The Morality of a Single Payer Health Care System

[JonNC]

JonNC:

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.

Well, we don’t have one yet, so that would be difficult to prove, but one can look at the current trajectory, and it is pretty clear.
the problem with rooting for single payer is, once it is in place, it will be impossible to get rid of, regardless of how bad it will be. Government doesn’t easily give up power, and once single payer is in place, it will respond to all of the client groups of the party in charge.
Are you willing to have your healthcare in the hands of Donald Trump? If not, then you should oppose single payer.

 

[JonNC]

=“Vonsalza, post:299, topic:447347, full:true”]

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.

Except that government doesn’t have to negotiate. It can simply confiscate.

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.

If the single payer system is government, they will not simply walk away. They will walk in and take over.

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

No. It is tyranny.

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.

There’s a simple solution to Shkreli. Lift his patent.
Customers have been blocked from bargaining rights by government!!! Why does there have to be a law passed to allow free citizens to freely organize in order to bargain with caregivers? that’s what Rand Paul’s plan would do, which means that we can’t do it now. Again, a case of the government stinks at doing stuff like this, they mess something up, then call for more big government in order to “fix” it.

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.

Here’s some fear mongering.
**“This is not trying to be overly dramatic, Thousands of people will die.” ** Sen Sanders
Families will go bankrupt. People will die,” Sen Elizabeth Warren
This kind of fear mongering also includes a bald-faced lie about the American people. It is an accusation that Americans won’t care for their own. The most generous people in the world do not deserve this kind of slander against them by elected representatives.

 

[Vonsalza]

Except that government doesn’t have to negotiate. It can simply confiscate.

??? Again, not talking about the Communist Russian Politburo here… Your refutations do not match the object being considered; an American single-payer system…

The fact remains, the only party that can fairly negotiate with a monopoly is a monopsony. Period. Full stop. Irrefutable.

If the single payer system is government, they will not simply walk away. They will walk in and take over.

checks other extant single-payer healthcare models

Nope, that doesn’t appear to be what happens, Jon.

There’s a simple solution to Shkreli. Lift his patent.

No one wants to do that Jon. We just want to be able to actually negotiate the price of a good rather than get a take-it-or-die price from the monopolistic supplier.

It is an accusation that Americans won’t care for their own.

Through Medicaid and Medicare, we do! Just expand it to cover the people who actually still work, too!

In all due seriousness, Jon, most of your counter-arguments require slippery-slopes and false equivalencies. All fallacies of logic.

 

[JonNC]

=“Vonsalza, post:303, topic:447347, full:true”]
??? Again, not talking about the Communist Russian Politburo here… Your refutations do not match the object being considered; an American single-payer system…

Do you believe that if a pharmaceutical company refused to sell a drug to the government over cost, the government would even hesitate to nationalize?

The fact remains, the only party that can fairly negotiate with a monopoly is a monopsony. Period. Full stop. Irrefutable.
Then change the patent laws, and allow generics sooner.

checks other extant single-payer healthcare models
You mean like Cuba? And don’t say that is extreme, because the left has held up Castro-care as a model for years. what I don’t understand is why you are denying this. You seemed to indicate that government should force pharma to lower prices.

No one wants to do that Jon. We just want to be able to actually negotiate the price of a good rather than get a take-it-or-die price from the monopolistic supplier.

Then eliminate the statutes that prohibit a free people from doing so.

Through Medicaid and Medicare, we do! Just expand it to cover the people who actually still work, too!

If Medicaid was so great, what did we need ACA for?

In all due seriousness, Jon, most of your counter-arguments require slippery-slopes and false equivalencies. All fallacies of logic.

And all of yours requires us to take the word of progressives as believable. They also require me to give up my right to healthcare, and turn it over to government power. A fallacy that pretends tyranny is actually freedom.

 

[Vonsalza]

Do you believe that if a pharmaceutical company refused to sell a drug to the government over cost, the government would even hesitate to nationalize?

again, looks at other single-payer systems world-wide

That doesn’t seem to be what’s happening, Jon. Yet more boogeymen from you…

You mean like Cuba? And don’t say that is extreme…

So all the single-payer systems are all like Cuba? What? Really???

You seemed to indicate that government should force pharma to lower prices.

It seems the single payer systems of other countries get a substantially better deal on those same drugs than we do. Thus the rise of the illegal cross-border drug market.

