Single Payer: Not a Conservative vs. Liberal issue

[Mythsaje]

Everyone needs health care. Even the "young and healthy" will, sooner or later, need it and possibly need it badly. Young and healthy people take risks--they drive cars, they ride motorcycles, they ride bicycles, they climb mountains, they engage in back yard sports. Everyone needs health care.

So what's so hard to understand about our unwillingness to ante up for single payer universal health care (the kind the British, French, Norwegians, Danes, Canadians, and Cubans have? Is it really better for everyone to feed the insurance companies (you know, the ones that want to debate just about every health care decision your doctor makes?). Why are citizens who support single-payer not even being allowed into the discussion? Why are doctors and nurses (those who work in the trenches every day) being arrested for daring to bring the argument before the Finance Committee?

This is about basic human dignity. This is about erasing one of the major worries and causes of bankruptcy for most Americans. This is about helping the economy. This is about doing the right thing. Isn't it about time?

Conservative "values voters" need health care too. Are they really going to accept the arguments of rich pundits, TV and radio personalities who will NEVER want for health care, that universal health care is a bad thing? Why should they? Such people don't have to concern themselves with an unexpected illness in a child, or worry that medical bills will drive them hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.

Right now the debate is going on between people who ALREADY have single-payer health care. Partially at our expense. They don't have to worry. But we do. Because it looks as though all they plan on doing is giving the insurance industry another blank check. Most of us who've ever had to deal with the insurance companies in any capacity know what that'll mean. For-Profit health care is demeaning, and rarely serves us well. But that's what they seem to want to keep in place, despite all evidence to suggest that it's the wisest possible course of action. Not only the wisest, but the most humane.

We must be steely in our resolve, and not let them avoid the real issue. Nothing but single payer will resolve the issues that have plagued our health care industry for the past several decades. It won't fix everything, but it will fix the worst of them. And then, maybe, people will be able to worry about something other than losing everything the next time a family member gets sick or hurt.

Single Payer is democratizing in a way few other things could be. Healthy people are empowered people. And that's no bull.

[patrice]

1. TPB are fighting people who cross over the lines TPB draw between Conservatives and

Liberals; Democrats and Republicans.

[FLDCVADem]

2. Who would that be?

"Right now the debate is going on between people who ALREADY have single-payer health care."

[imdjh]

4. I think he means the government officials

[FLDCVADem]

5. If that's what he means...

...then he's wrong. Government officials don't have single payer health care, unless they're old enough to use Medicare.

[imdjh]

12. A little bit of license perhaps. or maybe he did mean Medicare

Plenty of seniors oppose single payer, born of a notion that they have done well by the employer based system and paid into the retirement system. I have found that many simply don't see the process of paying into private insurance for their working lives and then being put in Medicare for what it is.

[imdjh]

3. They can be philosophical , but what comes out is fear.

I'll admit it- while never rich I have never been dirt poor. I have also always had private health insurance. I have tossed medical students out of my exam room, telling the doctor that I was a paying customer and I wasn't going to have ten people inspecting my naked body. That's because those medical students were only a couple of years older than I was, and I didn't want to run into them in bars.

Many of those who oppose single payer honestly believe that it will require an income tax of 40% or more on their income bracket. Others claim it would be even higher. Most however, despite wrapping it in political or philosophical terms, seem to honestly believe that it will be the end of health care as they know it. Right now, they think that they "choose my own doctor" for a legitimate reason. In reality- most simply go to the doctor who was in the list, and others recommended by him. Or they go to a doctor recommended by a friend. It feels like they are making the thinking decision. They think that will end.

While accusing others of abusing healthcare, they often seem to feel that their on demand healthcare will come to an end. Obviously, they have been making on demand visits to the doctor or they wouldn't fear losing it.

They think that we'll all just wear out the system through frivolous use. They have never seen me lying in bed, wondering if I should call the ambulance and putting it off because that would be a $500 phone call. They have never seen my doctor scold me for not going to the ER when my temp was above 102, because that would be a minimum of $500 and possible much more even though I have health insurance. And should I have died, they would have said, "Well he could have gone to the ER." Yeah, I could have gone to the ER, and spend the tuition money or other money I needed to use to take care of my family.

They fear losing privilege. They might not see it that way, but they way they frame it there is no other word for it. And I confess, I'm not going to be too happy if my medical experience changes to one of longer wait times and lesser access- but I am willing to risk it both because it's in my long term interest and the interest of society, IMO.

It's like anything else- pay now or pay later.

[Mythsaje]

6. Longer wait times and lesser access...

Why do we expect that? It can already be a few weeks before one can get into see a family doctor (unless there's a cancellation) and wait times in ERs are a travesty. Why do we assume it'll be worse under single payer?

[FLDCVADem]

7. I make the assumption because

I've been under single payer (military) and under regular health insurance. I'll take the wait times, quality and yes, even the cost, of what I have now over what I had under single payer any day of the week.

Perhaps it would be different under a nationwide system, but I don't see how.

[Mythsaje]

8. Military is notoriously inefficient...

Not a good model.

According to the people I've talked to in places where they do have single-payer, their wait times aren't any worse than ours.

[FLDCVADem]

9. Having spent 20 years in the military...

...I can tell you that I didn't find them to be notoriously inefficient in anything, except for health care.

Of course, my experience is anecdotal, just as yours is when you speak to people from single payer countries that say that don't have issues with wait times. If I'm not mistaken, a Canadian court (in Ontario perhaps? Can't remember) ruled that wait times were ridiculous for some procedures and as a result, allowed people to do what they hadn't been able to do before, namely, pay out of their pocket to get the care faster.

[Mythsaje]

10. I meant the health care, of course...

And I guess it depends on the procedure.

[imdjh]

11. Military isn't single payer, it's NHS and beyond

You have limited rights to demand, object, and seek recourse in the military hospital. It's not a good comparison. However, if you are on vacation and you use your (I have forgotten the name) card to see a doctor or ER, then you will not wait longer than anyone else, you will be prioritized by condition as all facilities do, but you will be next in line based on arrival for the most part.

[FLDCVADem]

13. The point is...

...that in the military, you can be sick and still wait a week to see the doctor. Sure, you can go to sick call, but if they think you aren't sick enough, back to work you go until you can make an appointment.

I'm just surprised that people think that all will be rosy under a single payer plan that tells people they can only use government approved and government paid doctors.

[imdjh]

14. I don't think it will be like that.

I don't think that doctors who accept SP will be allowed to give priority to cash customers. That only makes sense. But I think that there will be doctors outside the system for those who can afford it or who feel the need to go outside the system. We already have that in a way. If I don't like my HMO doctor's opinion on something, and I want to go to a specific non-plan doctor to find agreement (and I have done this) then I have to pay cash.

Any time you have money, it will talk. There will doubtless be doctors and perhaps even hospitals which don't accept SP, and who offer superior service or comfort if not superior care to those willing to pay for it.

BTW, my vision of Single Payer bring military and veteran hospitals into the general system either opening them up to the general public, or closing them down and using the other facilities for the military. I don't see any purpose to having a separate system for the military.

[FLDCVADem]

15. imdjh, a system such as you descibe...

...I could get behind. But if you read HR676, it's pretty clear that docs can't offer services outside the system that are available inside the system. I oppose that.