John Conyers’s sweeping single-payer health care bill

Knight

Knight

Well-known Member
A really long article about a health care bill to implement a single payer health care system in America.






What Rep. John Conyers’s sweeping single-payer health care bill would actually do
117 House Democrats have signed on to a bill that would virtually nationalize health insurance.
Updated by Jeff Stein on August 28, 2017 8:10 am
https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/po.../16114436/john-conyers-single-payer-insurance




Worth the read if only to point out the complexities of what it would take to change.




I do get a chuckle out of the use of "free care" to describe this, I think tax paid is more appropriate.
 

I think we will eventually go to a single payer system but it won't be Medicare for all. It will be Medicaid for all.

High taxes and lousy healthcare.

There are so many horror stories coming from other countries like England and Canada that I'm convinced the "free" care will be worth every penny.

Rick
 
A SP-UHC system, such as what most of the rest of the developed world uses, would be a huge benefit to the majority of our people. I'm sure there are some issues in various countries, but overall, their care is far better than ours, and at about half the costs. The latest ranking of the nations...as of 2016...appears on the Bloomberg site, and the U.S. comes in at number 50 out of the 55 nations ranked.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...re-system-ranks-as-one-of-the-least-efficient

However, so long as our Health Care Industry continues to make very generous donations to our politicians political campaigns, we can only expect our soaring costs, and declining benefits to continue.
 
GreenSky said:
There are so many horror stories coming from other countries like England and Canada that I'm convinced the "free" care will be worth every penny.

Rick
Click to expand...

All the horror stories I hear about health care in places like England and Canada come from Americans.
The Canadians I know have no complaints.
Just saying.
 
How about skipping what takes place elsewhere. No doubt systems that have been in place for 50 years are having problems, so why not learn from the problems they are experiencing?


I doubt I'll be around to see a universal single payer system come to be in America. A few of the hurdles making that happen IMO.


1.getting doctors to accept what the government is willing to pay.
2.getting hospitals to accept the same concept of controlledpayment.
3.explaining that taxes taken from wages will make health care free for everyone.
4.convincing millions of under employed, part time employees that the government will take a percent in taxes on top of whatever they make.
5.that the government will increase the staff needed to administer any system correctly. & that system won't have the kind of administration that has been in the news about the poor administration of the VA.
6.that rural and metropolitian services will be equal
7. everyone will receive the prompt attention they expect even though the system is supposed to cover as of 2017 326,474,013 people.
8.prescription pricing to be controled & still get the ongoing research to develope new cures.
9.dealing with self inflicted health issues like COPD or obesity. & yes I know not all of that is self inflicted.


I think it can be done I think it's going to be bumpy as hell getting there.
 
nvtribefan said:
All the horror stories I hear about health care in places like England and Canada come from Americans.
The Canadians I know have no complaints.
Just saying.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I've never heard anyone from Canada or the UK say they would trade systems with us. However there are millions of Americans that would like to trade with them.
 
Knight said:
I do get a chuckle out of the use of "free care" to describe this, I think tax paid is more appropriate.
Click to expand...

I'd much rather pay taxes to the government than premiums to a health Insurance company like I do now.
 
Butterfly said:
This has also been my experience.

I don't know why we are so scared of single payer health care -- Medicare is essentially single payer health care, and it functions just fine.
Click to expand...

Trade said:
I'd much rather pay taxes to the government than premiums to a health Insurance company like I do now.
Click to expand...

NancyNGA said:
:iagree:
Click to expand...


Me too!

I would rather pay my monthly premiums to the government for a Medicare for all policy that would protect me from the cradle to the grave.

I really think that once the major employers do the math they will fight to shift the health insurance burden to the government and be willing to make a one time salary adjustment for the amount they currently spend on health insurance to help employees with the initial cost of coverage.
 
Except that Medicare is broke. And higher income people who have paid more into the system now pay more when they get the benefit.

We won't have Medicare for all. We will have Medicaid for all (think a national VA system).

