4 ms·

> also an aspect of a single-payer healthcare plan? Note: single payer healthcare systems are about who pays, not who provides -- it's even in the name. So he

by Panino 9y ago

> also an aspect of a single-payer healthcare plan? Note: single payer healthcare systems are about who pays, not who provides -- it's even in the name. So here, hospitals and clinics provide healthcare while the government pays those hospitals and clinics. There's no reason for the government to know John Doe's enlarged prostate medication because that's between the doctor and patient. > if/when single-payer healthcare is implemented in the US, data leaks and breaches will occur often Can you provide numerous links to stories about Medicare and Medicaid personal data being exposed to the public? And if so, do those breaches outweigh the cost of (in the single payer case) millions of people without healthcare, increased costs, and worse health outcomes?

leereeves 9y ago
> There's no reason for the government to know John Doe's enlarged prostate medication because that's between the doctor and patient. Unless the government is paying for it and expects to know exactly what it's paying for.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > the government is paying for it and expects to know exactly what it's paying for To embellish on this point, if you have a system where the government doesn't know what John Doe's healthcare providers are billing for and blindly cuts a cheque, expect to have lots of John Does having lots of very-expensive procedures.
  - walshemj 9y ago
    no in that case you have something like NICE in the Uk
- Panino 9y ago
  Certainly. Is this the case with Medicare, and if so, does the US federal govt. know what medications my Grandpa takes?
  - linksnapzz 9y ago
    Fedgov absolutely knows. HHS CMS does elaborate data-mining on providers that take gov't money to look for fraud.
- ameister14 9y ago
  Which is why as an unintended side effect of the US instituting a single-payer healthcare system, abortion would become illegal.
  - int_19h 9y ago
    Only if it's federal single-payer, rather than state-by-state (the latter is quite possible - it's how Canada does it). And assuming the existing law wrt taxes and abortions stays in place, of course, which I doubt if we ever get close to the numbers necessary to pass federal single-payer.
drak0n1c 9y ago
I think the Charlie Gard case proves your first point wrong. The government absolutely will know in such a system, it has to in order to decide how limited medical care resources will be distributed. Every citizen won't be able to receive an unlimited amount of expensive healthcare procedures.
- Pulcinella 9y ago
  The Gard case didn't have anything to do with limited resources. The parents, doctors, and courts were arguing over what was in Charlie's best interest. There was no argument that his care had become too expensive.
- DanBC 9y ago
  The Gard case has nothing to do with ability to pay. Cost of care wasn't a feature of any of the decisions or of any of the various court cases. Money is not the problem in the Charlie Gard case. The case is not between the parents and the government, it's between the parents, the child, and the hospital. The child has received world class medical treatment; the hospital can't just kill the child (as would happen in the US, and happens every day) - the hospital has to go to a court and persuade a judge. The parents have their legal representation (and you can say that they should have been eligible for legal aid), the child has his own legal representation paid for by the state, and his own guardian to represent his best interests. The judgements are all available to read. Here's a search that returns all of them: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/?s=yates+and+gard https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/?s=yates+and+gard And here are a couple of blogs: http://barristerblogger.com/2017/07/16/open-letter-charlie-gard-house-speaker-paul-ryan/ http://barristerblogger.com/2017/07/16/open-letter-charlie-g... http://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2017/07/07/never-let-an-ill-child-go-to-waste/ http://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2017/07/07/never-let-an-...
  - ameister14 9y ago
    Does that actually happen in the US every day? The hospital is keeping a kid alive, they decide it's better to kill the kid, so they kill the kid? Am I misreading you or is that what you're saying happens? It's been my experience (anecdotal as a person in a family of 8 MD's including pediatricians) that the US actually keeps people alive way past the point where it's appropriate to do so - family has the right to force emergency life-saving procedures and hospice-type end-of-life care isn't as common. Actually, reading the blogs, that's what the parents are trying to do - send the kid to the US in an attempt to save his life, and the UK says that's cruel and he should be allowed to die. Have I totally misread this?

by Panino 9y ago

leereeves 9y ago

> There's no reason for the government to know John Doe's enlarged prostate medication because that's between the doctor and patient. Unless the government is paying for it and expects to know exactly what it's paying for.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> the government is paying for it and expects to know exactly what it's paying for To embellish on this point, if you have a system where the government doesn't know what John Doe's healthcare providers are billing for and blindly cuts a cheque, expect to have lots of John Does having lots of very-expensive procedures.
- walshemj 9y ago
  no in that case you have something like NICE in the Uk
Panino 9y ago
Certainly. Is this the case with Medicare, and if so, does the US federal govt. know what medications my Grandpa takes?
- linksnapzz 9y ago
  Fedgov absolutely knows. HHS CMS does elaborate data-mining on providers that take gov't money to look for fraud.
ameister14 9y ago
Which is why as an unintended side effect of the US instituting a single-payer healthcare system, abortion would become illegal.
- int_19h 9y ago
  Only if it's federal single-payer, rather than state-by-state (the latter is quite possible - it's how Canada does it). And assuming the existing law wrt taxes and abortions stays in place, of course, which I doubt if we ever get close to the numbers necessary to pass federal single-payer.

drak0n1c 9y ago

I think the Charlie Gard case proves your first point wrong. The government absolutely will know in such a system, it has to in order to decide how limited medical care resources will be distributed. Every citizen won't be able to receive an unlimited amount of expensive healthcare procedures.

Pulcinella 9y ago
The Gard case didn't have anything to do with limited resources. The parents, doctors, and courts were arguing over what was in Charlie's best interest. There was no argument that his care had become too expensive.
DanBC 9y ago
The Gard case has nothing to do with ability to pay. Cost of care wasn't a feature of any of the decisions or of any of the various court cases. Money is not the problem in the Charlie Gard case. The case is not between the parents and the government, it's between the parents, the child, and the hospital. The child has received world class medical treatment; the hospital can't just kill the child (as would happen in the US, and happens every day) - the hospital has to go to a court and persuade a judge. The parents have their legal representation (and you can say that they should have been eligible for legal aid), the child has his own legal representation paid for by the state, and his own guardian to represent his best interests. The judgements are all available to read. Here's a search that returns all of them: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/?s=yates+and+gard https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/?s=yates+and+gard And here are a couple of blogs: http://barristerblogger.com/2017/07/16/open-letter-charlie-gard-house-speaker-paul-ryan/ http://barristerblogger.com/2017/07/16/open-letter-charlie-g... http://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2017/07/07/never-let-an-ill-child-go-to-waste/ http://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2017/07/07/never-let-an-...
- ameister14 9y ago
  Does that actually happen in the US every day? The hospital is keeping a kid alive, they decide it's better to kill the kid, so they kill the kid? Am I misreading you or is that what you're saying happens? It's been my experience (anecdotal as a person in a family of 8 MD's including pediatricians) that the US actually keeps people alive way past the point where it's appropriate to do so - family has the right to force emergency life-saving procedures and hospice-type end-of-life care isn't as common. Actually, reading the blogs, that's what the parents are trying to do - send the kid to the US in an attempt to save his life, and the UK says that's cruel and he should be allowed to die. Have I totally misread this?