The Morality of a Single Payer Health Care System

[o_mlly]

“Health is not a consumer good but a universal right, so access to health services cannot be a privilege…” Pope Francis, May 7, 2016

And your point is? We’ve already agreed that all have the right to healthcare. The OP asks the morality of single payer – the central government as the sole provider.

You post that a coercive federalized system is fine by you.

As single-payer healthcare is already a reality for 1/3 of Americans, when we finish the job and make it the reality for 3/3 of Americans, there simply won’t be many doctors that don’t accept it.

When the entire populace is covered by it, the question for doctors isn’t “Will I accept this insurance?”. The question is “Do I want to go to work today?”

Paul VI disagrees.

the demand is increasingly made that men should act on their own judgment, enjoying and making use of a responsible freedom, not driven by coercion but motivated by a sense of duty. The demand is likewise made that constitutional limits should be set to the powers of government, in order that there may be no encroachment on the rightful freedom of the person and of associations. Paul VI, DIGNITATIS HUMANAE.​

​

​

I go with the Pope on this one. Federalizing (loosing that long arm and awesome power on citizens) ought never be the first resort but rather the last.

I completely agree. That was a lie on the part of Barack. How could you add the chronically ill to the insurance pool and not rationally expect costs to go up?

That comment doesn’t address the post. The specific issue is quality of care, not the cost. Please re-read the exchange and explain how it is incorrect to infer that changing to different doctors only because those doctors will take less money for their services does not indicate a probable lower quality of service.

Here’s an passage from “Phantoms In The Snow: Canadians’ Use Of Health Care Services In The United States”:
"“The numbers of true medical refugees—Canadians coming south with their own money to purchase U.S. health care—appear to be handfuls rather than hordes.”
…

My post citing a Aug. 3, 2016 study shows a trend that Canadians increasingly cross the border for health care based on data from the year 2015. Your citation is from ancient history (1990’s) and does not counter the claim that Canadian are now coming south in increasing numbers.

From your citation:
we collected data about Canadians’ use of services from ambulatory care facilities and hospitals located in Michigan, New York State, and Washington State during 1994–1998. We also collected information from several Canadian sources, including the 1996 National Population Health Survey

I can’t make people accept sources like the Kaiser Family Foundation, CIA and WHO, even as they’re obviously reputable sources to most.

Well, first you have to cite them.

I studied accounting in school. Almost finished another degree in it. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about here…

Well, good for you. Perhaps, you should have finished that degree. I have advanced degrees in the field and managed companies in the product development business. So much for the fallacy of the argument that appeals to authority.

Indirect costs and overhead are typically allocated into the product by drivers. Typically, the sales of a product is expected to meet all its costs as well as provide a risk-appropriate return. This is generally referred to as “business”.
The cost of R&D, again, is met from sales of the product.

Free instruction. R&D is not only an indirect cost, it is also a discretionary cost. Like employee training, R&D is one of the first budgets to be scrutinized for cuts whenever the operating revenue projection is at risk. That is, those budgets can go to $0 and what were planned as operating expenses convert to operating profits instantaneously. Now, apply that factoid to your notion that the community would do well if we pursued an industry wide effort to reduce pharmaceutical company revenues and you will see that doing so will quickly end or at least delay the development of the next cancer fighting drug.

You have not made a moral argument that single payer does not violate the moral principle of subsidiarity. Please provide one with magisterial sources.

You have not argued that justice allows those who consume today to foist their costs onto unborn generations. Please provide one with magisterial sources.

 

[Vonsalza]

And your point is? We’ve already agreed that all have the right to healthcare. The OP asks the morality of single payer – the central government as the sole provider.

Incorrect. Doctors still provide the care in whatever employment scheme they had previously in a single-payer scheme.

“Single-payer” is not “government owned”. Your arguments against centralized healthcare are thus irrelevant. This is a common, tiring straw-man that your side likes to pull out frequently. Put that poor fellow up. He’s tired and misused.

Paul VI disagrees.

Francis doesn’t.

That comment doesn’t address the post. The specific issue is quality of care…

No, the specific issue was about the forced-switching of doctors. To that end, I’ve seen a lot of anecdotal stories and very little hard data. Fact Check seems to find any wide claim about “millions and millions” losing their doctors to be sensationalist and lack any real support.

Even so, it seems to be predicated on the foolish idea that the quality of a doctor’s care can be determined by the types of insurance they accept and that, presumably, only the worst doctors accept public and government mandated forms of insurance.

A genuinely stupid notion. Difficult to substantiate on both counts.

