LTE from doctors to Krugman.on single payer

[eridani]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/22/opinion/is-a-single-payer-health-insurance-program-feasible.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=1

I’m glad to see that Paul Krugman acknowledges that “if we could start from scratch, many, perhaps most, health economists would recommend single-payer, a Medicare-type program covering everyone.” His argument that we should not work for it now is unconvincing.

Just because private insurers are powerful doesn’t mean a concerted national campaign can’t overcome their well-funded opposition. Already a majority of the general public (58 percent in a recent Kaiser poll) supports single-payer. Cost will never be controlled until we do away with the bloated administrative expenses of our hopelessly complex financing arrangements and for-profit medicine.

[drm604]

1. The latest talking point does seem to be "we can't get there from here".

It's what Clinton is saying.

Basically they're saying "too late, the insurance companies have won and we can't undo it and change the system".

This is capitulation and surrender and I for one refuse to give up. It may have to be done in steps (start with a public option and then go from there) but it can be done if we want to do it.

[Vinca]

2. The "no we can't" mentality is frustrating.

Hillary is running on the status quo and that will eventually get us back to where we started from because insurance companies are already raising rates. The ACA was a good start, but without the public option as competition it will never get to where it should be.

[LiberalElite]

3. Think back to every progressive achievement -

has it ever been easy? No. We would still have slavery, child labor and no one would be able to vote but the 1% landowners. Hell, maybe we'd still be singing God Save the Queen.

Rhetorical question:
Why is she even running for president? Isn't it HARD? I bet it's even more difficult now than she imagined.

[Wounded Bear]

13. I support Bernie-at least in the primaries...

and I fully understand that any form of MfA or single payer is a heavy lift that will still take a lot of work and a long time, but I still want to work towards it.

Krugman's recent Op-ed on it was rather disappointing to me. I thought he supported SP before this.

It really looks like the Clinton position is to do nothing, or not much at all. With Bernie, I think we at least continue to get push for meaningful improvement. I support that.

[meaculpa2011]

4. Single payer will do nothing to reduce...

the costs of health care.

Only single provider will. Most doctors are in the 1% and pharma profits are nearly 20% with medical devices close behind.

Health insurance profit levels are between 2 and 3%.

The costs of medical procedures here are 5-to-6 times higher than in other advanced nations.

Blaming the insurance industry is easy and it's simplistic, but the entire health-care delivery system is corrupt.

Single payer is nothing more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

It cannot be done incrementally and it cannot be done with a public option or Medicare for all.

It has to be public health care for all and it has to be done NOW!

[eridani]

5. The trick to cost reduction is negotiation of prices with providers

All single payer bills submitted so far have this feature.

[Doctor_J]

7. Medicare overhead is 3%. private insurance overhead is 20%. Canada has single payer

and their cost per capita is less than half of ours. The numbers don't support your post

[Wounded Bear]

14. and the Part D fiasco screwed it up...

by denying even the right to negotiate drug prices. That's a big improvement in costs that isn't that heavy of a lift.

There are more improvements available that, while they aren't SP strictly speaking, they would improve costs and delivery.

[RB TexLa]

23. And with that 3% overhead comes a 20% fraud rate

[Major Nikon]

12. A public option on a level playing field would become single payer

For-profit insurance companies have investors, advertising, and other administrative costs which take at least 20% right off the top which public plans would not have. The very argument used against the public option was that for-profit companies could not compete.

[hifiguy]

18. Not to mention eight-figure salaries for the CEOs,

seven-figure salaries for an entire layer of useless parasites, and you have to add in those corporate retreats to expensive resorts, flown to by private jets. Our overlords do NOT fly commercial.

[Major Nikon]

24. Administrative costs

Along with the things you mentioned there would be all sorts of other budget control and auditing not found in the private sector.

[Doctor_J]

6. prof Krugman's love for president Obama and Hillary Clinton has rendered his opinions

pretty much useless. It's a shame when one of the few liberal media members gives in.

[ypsfonos]

8. Yep capitulatiuon

like that'll help!

[CTyankee]

9. Oh, Paul, you know how much I love you...but...

this is a country that won WW2 and put a man on the moon...we can get to single payer if we want it and have the leadership to inspire and lead the way...

[eridani]

17. Strange for an economist to be so silent on the ECONOMICS of single payer n/t

[ejbr]

10. In essence

we can do this because fuck this shit!

[SHRED]

11. Each doctor or group of doctors has a team of employees...

...dedicated to fighting worth insurance companies.
What a waste.

[hifiguy]

19. And doctors have to do it themselves, too,

as a doctor once told me. He said any losses in fees would be more than compensated by an end to the countless person-hours spent fighting with insurers. And he also said every doctor and nurse in the place would be able to practice a decidedly higher level of medicine under single-payer. And this doc was a country-club Republican, but a doctor first.

[countryjake]

15. kickety

[Odin2005]

16. NO WE CAN'T! NO WE CAN'T!

[hifiguy]

20. ...

[Odin2005]

22. Needs more JPEG!

[burrowowl]

21. K&R!!!!!!