BTW, the true cost of Medicare benefits is about $1,000 per month.

Rick
 
GreenSky said:
Except that Medicare is broke. And higher income people who have paid more into the system now pay more when they get the benefit.

We won't have Medicare for all. We will have Medicaid for all (think a national VA system).

BTW, the true cost of Medicare benefits is about $1,000 per month.

Rick
Click to expand...

The oracle has spoken.
 
Apparently you must think what I wrote is wrong. Aside from my prediction of Medicaid for all, just what did I post do you have an issue with?

Certainly you must agree with the actual cost of Medicare to the taxpayers. It's here: http://www.kff.org/medicare/state-i...0&sortModel={"colId":"Location","sort":"asc"} You can dispute that if you like.

And obviously since Medicare spends more than it takes in my comment about going broke is correct. https://www.cnbc.com/2014/07/28/medicare-solvent-until-2030-social-security-until-2033.html

Any other comments?

Rick
 
Green Sky/Rick


The reality and complexity of converting from what is to what is hoped for seems to escape some. One feature the conversion would have to eliminate employer paid health insurance in order to generate the funding needed. The thought that employers would then redirect that cost benefit to the government is reasonable. But the benefit in lieu of a higher wage hasn't been part of any discussion. Neither has a discussion about would the millions of employees have to contribute a percent of their wage.


Participation by over 300 million to be managed by the government. Maybe examples like the VA and funding for Soc. Sec. Medicare & Medicaid are one of those stick your head in the sand and ignore items.


Ignoring the trend of an aging population, conversion from a manufacturing society to a lower paid service job society should translate into either a single payer system not being properly funded or the need to increase the percent needed to fund "free care" for all.






IMO maybe the most difficult to achieve would be the wage control of those providing health care. And in turn filter down to the rest of the wage earners.


1 in 8 Americans Employed By U.S. Healthcare Industry
http://www.exploremedicalcareers.com/1-in-8-americans-employed-by-u-s-healthcare-industry/




For an understanding of what happens with wage & price control this should help.
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/remembering-nixons-wage-price-controls

I lived thru that & it sucked.




I don't live in lala land where I trust or depend on government. I look around at what is happening and form my opinions. My opinion is single payer eventually will happen. I also think it won't be the way those looking thru rose colored glasses expect.
 
Knight, thank you for that thoughtful reply. I admit there are issues with our current system (made many times worse by Obamacrap) and we will be under a single payer system sooner rather than later.

I find it amazing that people trust the same government that runs the VA, post office, etc. Single payer is wonderful unless you need something serious but non-critical. Good luck getting a hip replacement when money is more important than care.

Rick
 
I've always thought that health care for profit is immoral. Yes, pay the providers well for their goods and services but take the profit element out. It's obscene for one person to become wealthy because his neighbor is sick and in the whole picture, we're all neighbors.

Will there by change? Not until the lobbyists for the AMA and Big Pharma are run out of Washington and that is unlikely to happen.
 
helenbacque said:
I've always thought that health care for profit is immoral. Yes, pay the providers well for their goods and services but take the profit element out. It's obscene for one person to become wealthy because his neighbor is sick and in the whole picture, we're all neighbors.

Will there by change? Not until the lobbyists for the AMA and Big Pharma are run out of Washington and that is unlikely to happen.
Click to expand...
That is a point I didn't touch on. Let's suppose the profit is removed. What do you think would happen to wage increases, product development?
 
Why is it ok for a doctor to make a profit on healthcare? Should they work for free? How dare a surgeon expect to make $250,000 simply because he saves lives every day.

Removing profit motive removes the incentive to develop new drugs, prosthetic devices, etc. Capitalism is king. Crony capitalism stinks.

Rick
 
Crony capitalism another point.


When the ACA was put in place the general thinking was that as a system it would lay the ground work for a single payer system. But congress didn't have to be a part of that. If they didn't want to be subject to the ACA with all it's mandates and costs. I wonder if they would do the right thing & generate legislation to prevent themselves or their wives from investing to generate their wealth.




