Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!
“If the nation adopted…[a] single-payer system that paid providers at Medicare’s rates, the population that is currently uninsured could be covered without dramatically increasing national spending on health. In fact, all US residents might be covered by health insurance for roughly the current level of spending or even somewhat less, because of savings in administrative costs and lower payment rates for services used by the privately insured."
“Under a single payer system with co-payments …on average, people would have an additional $54 to spend…more specifically, the increase in taxes… would be about $856 per capita…private-sector costs would decrease by $910 per capita.
The net cost of achieving universal insurance coverage under this single payer system would be negative.”
“Under a single payer system without co-payments people would have $144 a year less to spend than they have now, on average…consumer payments for health would fall by $1,118 per capita"
I'm sure I could find plenty more, and even stronger sources. Americans are the most dissatisfied of any industrialized country with their healthcare. That is fact (UCBoulder).
A single-payer system not only covers everyone, it lowers the overhead cost.
By having one organization handle all of the bureaucracy and all of the administration of the health care system (mostly consisting of paperwork and payments) paper-pushing greatly decreases in frequency and cost. More of each of our dollars that go toward health care would actually be used to care for people's health, instead of going toward managers and forms. Single-payer eliminates the bulk of paperwork duplication, and in the process, could potentially save hundreds of BILLIONS (that's 100,000 million) of dollars. As it is right now, American businesses are at an economic disadvantage, because their health costs are so much higher than in other countries. The Canadian branches of Ford, GM, and Daimler-Chrysler all publicly support Canada's health care system, because it saves them an enormous amount of money, compared to their counterparts in the US.
What's more, a single-payer system would mean fewer personal bankruptcies due to medical bills--and an end to patients actually receiving bills. In most countries with a single-payer system, patients never see a bill. The billing process doesn't even involve patients. (This saves money, too--think of how much work goes into itemizing each bill, sending it to each patient, following up on the bill if there's been an error... and on, and on.)
Most single-payer systems save a ton of money by buying prescription drugs for its patients in huge bulk quantities. You know the money you save for buying in bulk at Costco or Sam's Club? Think of applying that concept to buying prescription drugs for America's 290 million people."Hospital billing would be virtually eliminated. Instead, hospitals would receive an annual lump-sum payment from the government to cover operating expenses—a “global budget.” A separate budget would cover such expenses as hospital expansion, the purchase of technology, marketing, etc.
Doctors would have three options for payment: fee-for-service, salaried positions in hospitals, and salaried positions within group practices or HMOs. Fees would be negotiated between a representative of the fee-for-service practitioners (such as the state medical society) and a state payment board. Government would serve as administrator, not employer.
FinancingWe propose an equitable financing program in which everyone pays
their fair share. Under this program, all employers and employees will
pay a modest payroll tax. This will produce a dramatic savings for
those responsible private employers and state and local governments
which currently purchase health insurance for their employees. By
drawing on the immense wealth that has accrued to the richest Americans
and large corporations over the past 25 years, 95% of people will pay less for their healthcare than they are currently paying.
Administrative Savings
The General Accounting Office projects an administrative savings of 10 percent through the elimination of private insurance bills and administrative waste, or $150 billion in 2002. This savings would pay for providing medical care to those currently under served.
Cost ContainmentA 2004 economic study published in The New England Journal of Medicine determined that a national single-payer healthcare system would reduce costs by more than $400 billion a year despite the expansion of comprehensive care to all Americans. No other plan projects this kind of savings.
-Healtchcare Now .org
I could find more
Think of it this way: Many more people die every year because they don't have coverage than do from terrorist attacks, yet homeland security covers everyone. If 15% of Americans suddenly weren't protected from terrorists, the outrage would be incredible. Then why is it that people aren't guaranteed care for their health?
Healthcare should be based on need. Not ability to pay.