Kudos to Enoch for bringing this to my attention. Ok, Graham's animation is cute, but is this direction really going to work? Check it out... then come back here.
Uhh, isn't that also known as socialized health care? Who came up with the term "single payer". Smart. Single-payer health insurance sounds a lot better than socialized insurance. This will work? What prevents abuse? What happens if the prom committee doesn't sell enough tickets? What happens if the prom committee sells a bunch of tickets but doesn't have enough to pay for all the bills. After all, how can you cut back on the dance hall, or the streamers? (Of course, in real life, the prom committee, a.k.a. the US government, doesn't have to "sell" tickets. It can just take your money from your wallet until it has enough to pay for the punch and cookies.) Think Social Security. Think Canadian health care system.
Graham addresses my thoughts in his FAQ, in particular on the government control.
And government's not all bad. Government has provided us with public libraries, the GI Bill, Social Security, police and fire protection, the Do-Not-Call list, emergency services, national parks...I'm surprised he mentioned Social Security in there.
As for the great deals that this single-payer leviathan will be able to squeeze from doctors, hospitals, etc. - think U.S. military. Where will be the insentive to cut costs? When things cost more, they can just reach into your back pocket and pull a little bit out. At least you can leave your insurance company for another - or choose another plan, with a single-payer insurance policy, there will be NO competion - monopoly! Your thoughts?
Update. As I suspected from my gut feeling, it is a partisan issue, with the Dems pitching single-payer hard. I can understand why doctors might be in favor of this though - cutting out health insurance may leave more for the docs. But maybe not.
Posted by torque at October 1, 2004 11:02 PM | TrackBackmaybe not is right.
it's not for my pocketbook that i'm for single payer. it's for the tens of millions of uninsured, and even more underinsured. it's for the ridiculous charges that hospitals charge, and for-profit healthcare systems skim from the systems. Sure, the government is inefficient, but there are people dying out there for lack of care, every day.
Posted by: enoch choi at October 2, 2004 12:36 AMSingle-payer is a type of health care financing--I'm not sure when the term came into existance, but it's been around for at least 30 years.
And no, it's not the same thing as "socialized health care." Socialized health care is the system that the UK has--the state employs the doctors, tells them how to practice. Single-payer is entirely different.
The system works in many other countries--Taiwan recently enacted it in the late 90's--and it's doing very well. We have many examples of countries around the world making it work, and insuring their entire population.
*Some* Democrats pitch single-payer. *Most* do not.
Posted by: Graham at October 2, 2004 7:50 PMtramadol addiction tramadol addiction
Posted by: tramadol addiction at December 7, 2006 9:44 PMGood job!
Posted by: Markus at December 11, 2006 11:42 AMGood job!
Posted by: Markus at December 12, 2006 8:41 PMGood job!
Posted by: Markus at December 12, 2006 10:11 PM