The Morality of a Single Payer Health Care System

[o_mlly]

Good thing we’re asking for a single-payer system rather than a state owned system. Like how it already works for the 35% of Americans on Medicaid and Medicare that get their treatment at private facilities.

All the worse. Those who own the businesses remain responsible for paying the rent, wages, maintenance and replacement costs of assets. Yet those people have little to nothing to say about the prices they may charge. The bureaucrats in Washington shoulders none of these burdens and yet controls the pricing the providers may charge.

As to Medicare working, type “PCP Medicare problems” into your search engine and you find sites like this one that report: Still, a 2013 annual report by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent congressional agency, shows that 28% of beneficiaries seeking a new primary-care physician last year had trouble finding one who accepted Medicare.forbes.com/sites/nextavenue/2013/06/11/what-to-do-if-your-doctor-wont-take-medicare/#65f65f7e65cd

 

[Vonsalza]

All the worse. Those who own the businesses remain responsible for paying the rent, wages, maintenance and replacement costs of assets. Yet those people have little to nothing to say about the prices they may charge.

Military contractors seems to have done pretty nicely under this system…

 

[Vonsalza]

Still, a 2013 annual report by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent congressional agency, shows that 28% of beneficiaries seeking a new primary-care physician last year had trouble finding one who accepted Medicare.

Oh, that’s a self-correcting problem. When 100% of the American people are offered public insurance, the question for doctors won’t be “will I accept public insurance?”. It will be “do I want to go to work?”.

 

[GEddie]

Oh, that’s a self-correcting problem. When 100% of the American people are offered public insurance, the question for doctors won’t be “will I accept public insurance?”. It will be “do I want to go to work?”.

You are saying that people in this country only work to pay medical bills??

While we aren’t as healthy as a nation as we might be, there is still more to life than that.

ICXC NIKA

 

[o_mlly]

Military contractors seems to have done pretty nicely under this system…

This is quite a different model. The military contractors are few in number (oligopoly) and, as a result, possess price-setting power. Not so with doctors and private hospitals.

 

[o_mlly]

Oh, that’s a self-correcting problem. When 100% of the American people are offered public insurance, the question for doctors won’t be “will I accept public insurance?”. It will be “do I want to go to work?”.

I don’t think so. The single payer systems are normally and primarily funded by taxes (not premiums) and are not offered but imposed.

Only two ways exist to reduce health care costs. 1) Reduce providers compensation, and 2) reduce the demand for health care. The recent news from Iceland’s “cure” for Downs Syndrome is the state’s efforts at implementing #2.

 

[JonNC]

You miss the point. There is widespread support in democratic countries for progressive taxation and service delivery to persons in need despite their lack of capacity to pay.

Whatever countries those are can do as they choose. I oppose it for the reasons I’ve stated. Government dictated single payer always sets limits on individual liberty. Government determines who gets what services, or even if the get services, and when. And when government power controls it, it can easily be taken away.
Services can be provided to those in need without without a central government bureaucracy.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=twf;14853109]Why then are other government services OK?

It depends on what those services are.

Why is it moral for the state to raise taxes to go to war? Why should you be compelled to pay for the defence of your neighbour? It’s the same principle. Your argument logically leads to the dissolution of all states.

Speaking specifically of the United States, the constitution provides for the national defense. In fact, it is immoral when the government doesn’t defend the borders and the country’s national interest.
In our constitutional representative republic, which level of government does which job is spelled out - the general government the enumerated powers, all other power reserved to the states and the people.
If we want to have a government dictated single payer plan, pass a constitutional amendment. That’s the way the people in our republic suspend a right and allow the government to have an additional power.

Democracy and modern states are novel concepts in Church history. In Christian medieval Europe, When a local Lady decided, out of Christian charity, to care for the sick among her husband’s people, she could do so because her husband the lord raised revenue from his subjects. How is this any different?

the United States is not a democracy. It is not Christian charity to take the property of someone and give it to others. It may fill a need, but it is not Christian charity. Compassion and charity are not achieved through coercion.

The Church used to impose a mandatory tithe. That’s no longer true in most places (Germany is an exception). Without that, there’s no way we can depend on voluntary charity to care for all the health needs of the poor.

One does not need to be a member of the Church. I don’t believe it is impossible to care for those in need without government force.

Jon

 

[Monte_RCMS]

It depends on what those services are.

Speaking specifically of the United States, the constitution provides for the national defense. In fact, it is immoral when the government doesn’t defend the borders and the country’s national interest.
In our constitutional representative republic, which level of government does which job is spelled out - the general government the enumerated powers, all other power reserved to the states and the people.
If we want to have a government dictated single payer plan, pass a constitutional amendment. That’s the way the people in our republic suspend a right and allow the government to have an additional power.

the United States is not a democracy. It is not Christian charity to take the property of someone and give it to others. It may fill a need, but it is not Christian charity. Compassion and charity are not achieved through coercion.

