Single-Payer Health Care in Vermont

Originally posted by whodey
No, no, government "good" private sector "bad".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_Security_Consulting

Originally posted by normbenign
Placing it out of the free market ends up harming those least able to afford it, by causing shortages, and increasing costs.

While I'd love to see some evidence supporting your first two assertions with respect to nationalized health care, I'll go ahead and say don't even bother with defending the third one.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_system_cost.php?page=all

Originally posted by sh76
Well, good luck.

Let's see how it works. It's nice of the Green Mountaineers to try the experiment.

Then again, if they really need an MRI in less than 7 months, they can always cross into NH or NY, so it's not that much of a risk after all.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/new-health/health-news/canadas-costly-spine-surgeon-backlog/article2020599/

http://www.amsa.org/AMSA/Libraries/Committee_Docs/WaitingTimes_primer.sflb.ashx

Commonly 20-30% of those on wait lists are found in the international literature to
be inappropriately placed, because they have already received the procedure, have died,
never knew they were on a list, were placed on the list in the first place for reasons
unrelated to medical necessity, or were no longer awaiting the procedure for some other
reason." [1]

.....

1. Patient self-report [5-10]
Statistics Canada, a non-partisan organization, has compiled an extensive set of statistics
on waiting times based on the Health Services Access Survey of 2003. Important findings
include:
• The median wait time for non-emergency (elective) surgeries was 4.3 weeks [95% CI,
3.9- 4.7]. 40.5%, 42.1%, and 17.4% of Canadians in the survey reported waiting less
than 1 month, 1-3 months, and more than 3 months for the surgery, respectively. The
proportions varied between provinces.
• The median wait time to see a specialist for a new illness or condition was 4.0 weeks
[95% CI, 3.4-4.6]. 47.9%, 40.7%, and 11.4% of Canadians in the survey reported
waiting less than 1 month, 1-3 months, and more than 3 months to see a specialist,
respectively. The proportions varied between provinces.
• The median wait time for selected non-emergency diagnostic tests (CT, MRI, or
angiography) was 3.0 weeks [95% CI , 2.1-3.9]. 57.5%, 31.5%, and 11.5% of Canadians
in the survey reported waiting less than 1 month, 1-3 months, and more than 3 months to
receive these diagnostic tests, respectively. The proportions varied between provinces.

_____

Longer average wait times than in the U.S.? Yes. 6+ month-long waits? Rarely.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
People already know single payer is more efficient. If that was a good reason to implement single payer health care, they would have done it already.

Single payer is automatically less efficient. All government-regulated schemes are less efficient than competitive free markets for two iron-clad reasons: first, the only thing which reliably reduces prices is competition, and any regulation monotonically reduces competition. Second, the cost of the regulation is pure additional overhead and needs to be paid for.

Originally posted by spruce112358
Single payer is automatically less efficient. All government-regulated schemes are less efficient than competitive free markets for two iron-clad reasons: first, the only thing which reliably reduces prices is competition, and any regulation monotonically reduces competition. Second, the cost of the regulation is pure additional overhead and needs to be paid for.

Oh, so THAT explains why the US pays the highest healthcare costs in the world per capita.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934556.html

Also, this is divided by the entire population. We have tens of millions without access to healthcare and this is compared to countries who cover everybody. I love how you call healthcare a "scheme." Given the recent firestorm over Ryan's plan, it seems seniors love that Medicare "scheme."

Originally posted by spruce112358
Single payer is automatically less efficient. All government-regulated schemes are less efficient than competitive free markets for two iron-clad reasons: first, the only thing which reliably reduces prices is competition, and any regulation monotonically reduces competition. Second, the cost of the regulation is pure additional overhead and needs to be paid for.

Medicare IS single payer, and it outperforms the private insurance industry, which is why the industry killed the public option. They knew they couldn't compete.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
Oh, so THAT explains why the US pays the highest healthcare costs in the world per capita.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934556.html

Also, this is divided by the entire population. We have tens of millions without access to healthcare and this is compared to countries who cover everybody. I love how you call healthcare a "scheme." Given the recent firestorm over Ryan's plan, it seems seniors love that Medicare "scheme."

