The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    oldenGoldenDecoy's picture

    Under a Single-Payer System Would People Be Buying Government Health Insurance Policies?

    Howdy Daggers... How're you all doing . . .

    It's been quite awhile since I dropped a post here at Dag, two months to be exact. I've been busy helping people (in 3D) navigate the real world of the ObamaCare sign up process here in California.

    Now about buying government health insurance under single-payer. What caught my attention was a small point that I mildly disagree with that Michael posted earlier today at 12:22 pm in the thread of his well written "Dear angry American..." post. Here is the sentence.
     

    "How is single-payer, which would require people to buy government health insurance, less excessive than ACA, which requires people to buy private health insurance."

     

     

     



    Simply stated, the main point I'd like to make is this. Under a single-payer system people don't buy government health insurance, per se. The government pays the costs directly to a person's health services provider. There are no middle-man private health insurance companies.

    Being that I'm in my 60s I may never see it in my lifetime, but eventually we won't be able to afford NOT to implement the following.

    To help fully understand what the single-payer system is, the following info is quite helpful. Take the time and immerse yourselves in the nuts and bolts sections of...

    .

    H.R.676 - Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act 113th Congress (2013-2014)

    .

    Make sure you at least take notice of:

    TITLE I — ELIGIBILITY AND BENEFITS

    Sec. 101. Eligibility and registration.
    Sec. 102. Benefits and portability.
    Sec. 103. Qualification of participating providers.
    Sec. 104. Prohibition against duplicating coverage.

     

    And the following is a quick overview from GovTrack:

     

    Introduced in House (02/13/2013)
     

    Expanded & Improved Medicare for All Act - Establishes the Medicare for All Program to provide all individuals residing in the United States and U.S. territories with free health care that includes all medically necessary care, such as primary care and prevention, dietary and nutritional therapies, prescription drugs, emergency care, long-term care, mental health services, dental services, and vision care.

    Prohibits an institution from participating unless it is a public or nonprofit institution. Allows nonprofit health maintenance organizations (HMOs) that deliver care in their own facilities to participate.

    Gives patients the freedom to choose from participating physicians and institutions.

    Prohibits a private health insurer from selling health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act. Allows such insurers to sell benefits that are not medically necessary, such as cosmetic surgery benefits.

    Sets forth methods to pay institutional providers of care and health professionals for services. Prohibits financial incentives between HMOs and physicians based on utilization.

    Establishes the Medicare for All Trust Fund to finance the Program with amounts deposited: (1) from existing sources of government revenues for health care, (2) by increasing personal income taxes on the top 5% income earners, (3) by instituting a modest and progressive excise tax on payroll and self-employment income, (4) by instituting a modest tax on unearned income, and (5) by instituting a small tax on stock and bond transactions. Transfers and appropriates to carry out this Act amounts that would have been appropriated for federal public health care programs, including Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP).

    Requires the Medicare for All Program to give first priority in retraining and job placement and employment transition benefits to individuals whose jobs are eliminated due to reduced administration.

    Requires creation of a confidential electronic patient record system.

    Establishes a National Board of Universal Quality and Access to provide advice on quality, access, and affordability.

    Requires the eventual integration of the Indian Health Service into the Program, and an evaluation of the continued independence of Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health programs.
     


    Like I said earlier, being that I'm in my 60s I may never see it in my lifetime, but eventually we won't be able to afford NOT to do it.

    Everyone have a good weekend.

    ~OGD~


    .

     

     

    Comments

    I agree. 


    Hi MoMo . . .

    Thanks for taking the time to reply.

    ~OGD~


    I don't argue over the ACA because of what I see at the bottom of the economic rung.  Someone I knew died a few days ago because she had broke some ribs when she fell over a week ago. She was 51 years old and uninsured.  She was given pain meds and sent home.  It is a reality around here that you can die if you get seriously hurt or sick. The Republicans refuse to expand Medicaid in Florida for 2014. The media is MIA on this abuse.    


    What really stood out to me . . .

    If you did not take the time to check out the H.R. 676 Summary section at the MedicareForAll.org site, no doubt you missed this.
     

    "We will no longer be paying for a system that wastes $400 billion in excessive administrative costs."

     

    http://www.medicareforall.org/pages/HR676
     

    United States House of Representatives Bill Number 676 is the proposed U.S. legislation to establish single-payer health care, improved Medicare for All, in the United States. It will establish lifelong health care: cradle to grave, womb to the tomb. The coverage will be complete; some people like to call that “comprehensive.” Every other free-market high-income country in the world automatically provides health care for its people with a largely or exclusively non-profit method of financing the health care. The best non-profit method is called “single-payer” because it is the simplest and most efficient. The specific funding details need to be established, such as the method(s) proposed in H.R. 676. What matters is not so much how we pay for it, since the costs will be dramatically lower, but what we will pay for:

    — We will no longer be paying for a system that wastes $400 billion in excessive administrative costs.
    — Much more of our health care dollars will be spent on health care.
    — More of the doctors and nurses time will be spent on caring for people.
    — The result will be more time spent on prevention and wellness and the U.S. dramatically raising its life expectancy, which is a dismal 30th in the world, having dropped from 28th to 30th in June 2008.


    In eighteen months or so I will just be on Medicare anyway and most probably will pay the same minimum amount I pay now.

    Minnesota systems work for the poor and the dispossessed rather well.

    But in the end the real issue will be spiraling costs in medical care and we as a nation will need more laws addressing that issue.


    Eighteen months... Eh Dick?
     
    You keep hanging on their buddy. Us old coots are hard to kick down the road.
     
    .
    .
     
    ~OGD~

    Thanks for the correction, OGD. I was speaking loosely to highlight the contrast, but you are quite right. I still maintain that the single payer would be more "excessive" than ACA, though I mean that it in a good way.


    Hi Mike... Thanks for responding . . .
     
    Ya' ... I know where your heart is on this issue.
     
    I agree, there is no doubt single-payer would be more excessive. I personally take the long-term look down the road, even though I may not be here to see it. With me, it's truly a matter of equality and the economic reality the country will have to eventually face.
     
    Thanks for the forum.
     
    ~OGD~

    Before this disappears . . .
     
    I noticed there have been 215 looks on this thread and yet only three different people left a comment.
     
    And the thing that stands out starkly, other than Michael Wolraich's reply, no one took the time to answer the question raised in the header.
     
    UNDER A SINGLE-PAYER SYSTEM WOULD PEOPLE BE BUYING
    GOVERNMENT HEALTH INSURANCE POLICIES?

     

    ~OGD~