It’s weird. It’s almost like my claim of “the only party that can fairly negotiate with a monopoly is a monopsony” is factually correct…

If Medicaid was so great, what did we need ACA for?

The working poor that don’t qualify for Medicaid, of course…

And all of yours requires us to take the word of progressives as believable. They also require me to give up my right to healthcare, and turn it over to government power. A fallacy that pretends tyranny is actually freedom.

*when in doubt, dont actually consider the argument. Simply engage blinders and spout axioms *

 

[DarkLight]

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.

The big issue, again, is that with people like me you benefit most if there’s a large organization that can negotiate prices. The power of the negotiation comes from being able to say “if you don’t provide reasonably affordable care for X, we won’t provide coverage for you with any of our members.” That only works if you have something where healthy members are mixed in with the sick - so if someone refuses to care for the more expensive they lose business from those they hope to profit from.

And honestly the employer based system is just kind of weird. The problem for a lot of people my age is that, because companies don’t want to pay insurance (this was going on well before obamacare), they make the starter jobs part-time or temporary. A lot of people my age work or have worked part-time or multiple part-time jobs simply because it’s cheaper to hire 2 part-time employees and not pay benefits.

Charity care tends to work less well for people like me that have higher ongoing expenses than it does for people who have expensive emergencies. I think a lot of this is that the law does require people in an emergency situation to be treated - so the medical providers are more willing to negotiate to get the pay they can. Whereas people like me, there’s no real rule to get us treatment until it becomes a serious emergency.

 

[JonNC]

=“Vonsalza, post:305, topic:447347, full:true”]
again, looks at other single-payer systems world-wide

Let’s. How about the Nordic nations? Tax rates on the average citizen close to 60%. Their taxes are flatter than ours. And they rely on the American taxpayer for their defense and have for decades.

How Scandinavian Countries Pay for Their Government Spending

Oh, yes. Let’s look st NHS England thatbis looking at a serious funding gap in the next 2 to 4 years.

Spending on the NHS in England - Full Fact

So all the single-payer systems are all like Cuba? What? Really???

No. I’m saying that’s what the progressives have pointed to as a positive model.

It seems the single payer systems of other countries get a substantially better deal on those same drugs than we do. Thus the rise of the illegal cross-border drug market.

You mean the ones that ration or delay services?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2016-08-03/canadians-increasingly-come-to-us-for-health-care%3Fcontext=amp

Let me ask you, Von. Why do Canadians come here to escape their great system?

It’s weird. It’s almost like my claim of “the only party that can fairly negotiate with a monopoly is a monopsony” is factually correct…
So, can you tell me when big pharma became one company? More of the nonsense that big government creates a problem than says more government is needed to solve the problem they create.
The working poor that don’t qualify for Medicaid, of course…

Then let’s figure out a way to help the working poor without turning our healthcare rights into a government power.

Here’s what single payer looks like.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...litics/va-inspector-general-report/index.html

 

[Vonsalza]

Let’s. How about the Nordic nations? Tax rates on the average citizen close to 60%. Their taxes are flatter than ours. And they rely on the American taxpayer for their defense and have for decades.

Just as a check, I typed “average individual tax rate Sweden” and the browser shot back 31%. Not 60%. But as we can see, you’re not actually open to rational discourse on the matter. You’ve obviously made your decision and closed your blinds to the issue.

Which is fine. You’ve the right to do that. I just don’t know why you seek to discourse with people on the issue after doing so…

Oh, yes. Let’s look st NHS England thatbis looking at a serious funding gap in the next 2 to 4 years.

Oh my. You mean there are issues???
Surely we can only adopt perfect solutions (even as none ever exist to complex problems)!

C’mon, Jon…

No. I’m saying that’s what the progressives have pointed to as a positive model.

Not this progressive. I get to speak for me, Jon. No one else. I already provide the same courtesy for you. So let’s not put words in each others mouths, as it’s poor rhetoric.

It seems the single payer systems of other countries get a substantially better deal on those same drugs than we do. Thus the rise of the illegal cross-border drug market.

Let me ask you, Von. Why do Canadians come here to escape their great system?

We covered that pretty extensively before the site switch.

The overwhelming majority of Canadians consuming US healthcare do so simply because they happen to be here when they get sick. If they have a frightening dizzy spell while beaching in Florida, they’re not going to immediately hop a plane to Canada to get treatment, Jon. The local clinic will serve fine for now…

For those that jump the border specifically for care, you’re talking tens of thousands of people at best. Out of a nation of roughly 35 million. So roughly two-tenths of a percent of Canadans if I’m EXTRA-generous and assume the number approaches 100k.