We hopefully agree that no man gets to be right by default, yes?

My post citing a Aug. 3, 2016 study shows a trend that Canadians increasingly cross the border for health care based on data from the year 2015.

The point remains the same. October 2016 Washington Post:
“In 2014 more than 52,513 Canadians received non-emergency medical treatment outside of Canada. The campaign pointed out that 52,513 people in 2014 represented a 25.5 percent increase over the 2013 estimate of 41,838 people.** For context, 52,513 people represent 0.15 percent of the country’s population of 35.5 million in 2014.**”

0.15%. That’s your argument here. :crying:

On the flip side, Kaiser estimates that nearly 8% of Americans have purchased medicine from abroad.

Well, good for you. Perhaps, you should have finished that degree.

I finished one in corporate finance instead and finished a MBA the following year…

Overhead costs are allocated into the finished product. If you generally disagree, then I hope you didn’t pay a whole lot for your “advanced degree in the ‘field’”.

Here’s a free refresher for you on overhead cost allocation.
And another good one.

I have advanced degrees in the field and managed companies in the product development business. So much for the fallacy of the argument that appeals to authority.

Your “advanced degree” seems like it may have been in management or marketing…

See above, please.

You have not made a moral argument that single payer does not violate the moral principle of subsidiarity. Please provide one with magisterial sources.

Vatican committed to universal health care coverage

This isn’t a “Catholic” problem…

You have not argued that justice allows those who consume today to foist their costs onto unborn generations. Please provide one with magisterial sources.

I’ve done it repeatedly. If you’re worried about forwarding costs on to our kids, then you have an obligation to change our healthcare system as it was the most expensive in the world in 2014 per capita.

“United States per capita healthcare spending is more than twice the average of other developed countries.”

Who are the cheaper countries? Single-payers.

Thanks. This has been fun for me. :tiphat:

 

[o_mlly]

Incorrect. Doctors still provide the care in whatever employment scheme they had previously in a single-payer scheme.
“Single-payer” is not “government owned”. Your arguments against centralized healthcare are thus irrelevant. This is a common, tiring straw-man that your side likes to pull out frequently. Put that poor fellow up. He’s tired and misused.

False. I know you would like to end the exchange by declaring victory and exiting but that just won’t do. Do you know what a “straw man” argument is? It appears not. My arguments do not depend on ownership of facilities or who employms providers. Please answer the arguments instead of trying to be clever.

Francis doesn’t.

False. Of course, you have no citation in which Francis rejects the long standing Catholic moral principle of subsidiarity because he does not. Merely more musing with no citation; once again such musings must be dismissed.

No, the specific issue was about the forced-switching of doctors. To that end, I’ve seen a lot of anecdotal stories and very little hard data. Fact Check seems to find any wide claim about “millions and millions” losing their doctors to be sensationalist and lack any real support.

Apparently, you do not read what you cite. The article affirms the loss of insurance policies to be in the millions. From your citation:
It’s true that insurance companies discontinued health plans that had covered millions of people who had bought them directly rather than through an employer. That’s because those plans didn’t meet the coverage standards of the new law. …
there is a 95 percent certainty that the true percentage whose non-group policies were discontinued falls somewhere between 16.2 percent and 23.3 percent. That would put the number at anywhere between about 2.3 million and 3.3 million.

Even so, it seems to be predicated on the foolish idea that the quality of a doctor’s care can be determined by the types of insurance they accept and that, presumably, only the worst doctors accept public and government mandated forms of insurance. A genuinely stupid notion. Difficult to substantiate on both counts.

Wow. Where did you get your business degrees? Your notion that the supply curve for medical care is highly inelastic is laughable. If this silly notion – that the quality of service doctor’s provide is not affected by the income they receive – is true then explain why all doctors do not accept Medicaid patients? Or, Medicare patients? Or, all insurance plans?

Vatican committed to universal health care coverage
This isn’t a “Catholic” problem…

You should read what you cite. The article supports my position: health care is a right and the state cannot be the sole solution. The phrase “single payer” does not come up in the Archbishop’s comments. However, he does say:
progress towards universal coverage cannot be the effort of State machinery alone. It requires support from civil society. …

I’ve done it repeatedly. If you’re worried about forwarding costs on to our kids, then you have an obligation to change our healthcare system as it was the most expensive in the world in 2014 per capita.
“United States per capita healthcare spending is more than twice the average of other developed countries.”

