How Much Would a Single-Payer System Cost?

[agdlp]

The financial viability of a single-payer system has been analyzed time and again by researchers both from the U.S. government and independent consulting firms. Each time the conclusion is the same: single-payer saves enough on wasteful paperwork to provide high quality health coverage to all and contain future health spending. This paper catalogs the analyses of proposed single-payer systems at both the federal and state levels.

Source: http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_system_cost.php?page=1







Source: http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_system_cost.php?page=1

[CTyankee]

1. I wish I had a dollar for every person to whom I have preached this, who then say to me

that they are worried because they just "don't know what we'll get" under single payer! Then they say they "know" someone who came to the U.S. from Canada to get a surgery that was denied them in Canada! Every last one of them has a Canada story! It's really an urban legend.

The ordinary people out there who should be agitating for single payer aren't. To be truthful, they don't really want it...

[pbca]

2. Ok...as a Canadian and American

The system here is better. The start up cost, realistically, would be huge (basically buying out all of the hostpitals/clinics/labs etc then setting up bureaucracies to run the system. I don't think the US could afford it right now given the debt. But once it is in place you have alot of cost controls and the overall cost comes down. For example the provincial governments have great negotiating power over things like pharmaceutical prices, medical equiptment and the salaries of medical professionals.

It also is a good thing in so many ways for it to be in the financial interest of the government to keep people healthy - it has an impact in so many areas you wouldn't believe it (product safety, workplace safety, etc). Sadly another thing that would increase the start up costs is - if you launched single payer tomorrow the hospitals would be flooded with patients who had been putting off going to the doctor.

The amount I pay in income taxes here is very small compared to what i paid for taxes + insurance in the states. Believe it or not in most Canadians (even with health care) pay lower taxes than most Americans. Wealthier Canadians pay more in taxes than wealthier Americans but poor and middle class Canadians actually pay less.

As I said though, given the current debt I don't think the US could afford the start up costs.

[no name no slogan]

8. Much of the bureaucracy in the US is already in place (Medicare, Medicaid, etc.)

Most single-payer plans I've seen would leave the clinics and hospitals in private hands, and simply replace the myriad insurance carriers and HMOs with single, publicly-owned bureaucracy.

Also, most single-payer plans (like Kucinich's) would rely on existing systems like Medicare and Medicaid as their base-- they would merely expand eligibility beyond their current thresholds. We already have a large federal medical bureaucracy in place, so start-up costs would be relatively minimal.

[Armstead]

9. I don't think it wou,d be necessary to buy up hospitals, etc.

What would change would be the payers -- guv rather than private companies

[Warren Stupidity]

10. buying out all of the hostpitals/clinics/labs?

All we are discussing is extending medicare to everyone. There are no buyout costs as nothing is getting bought. The existing tax collection system can be used to collect any increased taxes. The existing hospitals labs and clinics will continue to exist.

[Turn CO Blue]

3. kicking.

[senseandsensibility]

4. kand r

eom

[Turn CO Blue]

5. Forgot to say "bookmarking", so K, B & R!!!

[laconicsax]

6. K&R

[fenriswolf]

7. awsome

so why isn't hillary doing it?

[eridani]

13. You only get to be a frontrunner if you suck up to insurance companies n/t

[fenriswolf]

14. ah now it makes sense

[Two Americas]

11. nothing

This pervasive right wing idea that human beings are an expense, or a burden that "we" somehow "can't afford" is itself the problem.

Just as with roads, safety inspection, education, and many other things, there is no "cost," rather it is a sane, civilized and humane re-allocation of resources for the purpose of creating the greatest good and the greatest prosperity for the greatest number.

Therefore, it pays, it does not cost. Seeing human beings as a burden on the system tells us that the system is already a burden on the human beings, and what is the point of having any system if it is a burden on human beings?

The economy exists to support people, people don't exist to support the economy. The source of all wealth is the people, they are not a drain on it.

[Laelth]

16. Well said.

But you may have forgotten that a sick and demoralized people are easier to govern (i.e. control). The point of the current system is to keep the poor and the middle class sick or slaving away to keep their pathetic insurance (and, in both cases, enrich their masters).

The system works exactly as it's designed to work. It is evil to its core.

-Laelth


Edit:Laelth--sloppy spelling error.

[Laelth]

12. My quick and easy answer.

A lot less than we're paying for health care now.

And a lot less than the Iraq War is costing us.

:dem:

-Laelth

[OneBlueSky]

15. a hell of a lot less than an illegal war and occupation . . . n/t

.