Single Payer Linked to Socialized Medicine

Published on October 18, 2004 By stevendedalus In Health & Medicine

The term Single Payer has somehow become linked to socialized medicine even though Medicare has been operating under this method for decades. As far as I know, there aren’t very many who are against the care of the elderly, and many of the young without insurance of their own are paying into this fund for distant future care as well as partially paying for current senior citizens.

So why the concern that this single payer anathema is nothing but a conspiracy of big government to socialize medicine big time? Yet clearly the fact is that Medicare is only operated by the government as a payout to HMOs and fee-for-service to physicians, labs and hospitals. The private sector of medicine is retained and really has no preference how it gets paid for its services since private insurance is just as cumbersome in paper work and also demand tortuous accountability in proving “medical necessity.”

Some opponents of single issue is that of the millions of uninsured who, if Medicare were extended to them, would no longer have the excuse to drop out of a company’s pool or for that matter sign up for one. For, not unlike for seniors, medical insurance would be mandatory. For those who are already insured through the workplace really have nothing to worry about, particularly if the company offers a low cost plan helped by employer contribution. Here, though not as broad, the company itself is a single payer. However, the single payer is an issue among small business unable to pool with others. It feels threatened because employers, having less clout, justify not carrying insurance for their employees, thus exacerbating the uninsured rise already unacceptable because their medical bills are picked up by taxpayers. Employers large or small should be mandated to offer medical insurance and be made to at least share nominally in the cost of premiums. If they object, then Medicare steps in and enforces it, and to this confiscatory extent it would be socialized medicine.

To avoid this, small businesses should be overwhelmingly in favor of Kerry’s plan to have the government absorb the catastrophic illness clause of company plans in order to keep small business compassionate, competitive and viable. More importantly the cherry-picking of infamous insurance companies favoring the healthy would be done away, eliminating the undue tensions of many with poor health records.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

Comments

Larry Kuperman

on Oct 18, 2004

One of the interesting, but often ignored, statistics is that healthcare administrative costs on the US are close to 30%. Unbelieveable? Check out this Blue Cross site for statistics: https://www.capbluecross.com/HIPAA/Administrative+Simplification/

Let me quote from their report:

"An average of 26 cents of each health care dollar is spent on administrative overhead. The industry needs to become more efficient, and one way to do that is to standardize the way information is exchanged and processed for such items as:

Processing Claims
Enrolling an individual in a health plan
Paying health insurance premiums
Checking eligibility
Obtaining authorizations to refer a patient to a specialist
Notifying a provider about the payment of a claim"

We implemented managed care to control health care costs. It has been an abysmal failure. Private insurances have grown rich, costs have continued to skyrocket and overall service has declined. Waiting for approval of service is sited as one of the statiscally significent causes of death today.

Meanwhile, in Canada, administrative costs are 50% of the US costs. Single payer can work.

Madine

on Oct 19, 2004

In Canada the wait times are much worse than the US.

The way to control costs is to put the decision making power in the hands of patients. If a 3rd party is footing the bill, there is no incentive for patients to seek savings.

stevendedalus

on Oct 19, 2004

The way to control costs is to put the decision making power in the hands of patients. If a 3rd party is footing the bill, there is no incentive for patients to seek savings.

You're inferring that patients do not pay for insurance premiums; they certainly do want the best treatment but in so doing do not in anyway think they are extravagant demands, simply medically necessary.

We implemented managed care to control health care costs. It has been an abysmal failure. Private insurances have grown rich, costs have continued to skyrocket and overall service has declined. Waiting for approval of service is sited as one of the statiscally significent causes of death today.

Meanwhile, in Canada, administrative costs are 50% of the US costs. Single payer can work.

Strong arguments.

Madine

on Oct 19, 2004

I'm not talking about premiums, I'm talking about the actual medical bill, as in paying the doctor/hospital/pharmacy.

If I pay a flat fee (premium) regardless of what my actual medical bill is, I don't have an incentive to seek cost savings. Instead the interest of cost savings is pursued by insurance companies or the government, which sometimes is at odds with the interest of the patient. This generally means that the patient is at the mercy of whatever policy the government or the patient (should be insurance company, not patient) pursues.

For instance, in Canada, the government decides how much to spend on medical care. The amount of spending helps determine the capacity of medical care available. Canada's capacity results in longer waiting times than the US. There isn't much (anything?) patients can do to be seen sooner, except go out of country, perhaps to the US.

stevendedalus

on Oct 19, 2004

The amount of spending helps determine the capacity of medical care available. Canada's capacity results in longer waiting times than the US. There isn't much (anything?) patients can do to be seen sooner, except go out of country, perhaps to the US.

Did it occur to you because Canada insures everyone whild we do not,so the more are seeking care?

is at odds with the interest of the patient. This generally means that the patient is at the mercy of whatever policy the government or the patient pursues.

And why you should be for the Patient's Bill of Rights.

Madine

on Oct 20, 2004

Regardless of what % of the population is insured, the availibity of medical services depends on per insured capita spending as well as how efficiently that spending is utilized.

A patient's bill of rights sounds like a good idea, but it doesn't address the issue of cost savings.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!