I don't call it a scheme, I call it a what it is, a scam.

There are plenty of reasons healthcare is more expensive in the US, there's regulation, both the type and amount. There's also the point that a lot of things cost more because people have more money to spend, the Philippines has incredibly cheap healthcare, not because the state provides healthcare but because eveything is cheaper there. Turns your argument into a flop eh.

Originally posted by normbenign
People who really know, and the evidence piles up daily, that single payer is not either fair or efficient. There are as many or more persons denied service or delayed until they die, as there were previously uninsured. Doctor and other provider shortages are everywhere.

Who is John Galt?

I'd like to see that evidence, then.

Originally posted by Wajoma
I don't call it a scheme, I call it a what it is, a scam.

There are plenty of reasons healthcare is more expensive in the US, there's regulation, both the type and amount. There's also the point that a lot of things cost more because people have more money to spend, the Philippines has incredibly cheap healthcare, not because the state provides healthcare but because eveything is cheaper there. Turns your argument into a flop eh.

Norway is much richer than the US, people have lots more to spend, yet health care is much cheaper. Is your position that there is so little "regulation" in Norway (there is universal health care in Norway) that the costs are reduced?

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
Oh, so THAT explains why the US pays the highest healthcare costs in the world per capita.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934556.html

Also, this is divided by the entire population. We have tens of millions without access to healthcare and this is compared to countries who cover everybody. I love how you call healthcare a "scheme." Given the recent firestorm over Ryan's plan, it seems seniors love that Medicare "scheme."

The US doesn't have free market health care. No one does in the world. That's why healthcare costs are rising worldwide while the costs of most other things that aren't non-renewable (e.g. fossil fuels; gold) are falling.

Healthcare has been manipulated by people who saw a way to make a lot of money, that is doctors, hospitals, etc. (e.g. out of the top 15 highest paid professions in the US, only 2 are not in medicine).

They have successfully sold the public the idea that if health care doesn't get 'all the money it wants' then 'people will die'. Of course, people will die anyway and health care can do nothing about that BUT Americans (and particularly baby-boomers) are in denial about that.

So now the only discussion people are having is how much money can be borrowed from the Chinese 'to keep us all from dying.'

It is actually a fascinating case of mass-hysteria and irrationality.

Originally posted by Wajoma
I don't call it a scheme, I call it a what it is, a scam.

There are plenty of reasons healthcare is more expensive in the US, there's regulation, both the type and amount. There's also the point that a lot of things cost more because people have more money to spend, the Philippines has incredibly cheap healthcare, not because the state provides healthcare but because eveything is cheaper there. Turns your argument into a flop eh.

The other industrialized countries are much more regulated, and our average citizen has about the same amount of money to spend.

One difference is that our pharmaceutical industry spends an inordinate amount of money on marketing, which is why we have those annoying late night viagra ads.

Originally posted by spruce112358
the only thing which reliably reduces prices is competition, and any regulation monotonically reduces competition

Why then has the CBO, not to mention a slew of state-level studies, consistently argued that national health care would save money?

Originally posted by spruce112358
Single payer is automatically less efficient. All government-regulated schemes are less efficient than competitive free markets for two iron-clad reasons: first, the only thing which reliably reduces prices is competition, and any regulation monotonically reduces competition. Second, the cost of the regulation is pure additional overhead and needs to be paid for.

Then why not allow a public option? If it is indeed less efficient, then it will fail, right?

Originally posted by Kunsoo
Then why not allow a public option? If it is indeed less efficient, then it will fail, right?

That's fine as long as you don't have the public option underselling (with subsidized federal dollars) the private companies and putting them out of business and if you stop regulating the private companies to the extent that it makes it impossible for them to compete.

Originally posted by sh76
That's fine as long as you don't have the public option underselling (with subsidized federal dollars) the private companies and putting them out of business and if you stop regulating the private companies to the extent that it makes it impossible for them to compete.

Well, that's the whole point. Economies of scale will allow them to "undersell" the private companies and put them out of business. Isn't that the point of competition?

I'm fine with parity in regulation, but if the federal government can offer a less expensive product, then how exactly does the consumer suffer from the loss of private insurance companies?