For the umpteenth time, no disagreement on the goal but only on the method. If “Medicare for some” is on the brink of bankruptcy then it is ludicrous to expand the same failing Medicare system for all. Medicare has been and continues to be on the brink of bankruptcy despite increases in premiums and cutbacks in benefits per capita.

The proponents of “Medicare for all” are the usual suspects who spend other peoples’ money freely. In this case, it is their children’s and their children’s children’s money. I hope they teach them Chinese. First, fix “Medicare for some” into a fiscally sustainable program and then talk to me about expanding it for all. What sane person would get into a broken down car that can’t make it up the driveway and attempt to go cross-country? Answer: No sane one.

 

[Vonsalza]

My arguments do not depend on ownership of facilities or who employms providers.

Your argument was exactly " the central government as the sole provider".

Under a single-payer system, the provider is still the doctor and the hospital. The government just replaces the insurance company. That’s it.

Thus, you’ve either shifted the goals posts or have employed an obvious straw-man. Quite a catch-22 you’ve crafted for yourself here…

False. Of course, you have no citation in which Francis rejects the long standing Catholic moral principle of subsidiarity because he does not.

Yet more goal-post shifting. This is dishonest of you and I wish you’d stop it.
I’ve never said that he rejects subsidiarity. I’ve only suggested that it appears Francis doesn’t think that this is in violation of it. Some things are best done at the federal level. This appears to be one of them.

Apparently, you do not read what you cite. The article affirms the loss of insurance policies to be in the millions.

I did read it. It seems you think “Millions and millions” can be properly used to describe a little over two million.*** If ***you use the number that favors you the most. The bottom of the range was around 1.5 million. Not particularly honest…

Either way, this was out of a nation of 320 million people. Or about 6 hundredths of one percent of Americans. So the notion that “millions and millions lost their doctors” is only accurate if roughly 1.5-2.5 million people can be “millions and millions”. :doh2:

BTW, do you need citations for any of those numbers? Would you like to challenge my figure for US population 2014?

Your notion that the supply curve for medical care is highly inelastic is laughable.

Wow, you seem like you’re just making this up as you go…

The US spends more per capita on healthcare than just about anyone else but only manages to be 27th in life expectancy and 37th in overall according to the WHO.

This would suggest that the elasticity is actually rather low, as doctors in other countries are being paid less and achieving better results.

Your argument just doesn’t make sense in light of the facts, I’m afraid.

The phrase “single payer” does not come up in the Archbishop’s comments. However, he does say:
progress towards universal coverage cannot be the effort of State machinery alone. It requires support from civil society. …

I fully agree. Single-payer systems typically require a co-payment as the most effective safeguard against arbitrary over-use. Private “gap insurance” providers actually bank on this fact. Private think-tanks will be continually critiquing how it’s performing. “Civil society” will be involved due to absolute necessity.

If “Medicare for some” is on the brink of bankruptcy then it is ludicrous to expand the same failing Medicare system for all.

shakes head in confused manner
What?
Do you know how programs that largely don’t generate their own income become insolvent or bankrupt? Their funding is held to a level that does not satisfy demand for their service…
If you want to paint any government program as “failing”, all you have to do is reduce funding.

It’s indicative of literally nothing else…

Medicare has been and continues to be on the brink of bankruptcy despite increases in premiums and cutbacks in benefits per capita.

End the ban on Medicare negotiating what it pays for drugs. Lobbyists have the poor souls fighting with one arm behind their backs.

The proponents of “Medicare for all” are the usual suspects who spend other peoples’ money freely.

And you finish up with a thinly-veiled, tired old ad hominem… My wife and I do well enough. We out-earned 94% of Americans last year. We absolutely support “Medicare for all”.

I suggest meeting new people; expand your social circle.

 

[Bill1940]

As long as the government has effectively designated atheism as the official religion, single-payer government health care is a terrible idea.

 

[Vonsalza]

I apologize Jon. I missed this. No disrespect intended.

"
So, take the power away those politicians.

To what degree? Anarchy? How do you objectively determine it in a way that someone with different values can reach the same conclusion?

Yes, because people walk to the hospital.

Of course not. But many people don’t live in an area with more than one hospital and regular long-distance commuting just isn’t a realistic solution for the chronically ill.

Yeah, you’re misrepresenting the document and I encourage people to read it.

I do too. It’s vagaries and HSA’s.

There’s that accusation against the American people again, the falsehood that if government doesn’t help people, nobody will.

For many, this is the tragic reality. It is often solved by getting the person to qualify for Medicaid.

If anything, government healthcare starts from an immoral redistributionist philosophy.

