The Morality of a Single Payer Health Care System

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

That is a potential defect in laws regarding health care, but such laws could exist with or without Single Payer Health Care, so that makes this issue, as serious as it is, irrelevant to the question at hand.

Interesting. Forcing people to kill babies against their will is irrelevant.

Yes, totally, because it has nothing to do with Single Payer Health Care. Killing babies can happen just as easily with as without Single Payer.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

LeafByNiggle:

That is a potential defect in laws regarding health care, but such laws could exist with or without Single Payer Health Care, so that makes this issue, as serious as it is, irrelevant to the question at hand.

Interesting. Forcing people to kill babies against their will is irrelevant.

Yes, totally, because it has nothing to do with Single Payer Health Care. Killing babies can happen just as easily with as without Single Payer.

Well, if one is willing to ignore What is the underlying issue as stated above. Killing babies can happen either way, but single payer makes it significantly easier for government to force doctors and hospitals into doing it

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Well, if one is willing to ignore What is the underlying issue as stated above. Killing babies can happen either way, but single payer makes it significantly easier for government to force doctors and hospitals into doing it

I disagree. It looks to me like you would like to deflect the discussion to abortion instead of addressing the issue of this thread directly.

I think there should be something analogous to Godwin’s Law. Something like “Any sufficiently long debate with a conservative will eventually mention abortion.”

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Well, if one is willing to ignore What is the underlying issue as stated above. Killing babies can happen either way, but single payer makes it significantly easier for government to force doctors and hospitals into doing it

I disagree. It looks to me like you would like to deflect the discussion to abortion instead of addressing the issue of this thread directly.

I think there should be something analogous to Godwin’s Law. Something like “Any sufficiently long debate with a conservative will eventually mention abortion.”

Actually, the deflection seems to be yours. My comment was far less about abortion than coercion of doctors and hospitals. So let’s take abortion out of it.
If i recall correctly, you believe that a baker or photographer should be required to offer services during a same gender wedding. Do you believe a surgeon, under the same "public accommodations " notion, should be required to perform a sex “change” operation regardless of a religious opposition to it?
Should a Catholic hospital be required to host it if they are receiving funding through a single payer system?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

JonNC:

Well, if one is willing to ignore What is the underlying issue as stated above. Killing babies can happen either way, but single payer makes it significantly easier for government to force doctors and hospitals into doing it

I disagree. It looks to me like you would like to deflect the discussion to abortion instead of addressing the issue of this thread directly.

I think there should be something analogous to Godwin’s Law. Something like “Any sufficiently long debate with a conservative will eventually mention abortion.”

Actually, the deflection seems to be yours. My comment was far less about abortion than coercion of doctors and hospitals. So let’s take abortion out of it.
If i recall correctly, you believe that a baker or photographer should be required to offer services during a same gender wedding.

Not really. I said a baker with off-the-shelf cakes should be required to sell them to anyone, but as for custom services, like writing things on the cake, he should not be required to do that. And photographers - I never said they should be required to provide their services to a same-sex wedding. In fact I defended their right not do that.

Do you believe a surgeon, under the same "public accommodations " notion, should be required to perform a sex “change” operation regardless of a religious opposition to it?

Of course not.

Should a Catholic hospital be required to host it if they are receiving funding through a single payer system?

No. Nor should a non-Catholic hospital be required to do that. I think they should only be required to provide undeniably necessary medical procedures and treatments. Sex change operations are not in that category. Neither is cosmetic surgery. Doctors and hospitals should be free to do those or not do those as they wish. Furthermore I don’t believe a single-payer system should cover anything other than undeniably necessary medical treatments. Also, I don’t believe doctors and hospitals should be denied the right to sell their services directly to patients who are willing to pay for them out of their own pockets, or who have purchased private insurance out of their own pockets. The only thing I think everyone should be required to do is support the public system, just like public schools are supported by people who happen to send their kids to private schools, or by people who don’t have any kids at all.

