Reply #6: It also means less litigation over all because people would not [View All]

[JDPriestly]

be so inclined to sue for minor treatments such as back ailments even if they could become chronic problems. That's because people would not have to worry about how to cover their medical payments should they become uninsured.

I seriously doubt that agencies that consider the cost of single payer weigh in some of these advantages that aren't quite as direct as simply saving on administrative costs charged by health insurers.

For example, with a few words and a stroke of a pen, Congress could render the whole Workers' Compensation medical reimbursement unnecessary. That would reduce costs to employers right there. Workers' Compensation insurance has its own huge bureaucracy including all kinds of litigation and government oversight. Workers' Comp would still have to cover things like lost wages, but basic medical costs, physical therapy, etc. could be folded into the single payer system.

Combining the medical coverage now provided by Workers' Comp with single payer insurance would insure that the patient gets the right treatment and not just the treatment that benefits someone somewhere in the Workers' Comp apparatus who happens to be milking the Workers' Comp system.

I remember a Workers' Comp case that involved a drug-abuser who had suffered from diabetes for many years. While working in an office, she dropped an object that was not all that heavy on her foot (wouldn't have happened to most people; would have just bruised most people) and had to have her foot amputated -- all costs covered by Workers' Comp. I don't need to tell those of you who know how Workers' Comp works what happened in the end: The employer's obligation to pay into the Workers' Comp fund rose way, way up.

So single payer has a lot of advantages that are not readily apparent.