3 ms·

It most definitely means banning private insurance (not private care). Thats why its "single". IT has to, because otherwise it would have to compete on the mark

It most definitely means banning private insurance (not private care). Thats why its "single". IT has to, because otherwise it would have to compete on the market as any other plan, and it would fail because all private insurance would dump the expensive patients on to medicare, which will need to either increase prices or increase taxes to survive. Plus the whole point is to eliminate dealing with the adminsitrative burden of claims and billing. IF you just add another insurance, you just make it worse.

pjc50 8y ago
"Single payer" means the state pays through the tax system. It doesn't mean banning private insurance, which coexists happily with the NHS. Whoever told you otherwise has been misleading you.
- conanbatt 8y ago
  There is nothing single about adding a payer to a set of a dozen that already exist.
swish_bob 8y ago
This is quite evidently rubbish, as demonstrated by the fact that I live in the UK, receive most of my healthcare for free, on the NHS and also have private medical insurance (provided by my employer).
- conanbatt 8y ago
  The problems the UK has and the US has are completely different. Starting with the fact that the model of providing both a public and a private insurance system in the US will not save a single buck.
namdnay 8y ago
No, the single payer portion doesn't have to compete with other plans. The other plans supplement the single payer insurance. E.g. single payer will cover everything up to a certain amount, and then you can buy a private plan to bring that amount higher, or maybe cover non-essential extras.
- conanbatt 8y ago
  Ofc you can invent an infinite amount of models, and Sanders has not specified which one clearly yet afaik. In the case that Medicare is expanded and is optional, medicare will have the following fair challenges: it has to compete with other private insurances, which means is has to pay as much, and any administrative cost dissipates, in fact it gets worse, as providers still have to do multiple billing. If it has to charge ,it will also have to turn away patients. It it doesnt charge, everyone will have medicare, and private insurance will not provide services that medicare gives for free or without restriction. Up to this point, "single payer" has not provided a single cost reduction means.
  - ncallaway 8y ago
    > Sanders has not specified which one clearly yet afaik. That's absolutely not true. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1804/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/180...
    - conanbatt 8y ago
      Didn't know this existed, thanks for sharing. (I got my other impression by Sander's fb which I follow). If I understood this text correctly, this will be: An optional insurance plan (SEC. 105) An insurance that gets tax benefits (SEC. 701) An insurance that has incredibly perverse utilization incentives (SEC. 202) I would be quite on board on this plan if it weren't funded with special taxation, and it gave itself no promise of benefit for being the state, not because I think its a good one, but because it will confirm its a terrible one.

pjc50 8y ago

"Single payer" means the state pays through the tax system. It doesn't mean banning private insurance, which coexists happily with the NHS. Whoever told you otherwise has been misleading you.

conanbatt 8y ago
There is nothing single about adding a payer to a set of a dozen that already exist.

swish_bob 8y ago

This is quite evidently rubbish, as demonstrated by the fact that I live in the UK, receive most of my healthcare for free, on the NHS and also have private medical insurance (provided by my employer).

conanbatt 8y ago
The problems the UK has and the US has are completely different. Starting with the fact that the model of providing both a public and a private insurance system in the US will not save a single buck.

namdnay 8y ago

No, the single payer portion doesn't have to compete with other plans. The other plans supplement the single payer insurance. E.g. single payer will cover everything up to a certain amount, and then you can buy a private plan to bring that amount higher, or maybe cover non-essential extras.

conanbatt 8y ago
Ofc you can invent an infinite amount of models, and Sanders has not specified which one clearly yet afaik. In the case that Medicare is expanded and is optional, medicare will have the following fair challenges: it has to compete with other private insurances, which means is has to pay as much, and any administrative cost dissipates, in fact it gets worse, as providers still have to do multiple billing. If it has to charge ,it will also have to turn away patients. It it doesnt charge, everyone will have medicare, and private insurance will not provide services that medicare gives for free or without restriction. Up to this point, "single payer" has not provided a single cost reduction means.
- ncallaway 8y ago
  > Sanders has not specified which one clearly yet afaik. That's absolutely not true. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1804/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/180...
  - conanbatt 8y ago
    Didn't know this existed, thanks for sharing. (I got my other impression by Sander's fb which I follow). If I understood this text correctly, this will be: An optional insurance plan (SEC. 105) An insurance that gets tax benefits (SEC. 701) An insurance that has incredibly perverse utilization incentives (SEC. 202) I would be quite on board on this plan if it weren't funded with special taxation, and it gave itself no promise of benefit for being the state, not because I think its a good one, but because it will confirm its a terrible one.