 

[BayCityRickL]

Medicare is not insurance. It is coverage. With Medicare, I can go to a doctor. But, the treatment that may follow may not be covered – Medicare decides to pay or not AFTER a service has been rendered and a claim submitted to them. The Medicare handbook published annually does not tell yIt iou how to ensure a claim will be paid. It is up to the “providers” to submit a claim properly. If THEY don’t do it correctly, the bill could land in your mailbox. ,is Medicare is not the ideal form of a single-payer system. This post is not exactly on topic but it’s the best place, so far to mention this.

 

[Viki63]

BayCity Rick, I’ve dealt with that recently. My doctor’s office kept submitting the bill wrong, and I kept getting billed. It took about 18 months, but I just kept calling them and explaining what they needed to do ( after asking Medicare) until they got it right, Dealing with the medical system as it is now (and probably always will be, world without end, amen) requires a lot of patience and time.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

LeafByNiggle:

JonNC:

Well, if one is willing to ignore What is the underlying issue as stated above. Killing babies can happen either way, but single payer makes it significantly easier for government to force doctors and hospitals into doing it

I disagree. It looks to me like you would like to deflect the discussion to abortion instead of addressing the issue of this thread directly.

I think there should be something analogous to Godwin’s Law. Something like “Any sufficiently long debate with a conservative will eventually mention abortion.”

Actually, the deflection seems to be yours. My comment was far less about abortion than coercion of doctors and hospitals. So let’s take abortion out of it.
If i recall correctly, you believe that a baker or photographer should be required to offer services during a same gender wedding.

Not really. I said a baker with off-the-shelf cakes should be required to sell them to anyone, but as for custom services, like writing things on the cake, he should not be required to do that. And photographers - I never said they should be required to provide their services to a same-sex wedding. In fact I defended their right not do that.

Do you believe a surgeon, under the same "public accommodations " notion, should be required to perform a sex “change” operation regardless of a religious opposition to it?

Of course not.

Should a Catholic hospital be required to host it if they are receiving funding through a single payer system?

No. Nor should a non-Catholic hospital be required to do that. I think they should only be required to provide undeniably necessary medical procedures and treatments. Sex change operations are not in that category. Neither is cosmetic surgery. Doctors and hospitals should be free to do those or not do those as they wish. Furthermore I don’t believe a single-payer system should cover anything other than undeniably necessary medical treatments. Also, I don’t believe doctors and hospitals should be denied the right to sell their services directly to patients who are willing to pay for them out of their own pockets, or who have purchased private insurance out of their own pockets. The only thing I think everyone should be required to do is support the public system, just like public schools are supported by people who happen to send their kids to private schools, or by people who don’t have any kids at all.

EXCELLENT! We agree on all of this!
Do you think that if the public system under a single payer scheme requires doctors and hospitals to do these things, that they should support the public system and do them?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

EXCELLENT! We agree on all of this!
Do you think that if the public system under a single payer scheme requires doctors and hospitals to do these things, that they should support the public system and do them?

There are possible good implementations of single payer and possible bad ones. The system you describe would be a bad implementation. Doctors and hospitals should follow their conscience and oppose a bad implementation. But I am optimistic that a good implementation can be found.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

EXCELLENT! We agree on all of this!
Do you think that if the public system under a single payer scheme requires doctors and hospitals to do these things, that they should support the public system and do them?

There are possible good implementations of single payer and possible bad ones. The system you describe would be a bad implementation. Doctors and hospitals should follow their conscience and oppose a bad implementation. But I am optimistic that a good implementation can be found.

You are optimistic why? Has the Congress or the executive done anything in recent times to encourage you in this regard? There was nothing positive in this regard from ACA.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Maybe not. Would they be able to keep their loss reserves? If so, then they could continue managing government healthcare the way they do now (excepting only VA) and make out really well.

Or if the government decided to replace them for management (remember, the government does manage VA) and if they kept their loss reserves, they would be snatched up in seconds by other kinds of insurers or perhaps banks.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I don’t know. the HHS Mandate was part of a supposedly “good implementation”.

 

[DarkLight]

You are optimistic why? Has the Congress or the executive done anything in recent times to encourage you in this regard? There was nothing positive in this regard from ACA.

