Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ReasonableToo

(505 posts)
Tue Oct 8, 2013, 02:54 PM Oct 2013

Single payer - nuts and bolts...

Many of us would prefer a Single-Payer health care system. What is single payer and how would it work?

Well, let's first look at the current system. The multiple payers include:
-Insurance companies paying out money that they collect from individuals/companies (as premiums via health insurance, car insurance, malpractice insurance, workman's comp insurance, homeowner's insurance, etc.)
-Individuals out of pocket directly to the provider
-Defendants as a result of successful lawsuits
-Taxpayers through medicare/medicaid or because hospitals/doctors write-off non-payments on their taxes

The market based mullti-payer system is flawed. With the current multi-payer system, the payers screen each claim and try to pass it off on another payer. For example, to get bills paid for an injury, claimants often have to complete extra paperwork that reveals if the claim can be made against workman's comp, car insurance, homeowner's insurance, etc. before they will actually pay out on the claim. Meanwhile, the doctor who performed the service is waiting for payment. Also, insurance companies CURRENTLY second guess doctors on what tests, procedures and medications are appropriate - these are the very real "death panels" that are part of the insurance-based market system. With the current system, doctors and hospitals charge everyone more to cover the bills that go unpaid.

For multi-payer insurance, the premiums are based on the size of the pool and specific information about members of the pool. As we all know, with the current system, many either cannot afford medical attention and go without or they go bankrupt trying to keep up with all the bills.

What is Single-Payer and how would it actually work?

Instead of multiple collections of money into multiple pools to pay on claims, we would still collect from multiple sources but the money goes into one pool and make payments are made without trying to pass it off on another payer.

First, there would still be a deduction from all paychecks based on the amount people make. (We should probably include all income so that the folks that live on investments/interest are paying into the pool too.) This, however is not the only point for collection. People who make less than a living wage would pay nothing or very little out of their paychecks but they will likely pay in other ways...

Divert the EXISTING charges that CURRENTLY goes to insurance coverage on the following items in which there is a liability to ourselves and others and a certain level of added responsibility/risk. For these entities, there could be a deduction for no claims to encourage safe policies. . .
-car/motorcycle owners & renters
-homeowners (A landlords' portion comes from renters so the renters are essentially paying this. (Just like they are paying property tax even though the poverty-level renters don't get credit and are still called "moochers&quot )
-storefront owners (the someone-slipped-because-we-had-slippery-floors tax)
-doctors (takes the place of malpractice)
-airplane owners
-boat owners
-any business with employees (just like workman's comp so that safety is a priority)

SMALL "danger tax" on items such as these:
-cigarettes
-junk food
-ALCOHOL
-addictive prescription drugs - (to go for rehab facilities)
-sky divers & scuba equipment/services
-biking/skateboard (the equipment plus use of skatepark)
-trampolines & pools (homeowner insurance currently goes up for these things)
-pets (homeowner insurance currently goes up for dog owners)
-highly processed foods (end subsidies for high fructose corn syrup and start TAXING it)
-carcinogens - such as benzene used in fracking
-GMOs (would be nice to include)

Btw, this insurance really should include vision, dental and non-elective orthodontia!

Do I care about all the insurance-related business that would be pushed out? To be honest, they had their chance to do right by their customers and blew it so I'm not feeling a lot of empathy there. That said, there's plenty to do with a single payer system and many skills of the insurance industry would still apply. Claims still need to be screened - we need to look for fraud rather than passing the bill to others. (Incidentally, when Bush was in power, gov agencies went through an "A-76" process where jobs were turned over to contractors. The gov workers were told that they'd be able to apply for the new contractor jobs. Reverse situation here.)

We need policies in place so that costs come down overtime and better health outcomes are the goal.

Instead of profits being the goal, we want to move up on the list of countries with healthy citizens. We want to reduce infant mortality. We want healthier children ready to learn. We want healthier, more productive workers. We want to ELIMINATE bankruptcy due to medical bills.

If Republicans hate "Obamacare" so much, how about they join with INDEPENDENT Bernie Sanders and push for single-payer?

