Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Single-Payer is Not the Problem

Single-Payer is Not the Problem

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

People arguing both sides of the health care reform issue keep hammering on the idea of a single-payer-based health system. The left wants it and the right thinks it would be the end of the world. Yet not only is it the wrong thing to be worried about, but it is mostly conspicuous for its absence from the current proposals being considered by Congress.
 
Critics on the right keep claiming that health care reform will lead inevitably to a single-payer system as if that's the worst that could come of these proposals, and for his part President Obama seems bizarrely defensive about the idea, denying any intention of creating a single-payer system in a way which is entirely out of proportion to the significance of the issue. It almost makes me wonder if single-payer is being thrown out as a stalking horse to scare us into accepting other potentially more radical ideas.
 
The argument is that a public option and even coops are steps which will inevitably lead to government paying for health care. The belief is that the socialist impetus of the administration is to get its hands on as much tax money and redistribute as much private income as possible, and that single-payer health care would be a great way to do that.
 
Yet this is not inherently the way that a single-payer system has to work. There are single-payer systems in other countries like Australia and Singapore which work perfectly well with private insurance and leave most control and most health care choices in the hands of the consumer. When it comes to threats to capitalism and individual liberty, the idea of a public option where the government competes directly with private insurers is far more of a threat than a single-payer system if that system were to be implemented sensibly.
 

Just as was the case with the mortgage crisis, the problems in our current health care system are largely the result of government interference with the free market. Further suppression of the free market forces which could bring down prices and increase access will produce the opposite of the desired result. Subsidies and tax incentives to business and draconian mandates will only raise costs and limit options for consumers.
 
If you want insurance companies to reduce prices and be more competitive, you don't need to have a "public option" you just need to actually let them compete with each other. Past policy has insulated insurers from having to compete and effectively created monopolies. Let insurers compete on a nationwide basis on a level playing field, selling to individual consumers rather than through group plans. Then you would see prices going down and quality improve without any kind of artificial interference or the tax burden of a public option. Let the government set standards and apply some reasonable requirements to protect the public and then leave insurers free to find ways to satisfy them and make money.
 
But going back to the idea of a single-payer system, maybe it's an idea which can be turned to positive purposes. If you accept the premise that everyone must have health care, then why not let the government be the collector and repository of the funds to pay for that health care? Establish a simple percentage tax for health care, either added onto the income tax or as part of a national flat tax like the FairTax. Then take that money and distribute it equally to citizens in the form of vouchers which can only be spent on heath insurance. The insurance companies will respond by offering basic plans at the price of the voucher and people who want policies with extra features can pay more out of their pockets.
 
This approach would assure that basic health coverage is available to all Americans while at the same time preserving the free market and leaving the power of choice in the hands of individuals. The key thing about a single-payer system is that it does not have to involve the government directly in health care. They can play an entirely passive role as payer and distributor of funds, guaranteeing equal access to a basic level of care while not taking away options from health care consumers. This is why the basic concept of a single-payer system can be turned into a net positive, while other ideas which are being pushed like a public option in competition with private insurers will just continue the pattern of destructive meddling in the health care marketplace.
 
Single-payer only becomes a problem if the single payer is also the single provider. Then choice and competition and quality of care really will be taken away. So in the debate on health care, let's put the focus in the right place and fight for free market solutions and against more of the same government meddling and unintended consequences which created the current mess and which current proposals in Congress are loaded with.

Powered by

About Dave Nalle

  • hsr0601

    Many reformers recognized roughly 30 percent of all health-care spending in the U.S. -some $700 billion a year- might be wasted on unnecessary tests and treatments, and payment reform could solve this problem. Is this claim overstatement ?

    As one instance, please visit, you will be stunned!

    Provided the American people pay around double the amount of efficient systems, the result is still well below them, the ratio of waste might be estimated to far more than 50% in the U.S.

    Let’s be conservative regarding the ratio. If 10% of savings apply to the combined Medicare and Medicaid cost of $923.5bn per year, as of July, the savings of $923.5bn over the next decade are possible.

    And when these savings add to the already allocated $583 billion, the savings of wastes involving so called “doughnut hole” , the unnecessary subsidies for insurers, abuse, exorbitant costs by the tragic ER visits etc, the concern over revenue might be a thing of the past.

    As a matter of fact, with the promising redesign in the pipeline, some patient-focused clinics in 10 regions have already achieved 16% of savings in Medicare while their quality scores are well above average.

    Please be ‘sure’ to visit for credible evidences!

    Thankfully, the provisions in the reform include more expansive, systematic policies such as ‘a patient’s outcome-based payment system’ than they have. I for one firmly believe this American innovation, ‘a patient’s outcome-based payment system’ , is capable of turning profit-oriented practices into patient-focused system / value.

    Dr. Armadio at Mayo clinic says, “If we got rid of that stuff (waste), we save a third of all that we spend and that is 2.5 trillion dollars on health care. A third of that and that is 700 billion dollars a year. That covers a lot of uninsured people.”

    Please visit for detailed infos.

    Thank You !

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Spam and gibberish at the same time. I feel so special.

    Dave

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/christine-lakatos-/ Christine

    Dave, love the cartoon!

  • Lumpy

    Doesn’t the cartoon sort of run counter to your argument?

  • Lumpy

    On further consideration is it even constitutional to have the government gather taxes and then redistribute that money through the pretext of health care?

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    The Obama administration made the assumption early on that moving to a single-payer system would be massively disruptive, because so many people now get insurance through their employers.

    Their political instincts about this are probably sound. The hysteria whipped up over the ‘public option’ is nothing compared to how demonized a single-payer system would have been, and how scary such a large change would have seemed to many people.

    [And of course there are apparently quite a few misinformed folks who still think any ‘ObamaCare’ program = Single Payer = Spawn of Satan.]

    So the system will remain largely employer based, with some of the worst aspects of insurance coverage fixed [pre-existing conditions, et al]. Whether there is a ‘public option’ or a co-op attached is rapidly becoming a secondary issue.

    I know Dave thinks this is just horrendous, but I think he is massively overreacting. It’s actually a practical compromise. [It does leave some of the heavy lifting on cost control to a later date, which is the worst part of it; but ‘a later date’ doesn’t mean ‘never.’]

    And his own suggestion has about as much chance of actually happening as…oh, the Fair Tax.

  • Clavos

    And his own suggestion has about as much chance of actually happening as…oh, the Fair Tax.

    Maybe.

    And maybe not.

    On both counts.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    The Obama administration made the assumption early on that moving to a single-payer system would be massively disruptive, because so many people now get insurance through their employers.

    Which means, as I keep saying, that this “reform” is NOT reform at all, because running insurance through employers is the root cause of the problem and what enables monopolization.

    So the system will remain largely employer based, with some of the worst aspects of insurance coverage fixed [pre-existing conditions, et al]. Whether there is a ‘public option’ or a co-op attached is rapidly becoming a secondary issue.

    So a few bandaids while leaving the fundamental flaws unaddressed. Typical.

    It’s actually a practical compromise. [It does leave some of the heavy lifting on cost control to a later date, which is the worst part of it; but ‘a later date’ doesn’t mean ‘never.’]

    Compromises are what got us in this mess in the first place.

    And his own suggestion has about as much chance of actually happening as…oh, the Fair Tax.

    There’s a new day coming, Handy. Brace yourself.

    Dave

  • zingzing

    “There’s a new day coming, Handy. Brace yourself.”

    is handy a vampire?

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Quivering in me boots, I am.