The positive from ACA was that people like me were able to get insurance without the 6-month waiting period and strict limits of high-risk pools (especially with the medicaid expansion). But I think that’s always the catch.

Without a radical change in healthcare costs, insuring someone like me is always going to be a net loss, unless some other form of aid is applied so I can spend money on healthcare. I think most of us agree it’s better for me to be healthy and working than otherwise. And hopefully at some point I can get to where I can afford to contribute more, but that’s not the kind of thing I can do ASAP. So if I’m going to be getting medical care, it’s a question of where it’s coming from.

 

[JonNC]

The positive from ACA was that people like me were able to get insurance without the 6-month waiting period and strict limits of high-risk pools (especially with the medicaid expansion). But I think that’s always the catch.

That you can get insurance without a waiting period is great, but the are tens of thousands of people and families who lost the plan they liked for that to happen. The cost of their new plans are often so high they can’t afford the care they need.
In fact, your issue could have been far more easily solved if free Americans had been free to create large associations to negotiate coverage and cost.

Without a radical change in healthcare costs, insuring someone like me is always going to be a net loss, unless some other form of aid is applied so I can spend money on healthcare. I think most of us agree it’s better for me to be healthy and working than otherwise. And hopefully at some point I can get to where I can afford to contribute more, but that’s not the kind of thing I can do ASAP. So if I’m going to be getting medical care, it’s a question of where it’s coming from.

And I have been insistent on this issue that we as Christians have an obligation to care for those in need.

But my post that you responded to was not about coverage, but about the coming violation of religious rights in a single payer system that are already present in ACA.

 

[DarkLight]

And I have been insistent on this issue that we as Christians have an obligation to care for those in need.

But my post that you responded to was not about coverage, but about the coming violation of religious rights in a single payer system that are already present in ACA.

Well, there’s two entirely separate issues here. One is the religious rights. Personally, while I think that’s a serious issue, I don’t think it’s an issue that’s going to have much to do with national or non-national healthcare. There’s no particular evidence that national systems force doctors to perform certain procedures or not perform them, beyond the legal rules regarding emergency treatment (which we already have). So I was responding to say I simply don’t accept that one is much argument either for or against the other.

The second is whether the Christian church is actually able and willing to care for those in need in a significant way. I know when I spoke to charities we have in existence, they could only offer about $100 and only on occasion. That would barely make a dent (for comparison, a semi-routine test I required last month ran somewhere around $1000). I’ve noticed that people like me who have ongoing needs but not emergency needs tend to be deprioritized by charitable resources. There’s also that, without large-scale negotiating power, it’s very hard to get manageable prices in the current healthcare system. The fact that people need healthcare means there’s an incentive to charge much higher prices, and while a major insurer dropping a practice is a financial blow, the risk of losing a few low-income patients is not.

 

[JonNC]

=“DarkLight, post:295, topic:447347, full:true”]

Well, there’s two entirely separate issues here. One is the religious rights. Personally, while I think that’s a serious issue, I don’t think it’s an issue that’s going to have much to do with national or non-national healthcare. There’s no particular evidence that national systems force doctors to perform certain procedures or not perform them, beyond the legal rules regarding emergency treatment (which we already have). So I was responding to say I simply don’t accept that one is much argument either for or against the other.

That is already subject of lawsuits in the US. We can also see that POV when regards to bakers and photographers and same gender “weddings”. I frankly see no evidence or reason to assume that the religious conscience of doctors and hospitals will be observed under a single payer plan. It will be viewed as a “public accommodation”. Either you perform these procedures (abortion, sex change, etc), or you will not receive funding for other services rendered.

The second is whether the Christian church is actually able and willing to care for those in need in a significant way. I know when I spoke to charities we have in existence, they could only offer about $100 and only on occasion. That would barely make a dent (for comparison, a semi-routine test I required last month ran somewhere around $1000). I’ve noticed that people like me who have ongoing needs but not emergency needs tend to be deprioritized by charitable resources. There’s also that, without large-scale negotiating power, it’s very hard to get manageable prices in the current healthcare system. The fact that people need healthcare means there’s an incentive to charge much higher prices, and while a major insurer dropping a practice is a financial blow, the risk of losing a few low-income patients is not.