10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Single payer - nuts and bolts... (Original Post) ReasonableToo Oct 2013 OP
Thanks for that interesting post. SheilaT Oct 2013 #1
The biggest reason to leave in the funding streams... ReasonableToo Oct 2013 #10
I think Bismarkian is superior Bunnahabhain Oct 2013 #2
Made me google it... SlipperySlope Oct 2013 #3
99% of people that think they "know" about healthcare delivery models... Bunnahabhain Oct 2013 #4
I already knew something about Japan's system SlipperySlope Oct 2013 #5
Why would you want to keep employers involved in this system? DireStrike Oct 2013 #6
Quick reply Bunnahabhain Oct 2013 #7
Interesting. I'll have to look into it. -nt- DireStrike Oct 2013 #8
The best model to follow is the province of Ontario, Canada. roamer65 Oct 2013 #9
 

SheilaT

(23,156 posts)
1. Thanks for that interesting post.
Tue Oct 8, 2013, 03:17 PM
Oct 2013

I've been aware since at least the 1970's that doctors hate the many, many, many different forms they have to deal with because of all of the different insurance companies each of which has many different plans.

ReasonableToo

(505 posts)
10. The biggest reason to leave in the funding streams...
Thu Oct 24, 2013, 11:03 AM
Oct 2013

...is you know damn well that the insurance companies are NOT going to reduce homeowner and car insurance premiums even if we were to switch to single payer through a separate tax. They would just pocket the cash.

Also, owning a home and driving a car introduces responsibilities and risks.

SlipperySlope

(2,751 posts)
3. Made me google it...
Tue Oct 8, 2013, 04:34 PM
Oct 2013

Used by Germany, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Japan, and Switzerland.

I would have guessed one or more of them was single payer.

 

Bunnahabhain

(857 posts)
4. 99% of people that think they "know" about healthcare delivery models...
Tue Oct 8, 2013, 04:38 PM
Oct 2013

are fooling themselves. Good on you to Google that and I wish more folks would take the time.

Every time I engage in a single payer conversation here I always say I think there are better ways...and I get attacked. I've made it my personal mission to educate as many "single payer hurr durr" folks as possible that there are other, and quite probably superior, models than single payer to achieve universal coverage. Even if a person comes to the conclusion they prefer a single payer model they should at least be able to verbalize basic understanding that many other countries do not employ a single payer system.

SlipperySlope

(2,751 posts)
5. I already knew something about Japan's system
Wed Oct 9, 2013, 12:01 PM
Oct 2013

I studied the Japanese economy and political system (many years ago) so I was vaguely familiar with how they set their health care system up. I knew that they had Universal Health Care and that most people get their insurance through their employers. I've since learned that there is no penalty for not enrolling in insurance and about 10% of people choose not to be insured (for whatever reason).

Simplified; generally they have an employer-based health insurance system, with a national "single payer" system that covers the self-employed, unemployed, elderly, and students.

I have no idea of the nitty-gritty details that make it all work.

DireStrike

(6,452 posts)
6. Why would you want to keep employers involved in this system?
Wed Oct 9, 2013, 12:14 PM
Oct 2013

The Bismark system seems like it would be easier to achieve because it's similar to the existing system, but that's the only advantage I can see.

I don't think it's a good idea to make it more costly for businesses to hire, when there's an alternative that doesn't require that.

It also means less collective bargaining power...

What are the advantages of this system?

 

Bunnahabhain

(857 posts)
7. Quick reply
Wed Oct 9, 2013, 12:27 PM
Oct 2013

Have to run out for several hours of meetings but thanks for the reply.

It is widely held in policy and analysis circles that quality becomes an issue in Beveridge systems. This is not my opinion but rather the conclusion of years of analysis on countries that actually have this system. In a Bismark model those that provide the resources, i.e. those that pay into the insurance funds, have more self-governance and can hold providers responsible for quality of care. They also tend to be drivers of keeping costs in check whereas single payers do not. If you do not believe that just look at how Medicare is set to bankrupt the US (I've seen figures in the 10s of trillions of unfunded liability). By having different players, vs. one unopposed government monopoly, strictly legislated (as in, non-profit insurance pools vs. Wall St. owned companies) the country can yield market driven checks while removing the externalities of unfettered Wall St. style capitalism.

roamer65

(36,745 posts)
9. The best model to follow is the province of Ontario, Canada.
Wed Oct 9, 2013, 12:40 PM
Oct 2013

There is a tax on employers and people pay through the provincial sales tax and a progressive income tax scheme. There is also a small surcharge per year for higher incomes. Ontario also receives transfer payments from the Canadian federal government per the Canada Health Act.

I would be in favor of a national sales tax if we went to single payor Medicare. Also higher income taxes on the wealthy.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Single payer - nuts and b...