Then good thing that we’re not pushing for government healthcare…:banghead:

But I do remember military personnel intentionally denied care by the VA.

I really, REALLY hope they kill the VA system and put vets on a system where they can see private doctors on the public dime. It’ll help tip the scales even further in single-payer’s favor.

Give me. my Medicare money back with interest so I can spend it on healthcare the way I choose. My money, my doctor, my choices.

As the reality will be that every doctor will be practically forced to accept single-payer insurance because literally every American will have it, this won’t be an issue Jon. The only doctors that will deny you will be the scant minority that only serve the ultra wealthy on a cash basis.

If they wanted people to have access to quality affordable healthcare they would have repealed ACA.

The quality argument is dead. We spent more than anyone and roughly 35 nations STILL did it better.

 

[JonNC]

=

Vonsalza;14889944]I apologize Jon. I missed this. No disrespect intended.

None taken. We all live our lives off of CAF, too.

To what degree? Anarchy? How do you objectively determine it in a way that someone with different values can reach the same conclusion?

Article 1, Section 8, of the U.S. constitution.

Of course not. But many people don’t live in an area with more than one hospital and regular long-distance commuting just isn’t a realistic solution for the chronically ill.

In some small towns, there is one grocery store. Is food not essential to good health? Should government institute single payer groceries?

I do too. It’s vagaries and HSA’s.

Pool Reform for the Individual Market
Ø Establishes Independent Health Pools (IHPs) in order to allow individuals to pool together for
the purposes of purchasing insurance.
Ø Amends the Public Health Service Act (PHSA) to allow individuals to pool together to provide
for health benefits coverage through Individual Health Pools (IHPs). These can include nonprofit
organizations (including churches, alumni associations, trade associations, other civic
groups, or entities formed strictly for establishing an IHP) so long as the organization does not
condition membership on any health status-related factor.

Interstate Market for Health Insurance
Cooperative Governing of Individual Health Insurance Coverage

Association Health Plans
Ø Association Health Plans (AHPs) allow small businesses to pool together across state lines
through their membership in a trade or professional association to purchase health coverage for
their employees and their families. AHPs increase the bargaining power, leverage discounts, and
provide administrative efficiencies to small businesses while freeing them from state benefit
mandates.
.

In part.

For many, this is the tragic reality. It is often solved by getting the person to qualify for Medicaid.

The maybe if government were not standing in the way, other forces, real compassion, could bring to bear the care needed.

Then good thing that we’re not pushing for government healthcare…:banghead:

The title of the threat is The Morality of a Single Payer Health Care System. single payer is government healthcare. Period. Government makes the rules, for patients and doctors.

I really, REALLY hope they kill the VA system and put vets on a system where they can see private doctors on the public dime. It’ll help tip the scales even further in single-payer’s favor.

I do, too, except that would be care for those who have earned it as part of their employment with the general government.

As the reality will be that every doctor will be practically forced to accept single-payer insurance because literally every American will have it, this won’t be an issue Jon. The only doctors that will deny you will be the scant minority that only serve the ultra wealthy on a cash basis.

So, will the government “negotiate” with doctors on the payments the doctor charges, or will doctors be forced to take what government dictates? Will doctors be free to exercise their religious rights by not performing abortions, etc.?
Will Catholic hospitals be allowed to act within their religious beliefs, or will the single payer government monopoly dictate that Catholic hospitals must perform abortions?

These are just a few of the questions regarding authoritarian single payer government dictated healthcare.

The quality argument is dead. We spent more than anyone and roughly 35 nations STILL did it better.

there is no nation in the world I would trust with my healthcare except this one - until we have authoritarian single payer government dictated healthcare

 

[Theo520]

It blew my mind that medicare is just 3% overhead too.

Then don’t trust false facts, medicare OH isn’t just 3%

First, other agencies do much of the administrative work, like the IRS

Second, don’t use faulty math - Medicare has higher administrative costs per beneficiary

forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/06/30/the-myth-of-medicares-low-administrative-costs/#26a6ee91140d

 

[Vonsalza]

Article 1, Section 8, of the U.S. constitution.

SCOTUS sees this a little more broadly than you find acceptable.

In some small towns, there is one grocery store. Is food not essential to good health? Should government institute single payer groceries?

Different economic model. C stores aren’t natural monopolies.

In part.

That was the “vagaries”.

The maybe if government were not standing in the way…

The limiting factor wasn’t the government, Jon. It was their lack of money. Period.

single payer is government healthcare. Period.

