Where exactly will this pot of gold come from? We're going to start taxing one-another immensely so, that you and I will have to work longer hours to pay in more taxes, pay a bit to the government to slap a mandate on it again, all so we can all share BASIC healthcare privileges. None of us would likely be able to get the care we need without paying an arm and a leg.
Please refer to the previous posts in this thread and in many previous threads: Cutting out the middle men is where we will find the pot of gold. Lets say this once again: The fact is Europe and much of Asia pay half of what we pay on health care relative to GDP, and they get better results judging from longevity and health statistics. And in most countries everyone is covered with little or no cost for the individual.
This is because those countries have government health care for everyone without the need for Big Pharma and insurance companies to gouge the rest of America by acting as middle men. Show me just one developed country with government health care, single-payer or whatever, please name just one country
that pays more for health care than we do.
This is why insurance and drug companies are fighting so hard to keep their privileged position:
latest disclosure said...
UnitedHealth Group: CEO compensation: $17.6 million; pay of next four highest paid employees combined: $37.6 million.
Humana, CEO compensation: $19.7 million; next four highest paid employees: $20.0 million.
Secretary of HHS (who would be in charge in government sponsored single-payer health insurance): about $250,000, give or take.
Have you considered what other countries lose by implementing single-payer? This Medscape article outlines some of them... /login.medscape.com/login/sso/getlogin?urlCache=aHR0cDovL3d3dy5tZWRzY2FwZS5jb20vdmlld2FydGljbGUvODUxMjY0&ac=401
Single-payer systems in Canada, the United Kingdom, and other developed countries have to impose strict central planning. Rather than leave healthcare choices up to individual physicians, their patients, and free-market forces that could balance supply with demand, the government sets the rule. This would inevitably result in shortages of some services and gluts of others.
No competition means central planners could arbitrarily decide what physician payments should be. Studies of countries with universal coverage show that their doctors earn up to 70% less than doctors here.
Some Canadians choose to come to the United States or other countries to receive timely care to avoid the pile-on wait lists for care.
The doctor and patient are no longer in control of the treatment a patient gets. Do we really want Washington bureaucrats controlling healthcare?
Seriously, I've shared my absurd story of enrolling in Healthfirst crap-care through the NY marketplace and they continue to deny coverage of brand name mesalamine drugs. EVEN with my doctor's prior-auth & submitted appeals.
The government destroys profit incentive and freedom of labor, both of which would create a better system. Decides medical reimbursement rates particularly among millions of poor Americans, creating incentives for doctors not to take government sponsored health insurance, and regulates how doctors treat patients, decides the training doctors must undergo, and insurance they need to maintain.
Markets may be the best solution to in medical care, just as they are in every other area. Treating it as a commodity means temporary shortages, but this occurs in single-payer systems sometimes as well. A top down (government) approach violates individual liberties, generates over-demand and botches the supply, while free markets prize individual liberties, reduce demand, and heighten supply through profit incentive. I'd like to see this work, but people insist that their necessities ought to become rights -- but off the back of many Americans of course, because again - nothing is free, ever. Government = taxpayer funded.