What will we do with the savings if we go single payer???

[Deep13]

We pay a lot of health care in the USA, mostly because of the huge insurance industry and the oversized billing departments at hospitals and other providers. With no real billing system and only one insurer, the Feds., what can we do with all the money we save?

A few suggestions off the top of my head:
-end rationing based on wealth or preexisting conditions
-disease prevention
-medical research for curing disease
-using the research results in treatment
-renewable energy expansion
-pay down the national debt
-scholarships
-fixing that bridge that has had chunks of concrete falling off it for fifteen years
-expanding urban green space
-augmenting international AIDS prevention
-dare I suggest a tax cut?
-explore outer space
-make sure the soldiers etc. have the best of everything
-global polio vaccination (it's eradication is long overdue)
-find the poorest school districts in the USA and just give them the money
-buy every child in this country breakfast and lunch every school day

[sandnsea]

1. Provide health care to the uninsured??

Which will more than eat up whatever savings we might gain. That's been the plan all along, afaik.

[Deep13]

6. That's what I meant by rationing based on wealth.

I suppose I should have added rationing based on preexisting conditions.

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. No, it will not.

The evidence from countries that have national health insurance is that people get more and better care than here, at less cost. The savings are seen in that care. No more poor being charged unpayable bills from emergency rooms, which are subsequently covered by the taxpayers, because the national health covers those bills to begin with.

The reason hospitals charge $3 for an aspirin is because of the number of uninsured. If everyone is covered under the national plan, then aspirin return to $.03 each that we pay in the supermarkets.

Socialized medicine now!

[sandnsea]

23. Uh, that's what I said

The savings will go to provide health care to everybody.

Not sure what part of that you misunderstood.

[RaleighNCDUer]

35. Sorry if I misunderstood, but you said it would MORE than eat up

any savings - which I interpret to mean single payer would be MORE expensive than the current 'system'. In the long term, single payer would be less expensive, and the savings would be better than the costs, even after expanding coverage to everyone.

It sounds like we are in agreement after all.

[demodonkey]

2. EXPAND the care to cover more. Dental, eye care, mental health, and ESPECIALLY LONG-TERM CARE. nt

[Davis_X_Machina]

3. The savings got by cutting out the middleman..

...will be swallowed right back up again in covering the uncovered.

[Warpy]

4. Hospitals have been decimated by years of cost cutting

on the back of staff. Nurses are insanely overworked, housekeeping has been cut to the point that cleaning isn't being done and infections are now on the rise, hours are brutal, and even the buildings are starting to deteriorate.

Reversing that damage has to be done and will probably eat up much of the initial savings on administrative overhead, which is where those savings will come from.

However, once the system is up and running, either premiums will be cut or some of your ideas can be implemented.

[hughee99]

5. What savings?

Right now, the government isn't paying for most people's health insurance. If they start doing this, how do they "save" money?

[Deep13]

8. Well, presumably, a single payer system will rely on a special tax...

...to fund the system. It will be cheaper than what those who are insured are paying now. We all know full well how private and corporate savings can come under public control.

[hughee99]

9. So the federal government is going to make a profit on it,

even after covering all the health care related expenses that the tax is intended for?

Perhaps I'm not understanding what your saying, so here's how I understand it.

Right now I pay (for example, though I'm sure the numbers aren't accurate) $1000 a month for health insurance. I will now get government health insurance and my tax will be, lets say $900 a month. The government will provide this service for roughly $500 a month, and with the extra $400, cover all the uninsured people, hire the new doctors, nurses, techs, and administrators that will be needed to handle all of the newly insured (and under insured), build new hospitals and infrastructure, and then have money left over which, rather than give it back to me, they'll treat it as profit and spend it as they see fit?

[Deep13]

11. I wouldn't call it "profit" when it is public money,...

...but yeah, the idea is it would be cheaper than it is now. Isn't that the whole purpose of reform anyway?

[hughee99]

12. So you don't see an issue with the government

telling you it's taxing you for one service, but "overcharging" you and using the money for whatever they want? If the government wants to raise more general revenue, they should raise the income tax rates, not create a new tax for a specific purpose, as a means to generate revenue for the general fund.

In any case, I am extremely doubtful that the cost to the end user will be lower AND they'll be able to cover everyone, AND they'll be able to afford the necessary infrastructure costs, let alone make a profit. I just don't think there's that much savings to be found, if they intend to provide quality health care.

[Deep13]

14. I'm not suggestion a health care tax be used for anything else.

But there are other taxes.

[hughee99]

18. If the "health care tax" will only be used for health care

and all other taxes remained the same, why would there be any savings for the government to spend. If individuals are spending less for their government health care, and the remainder of what they would have spent is not taxed some other way, the government doesn't have extra savings to spend, though the people would.

[Deep13]

19. Who says all others will remain the same? nt

[hughee99]

24. So what does this have to do with health care

unless the "plan" is that any money people save on health care by going to the single-payer plan will just be taken from them from some other form of taxation.

[LSK]

21. ummm when everyone starts paying into the Medicare program

Like people UNDER 60 who don't need healthcare as much yet?????