Laughable. Really. The number of Americans getting care or buying drugs from Canada probably offsets in their favor.

So, can you tell me when big pharma became one company?

Now, now. No moving the goal-posts, Jon. They don’t need to be “one company”. The individual company that owns a particular drug hold the monopoly to that drug. And as you seem to agree in a very back-handed way, monopolies can only negotiate fairly with monopsonies.

Then let’s figure out a way to help the working poor without turning our healthcare rights into a government power.

The easiest solution is to simply expand the way we care for the poor and old to care for everyone. Occam’s Razor.

Here’s what single payer looks like.

Again, I’m sorry for the loss of your son, Jon. But if you type “best healthcare system in the world” into a search bar that is anywhere but Fox News, the answer isn’t going to be “America”. It’s going to be some nation with a single-payer system. Probably France or Norway or Australia.

 

[Theo520]

Here’s a comparison, for the top rate

 

[JonNC]

=“Vonsalza, post:308, topic:447347, full:true”]

Just as a check, I typed “average individual tax rate Sweden” and the browser shot back 31%. Not 60%. But as we can see, you’re not actually open to rational discourse on the matter. You’ve obviously made your decision and closed your blinds to the issue.

Which is fine. You’ve the right to do that. I just don’t know why you seek to discourse with people on the issue after doing so…

I see. and your mind is open to a market based plan? I haven’t seen that in your presentation yet, but that’s okay.
The answer is that sometimes discourse includes a set of principles, principles that are non- negotiable, such as individual rights and liberty. And yes, I know you consider that notion an 18th century paradigm worthy of discarding. I see single payer as a violation of those rights. And indeed, my mind is closed to an imposed collectivist approach to most things.

Oh my. You mean there are issues???
Surely we can only adopt perfect solutions (even as none ever exist to complex problems)!

No such thing as perfect solutions, particularly when government is involved. If I am going to have an imperfect solution for my healthcare, I’d like it to be my solution, thank you very much, not some bureaucrat in Washington.

Not this progressive. I get to speak for me, Jon. No one else. I already provide the same courtesy for you. So let’s not put words in each others mouths, as it’s poor rhetoric.

I am, sure that all of the corporate CEO’s who do not act like Shkreli would like to have you say something like that about them.
The fact is I didn’t say you did, so please spare me the faux indignation. Senator Sanders, the main proponent of “Medicare for All”, has indeed said that, as far back as 1985.

It seems the single payer systems of other countries get a substantially better deal on those same drugs than we do. Thus the rise of the illegal cross-border drug market.

Good point, so allow free Americans the right to voluntarily associate in order to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies. That’s what the majority of company accessed insurance does. Most Americans still get their healthcare at work. Allow those who don’t to associate so that the “individual” market has the same negotiating power as a big firm…

The overwhelming majority of Canadians consuming US healthcare do so simply because they happen to be here when they get sick. If they have a frightening dizzy spell while beaching in Florida, they’re not going to immediately hop a plane to Canada to get treatment, Jon. The local clinic will serve fine for now…

For those that jump the border specifically for care, you’re talking tens of thousands of people at best. Out of a nation of roughly 35 million. So roughly two-tenths of a percent of Canadans if I’m EXTRA-generous and assume the number approaches 100k.

And that’s because the majority can’t afford to. They’re stuck in lines for services. Those who can afford it come here, because the care is better.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-co...dians-increasingly-come-to-us-for-health-care

 

[JonNC]

Now, now. No moving the goal-posts, Jon. They don’t need to be “one company”. The individual company that owns a particular drug hold the monopoly to that drug. And as you seem to agree in a very back-handed way, monopolies can only negotiate fairly with monopsonies.

Only as long as the patent is exclusive. Government doesn’t negotiate is they control the entire system. It doesn’t even negotiate now. That’s why a growing number of doctors won’t take Medicare and Medicaid now, because the reimbursement fee is too small.

The easiest solution is to simply expand the way we care for the poor and old to care for everyone. Occam’s Razor.

Abd turn everyone’s healthcare into a government power? Is Medicaid good healthcare? NO. So why require all Americans to live under a government dictated plan?

