5 ms·

This simplification seems disingenuous. Would switching to single payer solve your last sentence / quote from the article? Aka, would putting the US government

This simplification seems disingenuous. Would switching to single payer solve your last sentence / quote from the article? Aka, would putting the US government in the middle make things simpler and more efficient (and cheaper) for the end user (health care patients)? I can't say I'm convinced. Compare with the current system, where any given user is still effectively dealing with a single payer -- their insurance provider. Their insurance provider is one level of removal from the health system that has to be paid. Now, the idea of transparency? That's lovely, and would force accountability and that sort of thing which could potentially have impact. I can't disagree with that. I'm not sure that just putting the government in the middle fixes that either, though. As /u/frgtpsswrdlame points out, we have the most expensive health care, which seems like the bigger issue that isn't addressed. If we lessened the cost of health care in the US, that would probably be a better start, imo. Does single payer fix that? I would think that private, competing companies would seek out better deals vs a single government entity who couldn't really negotiate, but perhaps I've got that backwards. I'm not disagreeing with the thought on the whole, I just don't see how single payer fixes these problems.

davidw 9y ago
I lived in Italy for a number of years, and the Italian government is no nordic model of efficiency and propriety. And the health care system is still mostly better than in the US :-/ You're right that costs need containing though, and it's not quite as simply as "just" switching to a singly payer system.
learc83 9y ago
>I would think that private, competing companies would seek out better deals vs a single government entity who couldn't really negotiate That's the biggest advantage of single payer, one buyer can negotiate better deals with suppliers because there are no other buyers. It's basically a reverse monopoly.
- davidw 9y ago
  The term for that is monopsony. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony
galeaspablo 9y ago
I want proof. I only see numbers. Everything else is conjecture. Transparency in healthcare + Single payer (by the government) = Efficiency (see sources and explanation in my original comment) So yes, putting the US government in the middle is what I'm suggesting. Or is the US government not a leading force in fighting corruption anymore?
- shortstuffsushi 9y ago
  > I want proof. I only see numbers. Everything else is conjecture. But wait, is this not conjecture, since it doesn't currently exist? Sure, you have sources where it has worked, but the proof would only be implementing it here. > Or is the US government not a leading force in fighting corruption anymore? What? I don't understand what you're getting at here. My point isn't that the government is corrupt, it's that it's inefficient.
  - galeaspablo 9y ago
    > But wait, is this not conjecture, since it doesn't currently exist? Sure, you have sources where it has worked, but the proof would only be implementing it here. Universal and transparently managed healthcare consistently gives more bang for buck. Note that I said "consistently", not just in a few places. Yes, obviously you can't know what's going to happen in the US until you try it. But if it has consistently worked around the world, the best guess is that it will work in the US as well. Surely your argument, can't be... "how can I know this ball is going to fall into the Earth, if I haven't dropped it yet". > What? I don't understand what you're getting at here. My point isn't that the government is corrupt, it's that it's inefficient. And my point is that transparency in healthcare + single payer makes the system efficient.
    - greeneggs 9y ago
      Are there other countries that have transitioned from a high-cost system like ours to a single-payer system? How quickly did their costs go down? For example (according to the first Google links for "usa/uk average doctor salary"), the average doctor salary in the UK is $128,500, compared to $189,000 in the US. How are we going to cut salaries by 32%? My guess is that there are salary discrepancies across the medical industry.

davidw 9y ago

I lived in Italy for a number of years, and the Italian government is no nordic model of efficiency and propriety. And the health care system is still mostly better than in the US :-/ You're right that costs need containing though, and it's not quite as simply as "just" switching to a singly payer system.

learc83 9y ago

>I would think that private, competing companies would seek out better deals vs a single government entity who couldn't really negotiate That's the biggest advantage of single payer, one buyer can negotiate better deals with suppliers because there are no other buyers. It's basically a reverse monopoly.

davidw 9y ago
The term for that is monopsony. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony

galeaspablo 9y ago

I want proof. I only see numbers. Everything else is conjecture. Transparency in healthcare + Single payer (by the government) = Efficiency (see sources and explanation in my original comment) So yes, putting the US government in the middle is what I'm suggesting. Or is the US government not a leading force in fighting corruption anymore?

shortstuffsushi 9y ago
> I want proof. I only see numbers. Everything else is conjecture. But wait, is this not conjecture, since it doesn't currently exist? Sure, you have sources where it has worked, but the proof would only be implementing it here. > Or is the US government not a leading force in fighting corruption anymore? What? I don't understand what you're getting at here. My point isn't that the government is corrupt, it's that it's inefficient.
- galeaspablo 9y ago
  > But wait, is this not conjecture, since it doesn't currently exist? Sure, you have sources where it has worked, but the proof would only be implementing it here. Universal and transparently managed healthcare consistently gives more bang for buck. Note that I said "consistently", not just in a few places. Yes, obviously you can't know what's going to happen in the US until you try it. But if it has consistently worked around the world, the best guess is that it will work in the US as well. Surely your argument, can't be... "how can I know this ball is going to fall into the Earth, if I haven't dropped it yet". > What? I don't understand what you're getting at here. My point isn't that the government is corrupt, it's that it's inefficient. And my point is that transparency in healthcare + single payer makes the system efficient.
  - greeneggs 9y ago
    Are there other countries that have transitioned from a high-cost system like ours to a single-payer system? How quickly did their costs go down? For example (according to the first Google links for "usa/uk average doctor salary"), the average doctor salary in the UK is $128,500, compared to $189,000 in the US. How are we going to cut salaries by 32%? My guess is that there are salary discrepancies across the medical industry.