Objectively, demonstrably wrong, Jon. This is one of the boogeymen you’ve been taught that you refuse to let go of.

So, will the government “negotiate” with doctors on the payments the doctor charges, or will doctors be forced to take what government dictates?

My guess is that it’ll pan out about like it does everywhere else and the docs would form associations that negotiate with the gov as a larger, more empowered body. "Collective bargaining, is the term, I think.

Will doctors be free to exercise their religious rights by not performing abortions, etc.?

As this just pertains to insurance, they’d have the same liberties they have now.

Will Catholic hospitals be allowed to act within their religious beliefs, or will the single payer government monopoly dictate that Catholic hospitals must perform abortions?

See above.

These are just a few of the questions regarding authoritarian single payer government dictated healthcare.

You’ve added some words here. I think this is a good example of shifting the goalposts?

there is no nation in the world I would trust with my healthcare except this one - until we have authoritarian single payer government dictated healthcare

Then the data means nothing and you’ve closed your eyes to rationally considering it. Honestly, as I expected from the get-go.
I used to think like you. I then realized “America Does It Best!” was empty jingoism that was demonstrably untrue in a lot of cases. Like healthcare.
Still proud to call her home, nonetheless. She just doesn’t get any free passes.

Have a good holiday.

 

[JonNC]

=

Vonsalza;14890135]SCOTUS sees this a little more broadly than you find acceptable.

and progressives see it as irrelevant

Different economic model. C stores aren’t natural monopolies.

Neither is healthcare, unless of course it is a government monopoly, like single payer.

That was the “vagaries”

Actually, they are quite reasonable proposals that reflect individual liberty.

The limiting factor wasn’t the government, Jon. It was their lack of money. Period.

Actually, it it is. We’ve already shown that government has pushed the cost of healthcare up even before ACA.

Objectively, demonstrably wrong, Jon. This is one of the boogeymen you’ve been taught that you refuse to let go of.

It is objectively, without question, is government healthcare. Washington will take our money for it. They will set the rules on what it will pay for - who gets what care and when, and if in some cases. They will dictate to doctors and hospitals of conscience that it is “discrimination”
not to offer abortion services. They will also require them to treat gender dysphoria as a choice, rather than the disorder that it is.

My guess is that it’ll pan out about like it does everywhere else and the docs would form associations that negotiate with the gov as a larger, more empowered body. "Collective bargaining, is the term, I think.

I think it’s lousy guess. I think government will dictate what the compensation will be, with only a facade of negotiation. There will be no body that is large enough to negotiate on an equal footing with them.

As this just pertains to insurance, they’d have the same liberties they have now.

No. They wouldn’t. Just like bakers and photographers don’t seem to

See above.

See above

You’ve added some words here. I think this is a good example of shifting the goalposts?

I think those words describe quite accurately what single payer will be. Authoritarian and government dictated

Then the data means nothing and you’ve closed your eyes to rationally considering it. Honestly, as I expected from the get-go.
I used to think like you. I then realized “America Does It Best!” was empty jingoism that was demonstrably untrue in a lot of cases. Like healthcare.
Still proud to call her home, nonetheless. She just doesn’t get any free passes.

Have a good holiday.

Im so sorry, then, that you’ve lost your way. It is not jingoistic to want to preserve individual rights protected in the constitution. It is not jingoistic to want control over my right to healthcare and the money I earn to provide. While Europeans are great friends and allies, these ideas are not European. Neither am I.
America doesn’t get a free pass, and we know this because of the free exchange of ideas, although this is now being challenged particularly on college campuses. And the general government doesn’t get a free pass either. It has to live within the limits set in the constitution, which is a legal document, not some kind of evolving idea that can be changed by whim.

I wish you a good holiday, as well.

 

[Bill1940]

One cannot policy wonk away certain realities. Every time the government inserts itself into private affairs, it distorts them. And it does so according to the worldview of those who dominate the government. And that has become substantially secular humanistic, and for all practical purposes, atheistic. Do not forget that a nearly elected POTUS said that we need to change our religious beliefs.
The ironically entitled “Affordable Care Act” has rendered the health care of many to be unaffordable and almost useless. It was adopted by the Party of the Left only, and based on a number of lies.
One may rightly suspect that its chief objective was not healthcare as much as the extension of government power. Does it not chill your soul to hear abortion and euthanasia referred to as procedures?