Again, I’m sorry for the loss of your son, Jon. But if you type “best healthcare system in the world” into a search bar that is anywhere but Fox News, the answer isn’t going to be “America”. It’s going to be some nation with a single-payer system. Probably France or Norway or Australia.

France’s system is going broke. Norway’s taxes are huge. Australia might be the best example of single payer, but that’s not saying much. right now, I would put my healthcare up against any of theirs. I am very happy with my care, as the vast majority of Americans are.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Abd turn everyone’s healthcare into a government power? Is Medicaid good healthcare? NO. So why require all Americans to live under a government dictated plan?

You know that is not a requirement of having a single-payer health insurance system. It need not preclude you getting your own health care by your own means. So claiming any single-payer system does what you said is a straw man argument.

 

[Vonsalza]

I see. and your mind is open to a market based plan? I haven’t seen that in your presentation yet, but that’s okay.

I’ve considered it! I just don’t see how the open market plan addresses care for chronic illnesses. It seems the average cost of cancer requires a form of insurance. thus enters the current problem

I see single payer as a violation of those rights.

Not me nor most. And most importantly, neither does SCOTUS, as Medicaid & Medicare exist.

No such thing as perfect solutions…

Yeah… That was kinda my point. Keep it in mind when you critique national healthcare schemes…

If I am going to have an imperfect solution for my healthcare, I’d like it to be my solution, thank you very much, not some bureaucrat in Washington.

I completely agree. Which is why I advocate a single-payer system and not a nationalized system. Even as you don’t want to see the obvious and extant differences.

Good point, so allow free Americans the right to voluntarily associate in order to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies.

Then we agree on something at least! The association ban Big-Pharma has lobbied into place had got to go!

[Canadians]
who can afford it come here, because the care is better.

A new poll conducted by the Toronto-based Nanos Research points to overwhelming support — 86.2 percent — for strengthening public health care rather than expanding for-profit services. Poll conducted in the last year.

This fantasy you’ve constructed where all these Canadians are sitting sadly and poorly across our northern border, enviously eyeing American healthcare just isn’t real, sir.

It. Just. Isn’t. Real.

 

[Vonsalza]

Only as long as the patent is exclusive. Government doesn’t negotiate is they control the entire system. It doesn’t even negotiate now. That’s why a growing number of doctors won’t take Medicare and Medicaid now, because the reimbursement fee is too small.

The gov. can’t negotiate prices from suppliers because suppliers have lobbied a ban for it to do so. It can only control what it pays in benefits. Just like literally every other insurance company.

Abd turn everyone’s healthcare into a government power?

For the ump-teen billionth time… We’re advocating a single payer system. Not a nationalized system. Even as you refuse to see a difference because it invalidates a lot of your non-counters.

France’s system is going broke. Norway’s taxes are huge. Australia might be the best example of single payer, but that’s not saying much. right now, I would put my healthcare up against any of theirs. I am very happy with my care, as the vast majority of Americans are.

Yeah yeah, the Euros are all going broke. Their colossal failure is just around the corner!
I get a little tired of that “boy” as he’s been continually crying “wolf” for 40 years…

And I’d agree, post-ACA a lot of Americans are pretty happy with their healthcare; especially the ones that actually started getting some! This is why the Republican’s long-awaited and planned assault on the ACA failed spectacularly. The people just don’t support it.

We’re almost done, Jon. Just gotta finish passing a single-payer system to make the dream of care a reality for those that remain. Fortunately, I think we can get it done without your help. But it would be better if you participated in the process so you could be represented too.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Abd turn everyone’s healthcare into a government power? Is Medicaid good healthcare? NO. So why require all Americans to live under a government dictated plan?

You know that is not a requirement of having a single-payer health insurance system. It need not preclude you getting your own health care by your own means. So claiming any single-payer system does what you said is a straw man argument.

Using my own money? I can buy out of Medicare, get 40 years ofmoney back with interest?
If I can’t , then yes, the tax burden that will be imposed, must be imposed, will eliminate that liberty for the common man.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Using my own money? I can buy out of Medicare, get 40 years ofmoney back with interest?
If I can’t , then yes, the tax burden that will be imposed, must be imposed, will eliminate that liberty for the common man.

Jon, didn’t we just have this discussion last week? What is this, Groundhog Day?

No, you can’t withhold your tax money for the public plan that you choose not to use any more than a childless couple can withhold taxes that support public schools to which they don’t send any kids.

