Posted on 03/14/2013 8:11:08 AM PDT by ksen
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-system-cost
http://truecostblog.com/2009/05/13/how-much-would-universal-healthcare-cost/
No, without competition it could not be cheaper, by definition. Economies of scale would be overshadowed by bureaucracy and political manipulation.
and there would be almost nothing spent on innovation.
Over time most of us would be worse off.
Why the morbid obsessive love for “single payer”? It is noting but pure distilled hatred of everything decent and good. Would you like single payer, if say the “single payer” was Blue Cross,, State Farm,, Allstate?
NO, it would be an apoplectic frothing attack as to how safe from competition, they would ignore and abuse us at every turn. don’t like the treatment you are getting? “Go somewhere else” they would sneer,,knowing there WAS nowhere else for you to go. All would know that the enforced absence of competition leads to evil. But somehow, government as the “single payer” becomes a loving, caring, trusted entity.
I stand awestruck before such willful ignorance.
Kill a commie for mommy. NO single payer communist BS for me. Especially this early in the morning.
If doctors and pills and hospitals grew on trees, would you be for it?
If Congress outlawed healthcare (thereby driving the cost of healthcare to zero), would you be for it?
If Congress created a new system of human bondage, compelling all, say, black people, to become doctors under forced servitude, would you be for it?
Maybe as a patient - but I sure wouldn’t bother going to medical school. :)
I’m all for a single payer system, where the payer IS THE PATIENT. No 3rd party payor model will ever work until the consumer has skin in the game.
At $22,000 per student in NYC, is the single payer education system cheaper?
If you consult Milton Friedman's four ways spend money, which is found here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RDMdc5r5z8
you will realize the absurdity of the question.
1. Nothing the government does ends up being cheaper than private sector counterparts, there is no cost savings incentive in the public sector. The claim may be made but it is never fulfilled.
2. Cheap doesn’t equate to quality. A Yugo was a cheap car; would you want to drive it just because it was cheap?
3. Slaves received a free(sic) roof over their head and food, all they had to do is give up liberty. Is it worth it?
4. Out of pocket costs aren’t the only part of the equation. What about all other aspects of the medical chain from support staff to medicine to supplies. Heck, we are even seeing veterinarian costs skyrocket as an unintended consequence of this. It is easy to fudge numbers if you are only looking at one line item and not the whole balance sheet.
Full scale government control of any entity inevitably leads to the destruction of said entity. Corruption, refusal to participate, rationing and a complete lack of accountability are symptomatic of the "single payer" concept. The medical industry becomes a slave, the people become subjects to the will of the government, the all encompassing nanny state consumes a full 6th of the country's economy consequently driving it to hell and the choices nurtured by the free market are destroyed.
"Single Payer" means no choice at all. If we are looking at a cost savings, let's discuss how that worked out for Hugo Chavez.
Good debate question - thanks for letting me rant. Cheers!
Hyperbole much?
Would you like single payer, if say the “single payer” was Blue Cross,, State Farm,, Allstate?
No, I wouldn't really trust an entity all that much that was more concerned about their bottom line than providing health care services.
Sure!
So I’m for shooting all sick people with a government bullet.
It’s the cheapest single-payer healthcare system.
Plus we can reprocess their bodies into food!
I pay (the premium)for my health care, and if I need care, I pay a deductible or co-pay and insurance pays the rest.
What's a single payer HC plan anyway ?
Simply put, without the price competition inherent in a free market, there's no way that it will be cheaper. More importantly without price competition, how can anyone say that it's cheaper?
NO!!!
Tyranny costs much more than money.
to ask this question indicates how far we have come
Absolutely not & for several reasons:
First, take away the free market you take away cost control AND quality. A cheaper single payor system is an oxymoron. And quality will go down the toilet.
Second, one of the ways a single payer system seeks to control costs is by denying care. Morally, I’ll never support passive or active euthanasia which is exactly what happens with a single payer system. And, all if us lose out on any advancements in medical care because there’s no incentive to be innovative & create newer, more effective treatments.
So the answer to your question: hell no.
Let’s see. The choice is low premiums or life.
I choose life
And yet routinely the US ranks behind many other countries that do have a universal heath care system.
NO!
The government should a PARTICIPANT in the economy, not a primary director.
Hell, no. Because single-payer is the ultimate government power grab.
Everything you do will become the government’s business.....it is simply not worth it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.