 

[o_mlly]

Your argument was exactly " the central government as the sole provider". Under a single-payer system, the provider is still the doctor and the hospital. The government just replaces the insurance company. That’s it.
Thus, you’ve either shifted the goals posts or have employed an obvious straw-man. Quite a catch-22 you’ve crafted for yourself here…
Yet more goal-post shifting. This is dishonest of you and I wish you’d stop it.
I’ve never said that he rejects subsidiarity. I’ve only suggested that it appears Francis doesn’t think that this is in violation of it. Some things are best done at the federal level. This appears to be one of them.

Paul VI clearly affirms subsidiarity. You claim Pope Francis disagrees but still offer no citation. More musing?

Please refrain from using mixed hackneyed cliché metaphors as if they are responses. You either do not or refuse to understand that single payer as I originally defined it – a government monopsony – violates the moral principle of subsidiarity. For your review:
*

In the realm of economics, monopsony power always distorts free market prices by exploiting suppliers. The result is less quantity-supplied at lower prices. Under-paid doctors and hospitals simply leave the market. Add to this economic problem, the political problem of funneling trillions of dollars through a few politicians, lobbyists and bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. and the recipe for graft and corruption on a massive scale is set.

If the system has only one provider of payments then the system is monopsonistic. You persist in claiming a difference, so explain how single payer/multiple providers is not a monopsony.

I did read it. It seems you think “Millions and millions” can be properly used to describe a little over two million.*** If ***you use the number that favors you the most. The bottom of the range was around 1.5 million. Not particularly honest… Either way, this was out of a nation of 320 million people. Or about 6 hundredths of one percent of Americans. So the notion that “millions and millions lost their doctors” is only accurate if roughly 1.5-2.5 million people can be “millions and millions”. :doh2:
BTW, do you need citations for any of those numbers? Would you like to challenge my figure for US population 2014?

No need to challenge the US population number as it’s irrelevant. You really should have finished that accounting course and re-read your citation. Let me help you out. From your citation:
And if 14 million people were covered by non-group policies nationwide (as indicated by the National Health Information Survey of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), that percentage translates to 2.6 million non-group policies discontinued, the authors stated.
The Urban Institute authors cite a study published last year that found estimates of the total number of people covered by non-group policies ranged from 9.55 million to 25.3 million.
… the poll indicates, then the actual number whose plans were dropped could be as low as about 1.8 million or as high as 4.7 million.
The authors, as noted, picked an estimate that fell in the middle of this range to arrive at their figure of 2.6 million discontinued policies. Until and unless better evidence comes along, that’s the most solidly figure available.
So, 2.6 million is not “a little over two million” (it’s 30% over) and I am not being “dishonest” when I use the number from your citation. Apology accepted.

To finish the lesson, the correct denominator is a number between 9.55 million to 25.3 million. (I suppose to shore up a failed argument, you decided to use 320 million – the total population of the US instead.) The correct percentage range of cancellations (correctly calculated) is 27.2% to 10.2%. That’s a significant percentage.

Wow, you seem like you’re just making this up as you go…

Based on your work above, it rather seems that you are the one making things up.

 

[o_mlly]

The US spends more per capita on healthcare than just about anyone else but only manages to be 27th in life expectancy and 37th in overall according to the WHO. This would suggest that the elasticity is actually rather low, as doctors in other countries are being paid less and achieving better results. Your argument just doesn’t make sense in light of the facts, I’m afraid.

Can you still get a refund for those degrees? It appears your grasp of basic economic principles is lacking. Quality-supplied has nothing to do with quantity-supplied.
eS = % change in quantity supplied / % change in price.

Per capita expenditures in the US are high but significant differences must be noted:
*Part of the reason the United States has the highest health costs of any nation is because of the added costs of onerous government regulation. Illinois, for example, lists 18 pages of required benefits for private insurance plans that covers everything from alcoholism to infertility, all at government-mandated levels, with high compliance costs added in.

Ironically, in contrast, the Canadian single-payer system offers at most limited coverage for mental care, dental care, eye care, prescription drugs, and a whole lot more.

And no nation commits as much money for the treatment of end-state-renal disease through dialysis as does the United States—$42 billion per year, of which $34 billion is covered through Medicare.
newsweek.com/why-single-payer-health-care-system-really-bad-idea-638334*

shakes head in confused manner
What? Do you know how programs that largely don’t generate their own income become insolvent or bankrupt? Their funding is held to a level that does not satisfy demand for their service… If you want to paint any government program as “failing”, all you have to do is reduce funding. It’s indicative of literally nothing else…

Do you have a point or are you simply agreeing with me?