[hughee99]

25. When everyone Starts? We're all paying into FICA now, aren't we?

[nbsmom]

58. Not if you're a child. Or a SAH parent. nt

[scheming daemons]

7. PAY DOWN THE DEBT... no other option is as responsible a choice

Right now, we spend $400 billion per year on interest payments on the debt. That is literally money going down the drain with no tangible benefit.

If the debt is paid down, all of a sudden $400 billion is freed up in order to do something TANGIBLE.

[TornadoTN]

17. We have a winner!

That's the giant albatross hanging around our proverbial necks.

Cut out the debt and enact reasonable measures that we don't go down that road again. The savings we will reap by merely eliminating our interest payments can go a very, very long way towards more tangible benefits that every American can enjoy.

[tabbycat31]

34. exactly

[izquierdista]

13. Unemployment benefits?

What are all those people who decided on a career in medical coding and billing going to do? :shrug:

[Deep13]

15. something else

perhaps in one of the fields I mentioned

[ProgressiveProfessor]

16. What savings? In the end it will cost more that what is spent today

due to more and better coverage for those who are not able to afford it today.

[Deep13]

20. No it won't.

We are already paying for that stuff, usually in the form of emergency room visits. Other countries insure everyone and don't spend what we do. The problem is the inefficiency in how the system is administered.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

27. Lots of room for legitimate disagreement on that

I believe it will be more expensive overall, but that is fine with me. It needs to happen and I will be glad to support it.

[nbsmom]

59. The opportunity that single payer represents

Is the removal of the FOR PROFIT insurers from the system. Private sector companies (who are currently administering other 'well-run' government health plans, my guess) will still be able to bid on running the workings of how much is paid for care that is delivered. (Just because it's called single payer doesn't mean that we stop looking at how much things COST, right?)

If there are no more FOR PROFIT insurance companies, then the savings can go into programs that are designed to keep the individual's health care his or her own personal responsibility.

Single payer could be the thing that keeps our economy from toppling over when the Medicare funding runs out (originally 2018 but many estimates are now saying 2016.)

[anonymous171]

22. BUY MORE WEAPONS BABY!

:hide:

[midnight armadillo]

62. You beat me to it!

Let's see, about $250 billion/year more for the Pentagon!

[JohnWxy]

26. Single payer!!?? you commie!!!

what will the health care insurers do for all those lost profits?

What will people do with all that spare time NOT spent trying to figure out 52 different plans???


Unimaginable!

[Deep13]

40. I know it. I'm destroying America.

Billo told me so. :-(

[bobbolink]

28. WHy is it that none of these LISTS ever include low-income housing

so we can have fewer homeless people?

Why is it we are ALWAYS forgotten?

Are we really less important that "green space"?????????????????

Do you REALLY want our votes?????????

[Deep13]

33. Oh for chrissake...

...it was an off the top of my head list.

[bobbolink]

36. chrissake back atcha. Your compassion is sooooo touching!

Maybe one day you'll be in our shoes, and see how it feels to be continually ignored.

You have a fine day, fella.... you've certainly been one big joy.

[Deep13]

38. I'm not going to apologize for my thoughts or feelings.

This has nothing to do with compassion. It has to do with just looking for reasons to be constantly critical.

[bobbolink]

43. I didn't figure you would. You don't come across as the type.

"It has to do with just looking for reasons to be constantly critical."

Yup, that's the "progressives" of today. Constantly critical.

And not giving a shit about those they consider beneath them.

UNTIL of course, they want their/our votes.

Then it's two-face time.

Until the day after the election, then it's back to being constantly critical.

One day it might be you. Then you'll see what it's like to be dissed for being poor.

[Deep13]

47. What makes you think I don't give a shit?

Do you really think a quick list and a refusal to be bullied into a guilt trip gives you a complete picture of my thoughts.

Anyway, this whole subject is off-topic.

[bobbolink]

51. You win. forget poor and homeless people. It's the democratic way.

It's all GUILT anyway.

No real issue... just guilt.

you win.

And, of course, poverty is "OFF TOPIC".

Has been since the Clinton misadministration.

Why should that change?

Oh wait.. we voted for change, didn't we?

Too bad we didn't get it.

But, you're right... it's all just GUILT

No real suffering.

No deaths.

Just GUILT.

[Synicus Maximus]

29. There will be little if any savings

[Deep13]

32. You're a hell of a salesman.

I guess there's no point in reforming the system then.

[dajoki]

30. And to add to your list...

spending some money on low income housing, because as I'm sure we all know that is the number one reason for homelessness, lack of affordable housing. And I'm also for anything that would truly lower poverty in this country. There is no reason in the richest country in the world some of our citizens are forced to miss meals, go without meds, etc., etc.

[bobbolink]

37. I'm sure you saw his touching dismissal... "oh fer crissake".... yup, that's conservative compassion

...errr... "progressive" compassion.

:wtf:

[Deep13]

39. So, it's okay to "call-out" a DUer on his own thread then?

I guess those who are homeless can't possibly use full health care coverage.

