented health care, where those people who are employed and their employers who put money paying insurance company and you have to take what they give you. Instead of that, the employer gives that amount that they pay the insurance company, to you in the form of a health care voucher, and you use that voucher plus what you already pay in insurance, if there is more competition, all the companies will compete with each other to be more cost effective. You get to choose, and people get plans that fit them. In the public system, there is no competition so waste is more prevalent.

You are a business owner. Republican’s pass a tax reform package. Dem’s immediately say if they re-gain power they will take it away and tax even more. You going to give a raise to employee’s knowing there is a chance that tax cut goes away AND gets worse?

Irony is that voters are more likely to vote for Democrats if the Republican tax reform packages don’t help the average man, and in actuality results in deficits that demand cuts in social services.

I’m kidding. Nothing will stop certain people from voting against their interests.

I disagree. What would compel a business to pay you more than what you are already willing to work for? Their savings doesn’t have to translate into your gain. Then consider the fact that most employers that provide health care already pay a higher wage than businesses that don’t. So there really wouldn’t be any competition. A union might try to negotiate a higher wage as a result. But I don’t see it happening otherwise.

I chose the job for the pay AND the benefits. The employer offered benefits to make his job competitive in my eyes.

If a change in laws robs me of covered benefits and forces me to pay for it on the market, and if my employer chooses not to forward his savings to me so that I can afford the benefit on the open market, I’ll be updating my resume and moving to a different employer.

Well that’s my point. I can only go by jobs and businesses in my area. But if my job stopped providing health care I would have no recourse. I’m not getting paid more elsewhere.

Welcome to NJ, I guess.

I fled NJ as soon as I was old enough.

Of course, you’re in a union job, if I recall. Generations and generations of unionization in certain roles have created a certain atmosphere and expectation that the union will address it. And with that, inherent inefficiencies and overhead (and costs to you!) are part of that paradigm. Elimination of unions could, over time, funnel those costs back to you, the employee, just like the savings to the employer from single-payer would come your way.

You expect a certain outcome because that’s the context under which your job operates.

Always like to ask first, do you now receive Medicare for your health insurance?

And yet Medicare has very high scores in patient satisfaction…

Lines in other countries with single payer are no longer than lines in America.

And those without coverage don’t have to wait in line at all, they just die.

The internet has really dispelled this myth of wait lines. US citizens can interact with citizens of other countries and realize that the articles written about universal health care horror stories have been propaganda.

Sure, no system is perfect, but nowhere near what the news tells you.

1 Like

I know. I googled -healthcare wait times by country- and quite a lot of data came up. Pretty clear that the US does not stand alone in smaller wait times.

We do have a a lot of GoFundMe for people wanting insulin,… so… YAY?

1 Like


Even if I did, it wouldn’t change what I said.

The VA has higher satisfaction than private insurance and performs similar or better than non-VA systems..