• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Intercept : Insurance Lobbyists laugh off single payer healthcare

kirblar

Member
Oct 9, 2010
63,315
1
860
easiest /= easy
It's not the "easiest" option when you can just put a public option into the ACA and have a mixed system right there! (which you also need to do to stepping-stone to Single Payer if that's your goal anyway!)
 

Condom

Member
Aug 26, 2013
5,864
0
370
Other countries have set up their system in far less than 50 years, this just sounds like a limiting belief to me. Especially for a country with so much capital to spend.
The political willpower just isn't there. People don't want it enough.
 

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Apr 24, 2010
22,725
0
0
It's not the "easiest" option when you can just put a public option into the ACA and have a mixed system right there! (which you also need to do to stepping-stone to Single Payer if that's your goal anyway!)

Your now talking about how to implement single payer which is not the argument I'm making (any public opinion would use medicare rates and use medicare as a model, not market reform efforts like the ACA) not the end goal which is government payments for medical coverage.

You're not trying to refute me, your just telling me how I could help accomplish my plan.

in fact matt just posted about a similar plan to this

https://www.vox.com/2016/2/3/10899790/single-payer-americare

just random thought the single largest expansion of coverage in the ACA was the expansion of single payer health care


please explain how transitioning the US to a single payer system is easier than giving people the option to buy into the existing government healthcare system

the existing government healthcare system is single payer! this could be a way to do what I want.
 

kirblar

Member
Oct 9, 2010
63,315
1
860
Other countries have set up their system in far less than 50 years, this just sounds like a limiting belief to me. Especially for a country with so much capital to spend.
The political willpower just isn't there. People don't want it enough.
Other countries were able to do it from scratch. Ours was accidentally back-ended into a stupid employment-based system because of bad policy during WWII (the wage caps.)

No economist on earth that knows what they're talking about would ever tell you the US system is a good idea. The problem is that we're so tied into it at this point that extricating ourselves from it will be a slow ass process.
just random thought the single largest expansion of coverage in the ACA was the expansion of single payer health care

the existing government healthcare system is single payer! this could be a way to do what I want.
NO IT IS NOT! Medicare, Medicaid, the hypothetical puplic option are NOT single payer! They're government-run public healthcare!

Single payer means you literally do not have any private insurers at all for baseline coverage and that it all goes through the government!

You are mixing up your definitions badly here.
 

skullmuffins

Banned
Mar 22, 2010
1,909
0
0
steamcommunity.com
Your now talking about how to implement single payer which is not the argument I'm making (any public opinion would use medicare rates and use medicare as a model, not market reform efforts like the ACA) not the end goal which is government payments for medical coverage.

You're not trying to refute me, your just telling me how I could help accomplish my plan.

in fact matt just posted about a similar plan to this

https://www.vox.com/2016/2/3/10899790/single-payer-americare

just random thought the single largest expansion of coverage in the ACA was the expansion of single payer health care




the existing government healthcare system is single payer! this could be a way to do what I want.
that vox article is explicitly about using a strong public option as a pathway to transition to single payer, because it's far easier than going straight to a single payer system... which is exactly what other people in the thread are talking about...
 

oneils

Member
Mar 2, 2011
7,922
0
820
Ottawa, Canada
steamcommunity.com
You are completely wrong.

The reason you have opposition of jumping to single payer is that it would destroy the economy in the transition because you'd be decimating a private sector while simultaneously building up the public sector. You can't do that over a short time period when health care is 1/6th of the economy.

You cannot move to single payer from where the US is currently at. To do that, you need to first do three very important things-

1) Get universal coverage in place
2) Get a public option in place
3) Decouple healthcare from employment

(I am totally on board with all these things, btw!)

Only once you have done all 3 of these things can you actually talk about moving to single payer. These thiongs should be done regardless if you think a swiss-style system is the best outcome or a NHS-style one is better. I'm agnostic on the ultimate outcome- but I think if we get those 3 things accomplished, the system will naturally trend one way or the other and effectively choose itself for us.

Health insurance companies are not health care providers so how does eliminating insurers decimate the economy? Are they that big in the states?
 

kirblar

Member
Oct 9, 2010
63,315
1
860
Health insurance companies are not health care providers so how does eliminating insurers decimate the economy? Are they that big in the states?
Health Care is a sixth of the US economy. About half of that is public spending, half private. So yes, they really are that big in the states.
 

Lil'DigiOp

Member
Dec 18, 2013
3,141
1
0
Health Care is a sixth of the US economy. About half of that is public spending, half private. So yes, they really are that big in the states.

I don't really get how thats the publics problem since thats a result of capitalistic greed.

I mean the government should subsidize this "shift" to the economy because healthcare should have never been a damn business in the first place.

They'll pay 60 mil for a dumbass explosive they'll never use but won't throw any type of bread for the people.
 

Xe4

Banned
Aug 1, 2014
9,859
1
0
Ultimately, I'd be totally ok with single payer. I just don't think it's going to happen anytime soon. I don't understand why the public is so focused on single payer. It's almost to the degree where the public assumes single payer == UHC, which is far from the case.

In any way, a system like Switzerland, or even like Germany would be far easier to achieve than single payer, and those work fine. At the very least, we should work towards one of those options, and see how it fits. If we don't like it, fine, we can always continue onto single payer, which will be a lot easier when some of the stuff like the public option and pricing controls get passed anyhow.

I don't really get how thats the publics problem since thats a result of capitalistic greed.

I mean the government should subsidize this "shift" to the economy because healthcare should have never been a damn business in the first place.

They'll pay 60 mil for a dumbass explosive they'll never use but won't throw any type of bread for the people.

It's the public's problem because it's 1/10th the economy. Think of the number of jobs tied up in 1/10th of the economy.

Remember the Obamacare website disaster? Now imagine that x10,000, That's what'll happen if a federal single payer gets passed in one fell swoop (not that it will anyhow since the public or political support won't be there).
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Jun 18, 2009
62,408
10
1,115
I don't really get how thats the publics problem since thats a result of capitalistic greed.

I mean the government should subsidize this "shift" to the economy because healthcare should have never been a damn business in the first place.

They'll pay 60 mil for a dumbass explosive they'll never use but won't throw any type of bread for the people.

There are...pretty credible arguments that if you try and solve the transition issues by just throwing cash at it it becomes something that actually is unaffordable, and I say that as someone who's pretty into MMT. The US can spend a lot more money then it thinks, but it can't spend infinite money. For the transition to Single Payer work you have to basically start prying the private model out of all of the parts of the economy its glued itself into, if you just rip it free the ripple effects seriously fuck up all those bits its affixed to
 
Jul 25, 2015
4,582
0
0
There are...pretty credible arguments that if you try and solve the transition issues by just throwing cash at it it becomes something that actually is unaffordable, and I say that as someone who's pretty into MMT. The US can spend a lot more money then it thinks, but it can't spend infinite money. For the transition to Single Payer work you have to basically start prying the private model out of all of the parts of the economy its glued itself into, if you just rip it free the ripple effects seriously fuck up all those bits its affixed to
There's a good Jacobin article that outlines a five step plan towards creating an NHS by slowly breaking the private model apart if you're interested https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/06/trumpcare-obamacare-repeal-ahca-single-payer
 

water_wendi

Water is not wet!
Oct 8, 2006
19,066
0
0
Just noticed that this article isnt mentioned anywhere. If nothing has come out by the weekend im guessing that this never gets any mention at any major news source.