Reasonable people will solve the funding problem in the current “Medicare for some” before promoting “Medicare for all.” And, they will not rely on politicians to do what is reasonable. They remember, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” And, as all find out now what reasonable people already knew: it is far easier to pass legislation than to repeal it.

End the ban on Medicare negotiating what it pays for drugs. Lobbyists have the poor souls fighting with one arm behind their backs.

Motherjones?
mediabiasfactcheck.com/mother-jones/

And you finish up with a thinly-veiled, tired old ad hominem… My wife and I do well enough. We out-earned 94% of Americans last year. We absolutely support “Medicare for all”.
I suggest meeting new people; expand your social circle.

Oh, man. Put your big boy pants on. Going for victim status does not help advance your argument (opinion?). There was no “thinly-veiled” ad hominem except, I guess, in your mind. But if you wrongly leap to misread such evil intentions (dishonest, as well) on my part then perhaps you are one who freely spends your progeny’s money for your own welfare. Stop it – it is unjust.

 

[xNoOnex]

Motherjones?
mediabiasfactcheck.com/mother-jones/
.

Does having a left-wing bias really matter if it’s articles are truthful?

I mean, that’s why that website has both bias and factual reporting… Outside of the Associated Press, very little on the “least biased, factual” side is something that’s mainstream, either.

I mean, this is a honest quest since I’m not sure what you’re getting at with that bit of your post.

 

[Vonsalza]

Neither is healthcare, unless of course it is a government monopoly, like single payer.

…I guess there isn’t any point in telling you again that “single-payer” and “government owned” are not synonymous.

The docs don’t work for the gov, the hospital isn’t owned by the gov. We have plenty of national systems that operate in just this way. I suppose you pretend they don’t exist?

Serious question.

We’ve already shown that government has pushed the cost of healthcare up even before ACA.

We’ve also shown that the vast majority of single payer systems pay less per capita than the US.

It is objectively, without question, is government healthcare.

The the general prac. usually runs his own office, how can this be true?

I think it’s lousy guess.

How so? collective bargaining is exactly how they do it in many other nations. Like, in real life…

I think those words describe quite accurately what single payer will be. Authoritarian and government dictated

No more “government dictated” than any of the taxes you pay. And you’re assumably free to not use it.

Im so sorry, then, that you’ve lost your way.

Jon, we’ve spent more than pretty much anyone else and came in nearly 40th by some measures. Cheering for those kinds of results is nothing other than bald jingoism.

It is not jingoistic to …preserve individual rights protected in the constitution …want control over my right to healthcare and the money I earn to provide.

And none of these things are what we’re talking about. When a single-payer exists, practically every doctor will have to accept it. A legal mandate won’t be required. The market will demand it.

While Europeans are great friends and allies, these ideas are not European.

Interesting aside, France Rome and Greece each claim some part of the idea of “democracy”. All are/were European.

 

[Vonsalza]

Paul VI clearly affirms subsidiarity. You claim Pope Francis disagrees but still offer no citation.

I’ve no idea what you’re talking about here. I quoted him from October, 2016, I think was the date.

You either do not or refuse to understand that single payer as I originally defined it – a government monopsony – violates the moral principle of subsidiarity.

The moral principal of subsidiarity is not violated if the smallest body that can handle the issue competently and sufficiently is the national body. The DoD in D.C. is another fine example. They’re the only ones in America that can legally buy an F-35, for example.

The problem isn’t your ability to quote the definition of “subsidiarity”. However, you seem to be unable to apply the term correctly. Or, at least, consistently (unless you think limiting F-35s to the government IS a violation of subsidiarity).

The authors, as noted, picked an estimate that fell in the middle of this range to arrive at their figure of 2.6 million discontinued policies.

Yeah, “the authors” in this case being the writers for “Health Affairs” online.
The exact quote from factcheck:
“So if 18.6 percent of non-group policyholders got notices that their policies were being dropped because of the new law, as the poll indicates, then the actual number whose plans were dropped could be as low as about 1.8 million or as high as 4.7 million (coincidentally, the same as the AP’s figure), depending on how many had such policies in the first place.”

The the 2.6 number you prefer is a result of the “middle ground” fallacy of logic. I’m sure your “advanced education in the field” included at least SOME statistics, as that is the science by which you gather data for your advanced studies. Assuming you’ve received this education, the correct way to report an interval is by giving the actual interval. It could be as high as 4.7mil. It is equally probable that is was as low as 1.8mil. Either way, hardly “millions and millions”.