 

[JonNC]

=“Vonsalza, post:313, topic:447347, full:true”]

I’ve considered it! I just don’t see how the open market plan addresses care for chronic illnesses. It seems the average cost of cancer requires a form of insurance. thus enters the current problem

When one closes their to the offerings that will succeed in doing it, I can imagine one can’t see it.

Not me nor most. And most importantly, neither does SCOTUS, as Medicaid & Medicare exist.

Alas, sacrificing liberty for the illusion of security.

Yeah… That was kinda my point. Keep it in mind when you critique national healthcare schemes…

Schemes is a pretty good term for it.

I completely agree. Which is why I advocate a single-payer system and not a nationalized system. Even as you don’t want to see the obvious and extant differences.

Use of the term nationalized is disingenuous. You are right that no one yet is calling to force doctors and hospitals to be servants of the government in order to practice medicine. But single payer, if the payer is the general government, is just as authoritarian.

Then we agree on something at least! The association ban Big-Pharma has lobbied into place had got to go!

Yes, get the government out of the way of free people so they can form large voluntary associations, free of government interference.

A new poll conducted by the Toronto-based Nanos Research points to overwhelming support — 86.2 percent — for strengthening public health care rather than expanding for-profit services. Poll conducted in the last year.

This fantasy you’ve constructed where all these Canadians are sitting sadly and poorly across our northern border, enviously eyeing American healthcare just isn’t real, sir.

The article I linked to did not say "JonNCNews.com. So, instead of dismissing the article, read it.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Using my own money? I can buy out of Medicare, get 40 years ofmoney back with interest?
If I can’t , then yes, the tax burden that will be imposed, must be imposed, will eliminate that liberty for the common man.

Jon, didn’t we just have this discussion last week? What is this, Groundhog Day?

No, you can’t withhold your tax money for the public plan that you choose not to use any more than a childless couple can withhold taxes that support public schools to which they don’t send any kids.

Then you are the one presenting a straw-man. The power to tax is the power to destroy, in this case, the ability of average Americans to choose their own healthcare. To say, on the one hand, I have a right to choose independent healthcare, then intentionally confiscate the money needed to do so is precisely the immorality the government healthcare imposes.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Then you are the one presenting a straw-man. The power to tax is the power to destroy, in this case, the ability of average Americans to choose their own healthcare.

It makes a nice bumper sticker, but it is not true. The power to tax for public schools has not destroyed private schools.

 

[JonNC]

=“Vonsalza, post:314, topic:447347, full:true”]

The gov. can’t negotiate prices from suppliers because suppliers have lobbied a ban for it to do so. It can only control what it pays in benefits. Just like literally every other insurance company.
The government shouldn’t negotiate prices from suppliers. It shouldn’t be in the healthcare business. But I certainly think large voluntary associations of free Americans should be able to negotiate without government interference. Free up the market place. You’re complaining about what the government is doing, then asking for government to have more power. It is absurd.

For the ump-teen billionth time… We’re advocating a single payer system. Not a nationalized system. Even as you refuse to see a difference because it invalidates a lot of your non-counters.

France’s system is going broke. Norway’s taxes are huge. Australia might be the best example of single payer, but that’s not saying much. right now, I would put my healthcare up against any of theirs. I am very happy with my care, as the vast majority of Americans are.

If I don’t control my money, it is authoritarian government dictated healthcare. They don’t have to force doctors and hospitals into working for the government for the control to be a government power.

Yeah yeah, the Euros are all going broke. Their colossal failure is just around the corner!
I get a little tired of that “boy” as he’s been continually crying “wolf” for 40 years…

Yeah, Greece and Spain are such a models of government surplus. And France? Well,
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-01-03/frances-health-care-system-is-going-broke

And I’d agree, post-ACA a lot of Americans are pretty happy with their healthcare; especially the ones that actually started getting some! This is why the Republican’s long-awaited and planned assault on the ACA failed spectacularly. The people just don’t support it.

Yeah, lots of people are happy with the choice of one company, one plan, where premiums, co-pays,etc. are skyrocketed, and people who had plans they liked lost them after the lie that they could keep them.

We 're almost done, Jon. Just gotta finish passing a single-payer system to make the dream of care a reality for those that remain. Fortunately, I think we can get it done without your help. But it would be better if you participated in the process so you could be represented too.

You’re probably right that authoritarian single payer is coming, sadly, for the American people.
Oh, I plan to participate. You can count on that.