Single payer health care in the US would have an astonishingly high price tag

[Peter1469]

Amazing. Countries like Canada and Germany are perfectly able to do it, but it's too hard for the US? Give me a break.

Reason have been provided, to include the OP.

[Agent Zero]

Single payer health care in the US would have an astonishingly high price tag

I was surprised that the editorial board of WaPo took this position. Well worth the read. A big part of the problem is the level of quality that Americans demand, even when they are not paying.

From an earlier thread to keep in mind. A healthcare system can do only two of these three things:

1. Universality
2. Cost
3. Quality



Read the entire article at the link.

I didn't know there were two threads.

Medicare for All may be difficult to achieve, but the onus isn't on the people. It's on the greedy insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, doctors, and private hospitals.

With cooperation it will work.

[Agent Zero]

Single payer health care in the US would have an astonishingly high price tag

I was surprised that the editorial board of WaPo took this position. Well worth the read. A big part of the problem is the level of quality that Americans demand, even when they are not paying.

From an earlier thread to keep in mind. A healthcare system can do only two of these three things:

1. Universality
2. Cost
3. Quality



Read the entire article at the link.

Yes, be sure to read more at the link.

Like this:

With monopoly buying power, the government could tighten up on health-care spending by dictating prices for services and drugs. But the government already has a lot of leverage. A big reason it does not clamp down now on health-care spending is that it is hard to do so politically.
Republicans have tarred the Affordable Care Act’s Medicare cuts as attacks on the cherished entitlement program. Doctors and hospitals have effectively resisted efforts to scale back the reimbursements they get from federal health programs. Small-town America does not want to give up expensive medical facilities that serve relatively few people in rural areas. A tax on medical device makers has been under bipartisan attack ever since it passed, as has the “Cadillac tax” on expensive health-insurance plans. When experts find that a treatment is too costly relative to the health benefits it provides, patients accustomed to receiving that treatment and medical organizations with a stake in the status quo rise up to demand it continue to be paid for.


A single-payer health-care system would face all of these political barriers to cost-saving reform and more. To realize the single-payer dream of coverage for all and big savings, medical industry players, including doctors, would likely have to get paid less and patients would have to accept different standards of access and comfort. There is little evidence most Americans are willing to accept such tradeoffs.
The goal still must be universal coverage and cost restraint. But no matter whether the government or some combination of parties is paying, that restraint will come slowly, with cuts to the rate of increase in medical costs that make the system more affordable over time. There are many options short of a disruptive takeover: the government can change how care is delivered, determine which treatments should be covered, control quality at hospitals, drive down drug costs and discourage high-cost health-care plans even while making the Obamacare system better at filling coverage gaps.

[Agent Zero]

I'm wondering why both OP's were designed to make the WaPo opEd look against single payor, when it isn't.

Explanation?

[Green Arrow]

What about states that are already close to bankruptcy, like Illinois?

Obviously they would have to fix their economies first.

[Green Arrow]

I'm wondering why both OP's were designed to make the WaPo opEd look against single payor, when it isn't.

Explanation?

Bias. There's a reason the other thread didn't even quote the WaPo article, and instead quoted a right-wing blog's summary of it. It's agenda pushing, the new normal.

[Peter1469]

Yes, be sure to read more at the link.

Like this:

With monopoly buying power, the government could tighten up on health-care spending by dictating prices for services and drugs. But the government already has a lot of leverage. A big reason it does not clamp down now on health-care spending is that it is hard to do so politically.
Republicans have tarred the Affordable Care Act’s Medicare cuts as attacks on the cherished entitlement program. Doctors and hospitals have effectively resisted efforts to scale back the reimbursements they get from federal health programs. Small-town America does not want to give up expensive medical facilities that serve relatively few people in rural areas. A tax on medical device makers has been under bipartisan attack ever since it passed, as has the “Cadillac tax” on expensive health-insurance plans. When experts find that a treatment is too costly relative to the health benefits it provides, patients accustomed to receiving that treatment and medical organizations with a stake in the status quo rise up to demand it continue to be paid for.


A single-payer health-care system would face all of these political barriers to cost-saving reform and more. To realize the single-payer dream of coverage for all and big savings, medical industry players, including doctors, would likely have to get paid less and patients would have to accept different standards of access and comfort. There is little evidence most Americans are willing to accept such tradeoffs.
The goal still must be universal coverage and cost restraint. But no matter whether the government or some combination of parties is paying, that restraint will come slowly, with cuts to the rate of increase in medical costs that make the system more affordable over time. There are many options short of a disruptive takeover: the government can change how care is delivered, determine which treatments should be covered, control quality at hospitals, drive down drug costs and discourage high-cost health-care plans even while making the Obamacare system better at filling coverage gaps.

The bolded is key.

[Peter1469]

Obviously they would have to fix their economies first.

Yes. How will they do that? I suppose they could shift their pensions to the Federal Pension Benefits Guarantee Company. They may get 30 cents on the dollar in their pension; but it would free up money for health care costs.

[Peter1469]

I'm wondering why both OP's were designed to make the WaPo opEd look against single payor, when it isn't.

Explanation?

Read the title. That should help.

Then see what two out of three things a health coverage system can do (can't do all three). That should also help.

[Green Arrow]

Yes. How will they do that? I suppose they could shift their pensions to the Federal Pension Benefits Guarantee Company. They may get 30 cents on the dollar in their pension; but it would free up money for health care costs.

I don't know how they would do that, I'm not an expert on Illinois' economic standing because I have zero power to change it.