And then lets not forget; the original argument you were fumbling to support was that this number somehow also represents people who lost their doctors, which requires proof that for all 2.6 million, their doctor did not accept their new policies.

A point, I’m sure you realize, you haven’t provided the first scratch of data to back up. Not surprising, as it simply doesn’t exist.

 

[Vonsalza]

Can you still get a refund for those degrees? It appears your grasp of basic economic principles is lacking. Quality-supplied has nothing to do with quantity-supplied.

Life expectancy, infant mortality and overall WHO rankings are routinely used proxies for “quality” in national comparisons. And by all measures, the US is under-performing roughly a score of countries in each case.

I do understand your tone, though. Your argument is getting harpooned. No one enjoys that.

Do you have a point or are you simply agreeing with me?

Reasonable people will solve the funding problem…

With a “No True Scotsman” fallacy…

Motherjones?
mediabiasfactcheck.com/mother-jones/

Why the reversal? They cite every number they use…
Now to determine if your reply here is either a “double standard” or “shifting the goalposts”. Either way, certainly “ad hominem”…

Oh, man. Put your big boy pants on.

…and more “ad hominem”.

:tsktsk:

 

[Rau]

…The ironically entitled “Affordable Care Act” has rendered the health care of many to be unaffordable and almost useless. It was adopted by the Party of the Left only, and based on a number of lies.

The criticism of the ACA seems to be grounded in poor design, not simply the fact of participation of the government in the process.

 

[JonNC]

=Vonsalza;14892392]…I guess there isn’t any point in telling you again that “single-payer” and “government owned” are not synonymous.

The docs don’t work for the gov, the hospital isn’t owned by the gov. We have plenty of national systems that operate in just this way. I suppose you pretend they don’t exist?

No, because it wouldn’t be true. If Washington is making all the rules about who gets coverage for what and when, then it is government healthcare. the doctors do not have to be under government employment for that to be the case. You can pick at this nit all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that single payer is government healthcare (the one who pays the piper calls the tune).

Serious question.

Maybe it is, but it was arrogant and condescending.

We’ve also shown that the vast majority of single payer systems pay less per capita than the US.

And somehow you think that would improve with government run single payer? Again, government causes a problem, so we need more government to fix it.

The the general prac. usually runs his own office, how can this be true?

If government sets to laws on what is paid for, you don’t think that will alter the doctor’s practice?

How so? collective bargaining is exactly how they do it in many other nations. Like, in real life…

The same way you are advocating that “big pharma” not be allowed to negotiate drug prices with government.

No more “government dictated” than any of the taxes you pay. And you’re assumably free to not use it.

Healthcare is a consumer product and service.If government determines what services you are permitted to receive, that is dictated. You seem to think that if government is the single payer, consumers of healthcare will have a free hand in accessing any healthcare they want without government permission. That simply will not be the case. Here’s an example from the “great” NHS:
telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/02/obese-patients-and-smokers-banned-from-all-routine-operations-by/

Jon, we’ve spent more than pretty much anyone else and came in nearly 40th by some measures. Cheering for those kinds of results is nothing other than bald jingoism.

Get government out of the way, institute market based policies, and that will improve.

And none of these things are what we’re talking about. When a single-payer exists, practically every doctor will have to accept it. A legal mandate won’t be required. The market will demand it.

lol. It won’t be a market. Here you admit what you’ve been denying all along. Doctors will be dictated to as to what care they may give (based on what they are paid for), how much they will be paid, etc. It will be government dictated.

Interesting aside, France Rome and Greece each claim some part of the idea of “democracy”. All are/were European.

Yeah, we don’t. We claim to be a constitutional representative republic, based on the principle that human rights come from our creator, not government. That government receives its power from the consent of the governed through the constitution that established it.
Americans came here to escape the model of government practiced in Europe.

 

[JonNC]

The criticism of the ACA seems to be grounded in poor design, not simply the fact of participation of the government in the process.

In part, but government has demonstrated a remarkable inability to design, much less operate things such as this. That the design and implementation of ACA was flawed should be assumed, and not a source of surprise.

But it is more. It has components that are contrary to the principles of individual liberty. #Individual mandates are contrary to these principles.
#The HHS mandate is contrary to religious free exercise.
#Statutory mandates as to what must be in an insurance plan is contrary to free choice in the market place.

Not unexpectedly, prices have skyrocketed despite the promises that premiums would be reduced. People lost their plans and doctors despite the promises. It didn’t address the underlying problems in American healthcare: tort, government regulations, limits on consumers to form healthcare associations.