Back to a skilled surgeon. What is his or her specialty worth? A panel would probably be set up to make determinations. From there what is the most likely sceanario. Medical students flocking to the lowest paid or trying for the highest level?




So many things to iron out to make it possible to have a low cost system that will take care of the health care needs of over 300 million. How about putting the NIKE LOGO "Just Do It" as a theme, let the problems surface then deal with those as they occur.


Might mean denial for critical health care issues for as long as it takes to solve those problems, but if a person has faith in our government to get it done in a timely manner at low cost then they should start a petition or demonstrate or both.
 
Incremental change over. Require folks to buy into medicare as seniors do now. Slowly move the population over at two year increments. Negotiate drug price like the other nations do.
Doctors are not going to run screaming from the fiel just because their wages are regulated. Certainly are not going to be truck drivers because their wage fell from 250,00 per year to 230,000.
 
Maybe not but primary care doctors gross about $175,000 but that means a 60+ hour week plus emergency calls. Not to mention all the headaches over government mandated record keeping, etc. The real issue is how many people will go into debt for 20 years paying student loans of $500-750,000 to earn that amount? Probably better off being dentists.

The biggest issue I have with the "require folks to buy" comment is where in the Constitution can the feds require us to buy anything?

That being said, the way to save Medicare from going completely broke would indeed be to extend coverage to 55 years and up rather than 65. But it must be the only way to get health insurance otherwise we'd have the same adverse selection we now have with Obamacare.

Although one poster believes I'm opposed to single payer like Medicare for all because I'm just one of those dishonest insurance agents. Actually I'm opposed to it because of Constitutional reasons and my fear that it will be Medicaid for all. I don't want to be forced into a clinic waiting hours (if not days/weeks) to see a doctor.

Yet 95% of my income is from helping people with Medicare supplements and advantage plans. From a standpoint of my income, Medicare for all would be the greatest thing that could happen. (But I'm still opposed).

Rick
 
GreenSky said:
Yet 95% of my income is from helping people with Medicare supplements and advantage plans. From a standpoint of my income, Medicare for all would be the greatest thing that could happen. (But I'm still opposed).

Rick
Click to expand...

Medicare for all is pretty much a compromise for me because Medicare only pays 80%. I realize that's a generalization by the way. That leaves a niche for private health insurance companies who are as far as I am concerned leeches on society. Ideally I'd like to go all the way with the government covering everything. And that appears to be the ultimate goal of the Conyer's plan. I am all in for it. I realize that would put you out of a job, but relax Dude. It's not going to happen all that quick. You should make it to retirement OK. But you might want to suggest to some of your younger cohorts that it might be a good time for them to start thinking about exploring alternative career options for the future.
 
Robusta said:
Incremental change over. Require folks to buy into medicare as seniors do now. Slowly move the population over at two year increments. Negotiate drug price like the other nations do.
Doctors are not going to run screaming from the fiel just because their wages are regulated. Certainly are not going to be truck drivers because their wage fell from 250,00 per year to 230,000.
Click to expand...
A solution that sounds easy enough.

Your idea so maybe you have an idea at what age the requirement to buy into the plan would begin. What amount would they pay and what about the ones in an age group not forced to pay? Would those paying in begin coverage right away and the rest be excluded? Would the insurance companies begin a partial shut down as their customer base shrunk? What happens to employer paid health care? Do some depending on their age lose coverage? Do companies hire additional staff to keep track of those that are switching from conventional to being covered by a government run system?

Looking to Canada & the UK single payer systems the reality of unstable financial ability to provide services is documented. Australia's system is a model to look at. At least there forward thinking is taking place. Recognizing the impact of a changing economy and adjusting makes sense.

I'm not against a single payer system I just think conversion is not going to be simple. Phasing in will take a lot of serious planning.
 
Single Payer Healthcare, that would be like going to the DMV when you are sick!
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top