One does not need to be a member of the Church. I don’t believe it is impossible to care for those in need without government force.

Jon

You are correct; the United States is not a democracy.

The United States has always been a republic.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

And there’s my point.

That don’t cover the cost of chemo, my friend.

That would be a simple administrative change.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

You are correct; the United States is not a democracy.

The United States has always been a republic.

The United States is also 50 independent states. It was set up that way deliberately.

That’s why we have the Constitution.

 

[Rau]

Services can be provided to those in need without without a central government bureaucracy.

Of course, a different bureaucracy (or bureaucracies) can be substituted.

 

[JonNC]

Of course, a different bureaucracy (or bureaucracies) can be substituted.

And those bureaucracies should not be a part of or answerable to the general government. Consider this: is it not a conflict of interest for the federal government that looks after the Social Security budget to be in charge of decisions regarding life extending treatment for seniors on Social Security?

 

[Rau]

And those bureaucracies should not be a part of or answerable to the general government. Consider this: is it not a conflict of interest for the federal government that looks after the Social Security budget to be in charge of decisions regarding life extending treatment for seniors on Social Security?

Consider this : at the present time, in the absence of governmental involvement, expensive health care is not available to many who are poor.

While you can assert that there might be alternatives, they are not putting their hands up. And further, budgets are a reality, no matter the bureacrscy involved. The poor no more deserve to be the first to miss out on health care than do others.

And finally - it is extremism to suggest government authority - or any authority in the US - is absolute and its agencies can act with impunity.

 

[GEddie]

Consider this : at the present time, in the absence of governmental involvement, expensive health care is not available to many who are poor.

While you can assert that there might be alternatives, they are not putting their hands up. And further, budgets are a reality, no matter the bureacrscy involved. The poor no more deserve to be the first to miss out on health care than do others.

And finally - it is extremism to suggest government authority - or any authority in the US - is absolute and its agencies can act with impunity.

Whenever something is intended to make a profit, whatever it is, the financially-challenged will be the first to be denied it. That’s how capitalist life works.

And an entity that can kill with impunity can pretty much do anything else that way.

ICXC NIKA

 

[JonNC]

Consider this : at the present time, in the absence of governmental involvement, expensive health care is not available to many who are poor.

While you can assert that there might be alternatives, they are not putting their hands up. And further, budgets are a reality, no matter the bureacrscy involved. The poor no more deserve to be the first to miss out on health care than do others.

And finally - it is extremism to suggest government authority - or any authority in the US - is absolute and its agencies can act with impunity.

The Catholic Church got its hand slapped down by the HHS Mandate. But if you are right, and the Church (all of us) are unwilling to live up to Christ’s call, then we deserve an authoritarian government single payer plan.

Let’s also remember that the high and growing cost of healthcare can be directly connected to government interference in healthcare- Medicare and Medicaid (not to mention the use of insurance to pay for regular care). The premise that higher costs caused by government will be fixed by more government has been proved decisively wrong by ACA

 

[po18guy]

Remember that single payer comes with SS&S: single source for all things medical, and slowness of response. In the cancer realm, that can prove fatal, even though it may work for 90% of the patients 90% of the time.

I lived under a single payer system when I was working. By law it had 90 days to make a surgical decision. I was marginally ambulatory, in constant pain, and sleeping on the floor with ice packs on my lumbar spine. 89 days later, I got the decision.

Single payer, despite the massive amounts of media hype, cultural desire and wishful thinking surrounding it, cannot be any more efficient than either Social Security or Medicare. It cannot be and it will not be.

Single payer is also single delayer and single denier.

Just something to ponder.

 

[JonNC]

Remember that single payer comes with SS&S: single source for all things medical, and slowness of response. In the cancer realm, that can prove fatal, even though it may work for 90% of the patients 90% of the time.

I lived under a single payer system when I was working. By law it had 90 days to make a surgical decision. I was marginally ambulatory, in constant pain, and sleeping on the floor with ice packs on my lumbar spine. 89 days later, I got the decision.

Single payer, despite the massive amounts of media hype, cultural desire and wishful thinking surrounding it, cannot be any more efficient than either Social Security or Medicare. It cannot be and it will not be.

Single payer is also single delayer and single denier.

Just something to ponder.

I absolutely agree. It think it also true that Medicare-for-All becomes, without a doubt, single payer.

 

[Rau]

…But if you are right, and the Church (all of us) are unwilling to live up to Christ’s call, then we deserve an authoritarian government single payer plan. …

You are not following. See post #68. Many, many of us are up to it - as demonstrated by our happy acceptance of progressive taxation schemes and a willingness to utilise the machinery of government as a practical means to deliver services to the poor who could not otherwise access them.

 

[JimG]

Once we get single payer health care, could we also get single payer groceries?