Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila
Exactly, when people experience how expensive insurance truly is... and then they see the savings Single Payer will provide... they will be far more likely to embrace it. Also, consider the corporate bureaucracy, people will want something far more simple.
|
As Betsy states in the video, Section 1311 of the ACA puts the Secretary of Health and Human Services in charge to dictate how your doctor treats you, empowering that person to impose regulations on doctors and hospitals. She goes on to state that Section 3,000(a) awards bonus points to hospitals that spend the least per Senior – not patient, but Senior.
Americans, at first glance, might think that the idea of a single-payer system sounds good and is even appealing when we look at our current economic conditions and the rising costs of healthcare.
However, if history tells us anything, any single-payer initiative will end up costing much more than what any of the proponents claim. That will only, in turn, lead us to higher taxes and/or rationing, the government determining what and which medical treatments will and won’t be covered.
We only have to look at Medicare as a primary example. It was signed into law in 1965 and projected to only grow by $9 billion by the year 1990, except that it grew by $66 billion. That is 38 years worth of examination as to what a single-payer system will do to our country.
The government doesn’t negotiate with medical providers in order to lower the prices covered for services. What it does is dictate, as the ACA law is stating in Section 1311, below-market reimbursements with its monopoly power as the primary purchaser of health care. What that does, in turn, is reduce access to quality care.
There are more than 100,000 pages of rules that Medicare patients have to abide by. These rules are dictating what types of services can be covered.
I have a huge problem with a Medicare rule change made in 1999. Any Medicare patient, receiving care at home, is being forced to divulge all personal medical information, sexual information and emotional information.
All of these government contractors record anything a patient tells them. They record whether or not the person is depressed or if they use excessive profanity, etc., etc. This allows each contractor to act as their deputy or proxy , which means a total stranger is speaking for them. That is the situation involved in any single–payer plan. The main point is that all citizens forfeit a confidential doctor-patient relationship.
We are rapidly moving toward a loss of privacy, increased costs, and reduced choices.
Aquila, you might want a single-payer system, but I think if you really look at Medicare as a prime example of what goes wrong when the government is in control, you would change your mind. Well, you might not. LOL! But, my thinking is that if the writers of Obamacare pushed this through with no Republican on board and actually intended to move us into single-payer, it is just blatantly sneaky and dishonest at best.
I will go on to state that the medical industry, which includes Big Pharma, are largely to blame for where we are today. The increased costs have a lot to do with overbilling, dishonest research, etc. But the answer is not forfeiting a doctor-patient relationship. And the answer is not increasing taxes, increasing costs, and reduced choices that a single-payer system would certainly bring us. Competition is the only driving factor for any free-market society. We should have implemented purchasing across state lines to see how that worked for us. It was a simple solution to begin with.
Healthcare was rationed, right here in the U.S., to those who could afford it. And they died as a result.
Hybrid Mode