Government drains tremendous amounts of money out of the economy already for healthcare. It is no wonder that charities are incapable of raising the needed money. But that isn’t the issue.
The large scale negotiating power comes from large associations of free citizens negotiating with care givers and, if they choose, insurance companies. Government doesn’t negotiate, if they are the only game in town. Government dictates.

 

[DarkLight]

The large scale negotiating power comes from large associations of free citizens negotiating with care givers and, if they choose, insurance companies. Government doesn’t negotiate, if they are the only game in town. Government dictates.

Those large associations of free citizens have historically behaved in the exact same way as insurance companies - limiting expenses by refusing aid to those who are likely to be more costly. I’d say the only time religious charity has really worked as a way to provide widespread care was when we had a large-scale church able to compel a tithe from a significant proportion of the population.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

That is already subject of lawsuits in the US. We can also see that POV when regards to bakers and photographers and same gender “weddings”. I frankly see no evidence or reason to assume that the religious conscience of doctors and hospitals will be observed under a single payer plan.

If you are claiming this particular violation of religious liberty is going to happen in any single-payer health care plan, you have the burden of proof to show that this is so. The HHS mandate was on track to violate those rights, perhaps, but it was not single-payer. And even if it was, it was not the only form single-payer can take. Since there are many forms of single-payer around the world, you could do a survey of those systems and see how many of them violate religious liberties and how many do not. It you can show that all the single-payer health systems in the world violate the religious conscience of doctors and hospitals, I will be more concerned. But until then, I’m rooting for single-payer.

 

[Vonsalza]

Greetings Jon!

And shame on you for calling that negotiation. That’s called tyranny…
Agree to a price - at the point of a gun isn’t negotiation.

If the supply for a good in a market is controlled by one entity, that is called monopoly. Monopolies have negotiating parity with only monopsonies. If there is only one seller, there can be only one buyer for parity to exist in negotiations about price.

This is not an opinion, this is an objective fact.

Apropos, a single-payer system is absolutely requisite in order to fairly negotiate drug prices. This is the most fundamental reason that drug prices are lower in virtually every other country. In those single-payer schemes, the drug company must negotiate with the single-payer system in order to achieve a sales deal.

If the single-payer system sets a price that’s too low, the drug company is free to walk away, which neither want to happen. If the drug company sets a price that’s too high, the single-payer system is free to walk away, which neither want to happen.

Under this system, there is actual parity. Actual equality in negotiating power; unlike with the present system in America.

In every group of humans, there are scoundrels. And to attempt to smear all pharmaceutical in this way is contemptible.

Shkreli isn’t unique, just stupidly vocal. The CEO of the company that owns Epipen just underwent a similar experience. When you’re a monopoly and your customers have no collective bargaining rights, you can (and will) charge whatever you d@#% well want to. Your shareholders require it.

The monopoly in healthcare would be a single payer system, but you seem to be in favor of that, apparently for the joy of milking the shareholders of pharma companies, and doctors.

Ugh, more fear mongering… Look, Jon. The rest of the world seems to be doing just fine under that system. According to virtually all credible measures, they seem to be doing better, actually. And per capita, they do it cheaper too.

 

[JonNC]

Those large associations of free citizens have historically behaved in the exact same way as insurance companies - limiting expenses by refusing aid to those who are likely to be more costly. I’d say the only time religious charity has really worked as a way to provide widespread care was when we had a large-scale church able to compel a tithe from a significant proportion of the population.

Why would it? If my family has a member with a condition, and I sign my family up for an independent association related to my profession, for example, that’s the easiest way for those who have conditions to get care, by being involved in a large association. Churches would be a natural for this.
But for those who are left out, follow the rule of subsidiarity.
And who says that charity would be involved in wide-spread care. We are Christians would look to help those that have the greatest need. And it would have to be only churches.