[bobbolink]

41. oh fer crissakes! You think HOMELESS and poor people don't get "called out" on their own threads?

You think this is a "nice" place?

How long you been here?

[nxylas]

44. I think single-payer would be a major tool in fighting poverty

I also found your "oh fer chrissakes" response somewhat insensitive. I've never been homeless, thank God, but I know people who are or have been (including Bobbie) and one thing I hear from them all the time is that what hurts as much as the physical privations they endure is the loss of dignity, the way they become "non-people", invisible to all. If the poorest of the poor can't expect to be treated like human beings on DU and other progressive sites, where can they expect it?

[Deep13]

46. That's just it.

I treated him like like anyone else who posted something for the purpose of picking an argument, to wit, like a human being. What you and he are really objecting to is I did not give any special deference in my writing. I'm all for helping the homeless, the nearly homeless and the inadequately housed. I supposed I could have feigned being sorry and used a bunch of suck-up "sensitive" language, but that would not have put him in a home. And besides, it was an off the top of my head list with no purpose to forget the homeless. He knew that. There are a shitload of projects we should be funding and homeless relief is one of them. I'm at the office and had no intention of creating a comprehensive list or insulting anyone by omission. Obviously.

[nxylas]

48. That assumes that the post was mere shit-stirring

I think Bobbie was just trying to raise awareness of an issue that often gets overlooked.

[Deep13]

49. All right. I will assume you are right. nt

[pnutbutr]

31. pay more in taxes to fund other projects

[iamthebandfanman]

42. we arent gonna, so why even dream.

they are making sure of that.

[Deep13]

45. They're also going to make damn sure Hillary is the nominee too.

Y
e
s

w
e

c
a
n.

[Deep13]

50. Sorry, Bobbolink if I misjudged your intention.

And yes, affordable housing is something else that has long been neglected, at least since Reagan took office.

[bobbolink]

52. All I can say, is walk in my shoes. Then see if you consider speaking up for your needs to be

"shit stirring". Is that how you feel about African Americans protesting prejudice? Is that how you feel about gays speaking up for their rights? No? Then WHY are homeless people any different when WE speak out?

I'd like for you to read a study that shows just how bad the prejudice is:

The Empathy Gap by J.D. Trout 2009
p. 30 In the research of Fisk and her colleagues, people were asked how different social groups are viewed by their society. When asked a series of questions about social warmth and the competency of different social and ethnic groups, the answers clustered around four emotional responses: pity, envy, pride, and disgust. For example, people routinely reach to the homeless with disgust. This is puzzling enough. You might have thought people would pity the homeless, empathize with their position, and feel sorry for them. Not at all. And in a functional MRI study, when study participants were presented with pictures of members from each social and ethnic group, the medial prefrontal cortex--the site that registers the potential for an object's social action--popped for all but one group: the homeless. The homeless maybe seen as human, but not fully so, not as social actors.14

This is what we live with, EVERY DAY. Yet, we're supposed to sit down and shut the fuck up???

It's obvious that's the only thing that will actually MAKE A DIFFERENCE: is for EVERYONE to go through the hell that we're going through, and experience being ignored in the midst of it.

I appreciate your apology. I just want you to know how much this hurts... not just being homeless, not just being ignored, but being blasted by those who say they are on the same side!!! Where do we go to be heard? Where do we go to be heard, to have an arm around our shoulder and know that we matter? Where is that place?

Face facts... we are homeless BECAUSE homelessness is accepted, and that includes by the Dems.

There will be more and more and more of us unless ALL of you stand up for us, and make a whole lot of noise!

[Deep13]

53. Your post seemed like a personal attack, not a protest.

And since you reject my apology, I'm inclined to believe I was right. As far as wearing the shoes of others, I haven't exactly had smooth highway myself, so let's not get on too high of a horse.

[Lilith Velkor]

54. "Appreciate" means "reject"?

I'm always finding out interesting nuances to the English language, but this is a new one.

[bobbolink]

55. It's a "flexible" language. ^_^ Yes, some DUers can't stand the heat of

poor folks DISGUSTED with the complicity of "progressives" accepting homelessness in the U.S.

I'd like to see some of these critics WALK IN THE SHOES of homeless people, and then see just how not angry they are!

Thank you for being a witness to this blatant disregard. :hi:

[Deep13]

57. Um, heat?

Anyway, I'm not a critic. I fully agree that we must remove barriers to home ownership or at least occupancy. My criticism is directed at you personally. And you're a hell of a salesman for your point of view, BTW. Not exactly a disciple of Dale Carnegie I guess.

And AGAIN, while I won't be so crass as to describe it, I haven't exactly had an easy time of it myself.

[Deep13]

56. It's all about context.

And a word is but the skin of an idea. (Holmes)

[Lilith Velkor]

60. Words mean the opposite of what they mean when you want to be a dick.

Got it.

[imdjh]

61. There won't be any savings for years

It all comes out of the same pot, and that pot is in the HOLE huge right now thanks to Bush and the very corporations which are corrupting Congress as we speak.