Extra medical costs to prevent tort suits amount to about 3% of total costs.
Do you want the questionable cure for $100 or do you want the right cure for $103.
Do you not think the people taking your money will have an interest in keeping their profits protected.
EDIT: Weird⌠the link to the post Iâm replying to is missing. Well, this is it here by @lolipop_jones
(1) having the most state-of-the-art technologies and medications universally available.
A single payer system is not only completely compatible with both, but will reduce costs for medications as well:
(2) immediate access to all of the above, no waiting.
Thatâs a mighty disingenuous false argument youâve propped up there. No American in their right mind thinks âno waitingâ exists in any system.
But, while weâre on the topic, youâre merely parroting corporatist drivel about wait times:
Single payer does not equal increased wait-times
(3) as much office time as they want with the best doctors, no gatekeepers to limit physician access.
Thatâs yet another mighty disingenuous false argument youâve propped up there. No American in their right mind thinks they can have unlimited office time in any system. Thatâs not feasible in any form of reality on this Earth.
But, once again, youâre parroting corporatist talking points instead of focusing on reality:
The government pays for care that is delivered in the private (mostly not-for-profit) sector. This is similar to how Medicare works in this country. Doctors are in private practice and are paid on a fee-for-service basis from government funds. The government does not own or manage medical practices or hospitals.
(4) freedom to sue without limit any time something goes wrong.
Thatâs a mighty disingenuous false argument youâve propped up there, again. Why resort to such drivel? No American in their right mind thinks everyone should receive settlements that are infinite for any reason anything âgoes wrongâ.
Also, please educate yourself on how malpractice costs will be reduced under single payer:
Thatâs untrue. The more the single payer system is explained and understood by average Americans, the more they want the system and that includes being willing to pay for it with their taxes (obviously).
Also, please educate yourself further on the topic of taxes in regards to paying for it:
I donât blame you for parroting so many corporatist talking points. Itâs been proven to be systematically disseminated to the public. If you watch this damning interview in full below, youâll be shocked to see how many of your talking points were actually fed to you by industry:
Very similar to how the corporatists were very successful in reframing the McDonaldâs Hot Coffee lawsuit for decades to suit their needs. But, eventually, with enough hard work and fortitude⌠the truth slowly comes out.
I have heard this case discussed a number of times, and a very important fact is frequently ignored by those siding with McDonalds: The restaurant in question had in the past been warned by the court to lower the temperature of their coffee because it was dangerously hot. Repeatedly the court orders were ignored by this particular McDonaldâs. This is why things turned out as they did, because we had a case of a repeat offender creating a dangerous situation and someone finally got hurt because of their negligence.
Personally, I like my to-go coffee good and hot because I want it to be hot for the duration of my drive and I donât start drinking it right away. But court orders are court orders, and those who repeatedly refuse to follow court orders are likely to get âburnedâ eventually.
I think that a single payer system could work here if:
the finances were actuarily sound and backed up by very explicit, hard nosed rationing. Want a hip replacement? Twenty months is the waiting period. Want chemotherapy? Only if the statistically determined survival rate for cases like yours is greater than say, 35 percent.
there is access to a wide variety of aftermarket insurance products covering (at the buyerâs option) some or all the things that are rationed out of the public system.
If we try to do a single payer system, but are forced politically to cave in for every heartbreaking story of expensive treatments for patients with little or no chance of recovery, it will crash and burn within a decade.
And yet reality in every other Anglo/Euro country than the U.S. says differently.
It is remotely possible that the American healthcare consumer can be hammered into the same level of submission as his European counterpart. I doubt it though.
You mean itâs possible to knock some sense into them? Because that would be awesome.
hammered into the same level of submission as his European counterpart.
Now youâre implying to @anon67050589 that Europeans and I suppose Canada and every other country whose public embraces single payer were forced into it unwillingly? Why resort to this kind of hyperbole and/or lies? And, if it isnât hyperbole or lies, please provide your valid sources to back up such ridiculous statements.
rationing ⌠all the things that are rationed out of the public system.
You entered a conversation where I already addressed rationing here. I also already addressed rationing in a previous post you reacted to here. It was in that post that I linked to this comprehensive FAQ: FAQs - PNHP that includes the insurance industry talking point you parrot on ârationingâ.
But, since you didnât read through it, Iâll spoon-feed it to you here:
The U.S. already rations care. Rationing in U.S. health care is based on income: if you can afford care, you get it; if you canât, you donât. A recent study found that 45,000 Americans die every year because they donât have health insurance. Many more skip treatments that their insurance company refuses to cover. Thatâs rationing. Other countries do not ration in this way.
If there is this much rationing, why donât we hear about it? And if other countries ration less, why do we hear about them? The answer is that their systems are publicly accountable, and ours is not. Problems with their health care systems are aired in public; ours are not. For example, in Canada, when waits for care emerged in the 1990s, Parliament hotly debated the causes and solutions. Most provinces have also established formal reporting systems on waiting lists, with wait times for each hospital posted on the Internet. This public attention has led to recent falls in waits there.
In U.S. health care, no one is ultimately accountable for how the system works. No one takes full responsibility. Rationing in our system is carried out covertly through financial pressure, forcing millions of individuals to forgo care or to be shunted away by caregivers from services they canât pay for.
The rationing that takes place in U.S. health care is unnecessary. A number of studies (notably a General Accounting Office report in 1991 and a Congressional Budget Office report in 1993) show that there is more than enough money in our health care system to serve everyone if it were spent wisely. Administrative costs are at 31% of U.S. health spending, far higher than in other countriesâ systems. These inflated costs are due to our failure to have a publicly financed, universal health care system. We spend about twice as much per person as Canada or most European nations, and still deny health care to many in need. A national health program could save enough on administration to assure access to care for all Americans, without rationing.
See also: Single payer does not equal increased wait-times - PNHP
If we try to do a single payer system, but are forced politically to cave in for every heartbreaking story of expensive treatments for patients with little or no chance of recovery, it will crash and burn within a decade.
Educate yourself: FAQs - PNHP
You are very much full of fearmongering, loose facts and outright insurance industry talking points throughout your posts regarding single payer.
Itâs obvious that you didnât read links, etc. from my post here:
Iâm reading your posts. Iâm contemplating your posts with an open mind and doing my best to comprehend them with an open mind. If you provided links and sources to your otherwise baseless opinions, I would be investigating them. I really wish you would return the favor. I also believe that when Iâm wrong about something, Iâd rather take pride in being adaptable and having the dignity to admit it, than being stubborn and obtuse.
Once again, this whistleblower is explaining to you in damning detail how HE fed you your talking points when he was working at the top of the insurance industry. Youâve been listening to him via media and political proxies for years and repeatedly parroting his talking points.
Why wonât you listen to him now?
Very similar to how the corporatists were very successful in reframing the McDonaldâs Hot Coffee lawsuit for decades to suit their needs. But, eventually, with enough hard work, persistance and fortitude⌠the truth slowly comes out.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
