Current Events > people like single-payer because they don't understand what it actually means

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.axios.com/one-big-thing-people-dont-know-about-single-payer-2504349900.html

It is generally assumed that the biggest obstacle to a national health plan like Medicare for All will be the large tax increase needed to pay for it. But new polling shows another challenge: Almost half of the American people don't know that they would have to change their current health insurance arrangements if there was a single-payer plan....

There is no sweeping health reform plan without tradeoffs, as we learned with both the ACA and the Republican repeal-and-replace plans. The fact that so many people don't know that a national health plan would require them to change their insurance arrangements underscores the challenge of making the transition from a popular idea to a reality for a single-payer national health plan.

Democrats are the most likely to believe they could keep their current health insurance (52%) but a substantial number of Independents and Republicans also think this (50%/44%)

44% of people with employer-sponsored insurance think they would be able to keep their existing insurance.

I considered that, maybe, Democrats are disproportionately likely to be on Medicare and therefor have some reason to think they wouldn't change plans, but also, we would have to substantially change Medicare if we gave it to everyone
---

why is healthcare so complicate

cant it just be a simple thing
---

I read the topic title as "single-player" and I was curious what hot-take playing games by yourself was going to lead to.
---

Lol read that as single player games
---

Anteaterking posted...

I read the topic title as "single-player" and I was curious what hot-take playing games by yourself was going to lead to.

single payer games are games = Shadow of Mordor
---

C_Pain posted...

why is healthcare so complicate

cant it just be a simple thing

Who knew it would be so complicated?

If our POTUS doesnt even know how complicated it is, its not fair for us simple folk to understand what all this fancy stuff means
---

i think people barely understand that the current system already has the govt paying for insurance, just in this case subsidizing employer-provided plans (which are likely far more comfortable than any plan-for-all could possibly be)

so it makes sense that they'd fail to connect the idea that a new single payer system would necessarilly require their existing support structure be removed, making their insurance crazy expensive to keep.
---

lolamericans posted...

Lol read that as single player games

---

Anteaterking posted...

I read the topic title as "single-player" and I was curious what hot-take playing games by yourself was going to lead to.

---

C_Pain posted...

why is healthcare so complicate

cant it just be a simple thing

Yeah, it's not like it's brain surgery....... wait

Why would we still need health insurance and health insurance companies with a single payer model? Wouldn't a blanket health plan for everyone make insurance companies unnecessary?
---

JoeyBowey posted...

Yeah, it's not like it's brain surgery....... wait

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THNPmhBl-8I

If you have single payer, you no longer need your crazy convoluted insurance plans. Just dental and drugs.
---

Like the implementation of hipaa restrictions or adjustment to ICD-10, it'll take years BUT the improvements are worth the turmoil period at first. Mostly, the patient will not even notice many differences after the potential transition to a new primary care provider.
---

Melonfarms posted...

Why would we still need health insurance and health insurance companies with a single payer model? Wouldn't a blanket health plan for everyone make insurance companies unnecessary?

There'd still be tons of payment processing involved. But much less needed for patients.
---

gunplagirl posted...

Like the implementation of hipaa restrictions or adjustment to ICD-10, it'll take years BUT the improvements are worth the turmoil period at first. Mostly, the patient will not even notice many differences after the potential transition to a new primary care provider.

those are both about data collection and verification procedures with no direct impact on the consumer at all

how is that comparable to transitioning to a new form of coverage entirely?

I think you're underestimating how much people would notice.
---

Anteaterking posted...

I read the topic title as "single-player" and I was curious what hot-take playing games by yourself was going to lead to.

This, TC better deliver.
---

lolamericans posted...

Lol read that as single player games

Me too lol
---

Balrog0 posted...

gunplagirl posted...

Like the implementation of hipaa restrictions or adjustment to ICD-10, it'll take years BUT the improvements are worth the turmoil period at first. Mostly, the patient will not even notice many differences after the potential transition to a new primary care provider.

those are both about data collection and verification procedures with no direct impact on the consumer at all

how is that comparable to transitioning to a new form of coverage entirely?

I think you're underestimating how much people would notice.

HIPAA affects patients massively in ways they don't even know. Most never even read those hipaa rights papers that clinics are required to provide.

And that's my point. It mostly will affect the back end of things, where patients aren't going to see what happens. But the people collecting money and tracking other costs? They'll have much more work added from the inevitable changes to help simplify it.
---

god dammit
---

Kitt posted...

lolamericans posted...

Lol read that as single player games

Me too lol

gunplagirl posted...

Melonfarms posted...

Why would we still need health insurance and health insurance companies with a single payer model? Wouldn't a blanket health plan for everyone make insurance companies unnecessary?

There'd still be tons of payment processing involved. But much less needed for patients.

Right, but insurance is a business. With fixed rates and no competition, the companies would likely need to be absorbed into a new agency. I guess the title "insurance" doesn't feel appropriate to me. I know there will still be need for processing but I would think it would be re-branded in a sense. Like the VA isn't an insurance company but it processes medical payments and coverage and such.

I'm probably just over thinking it and focusing on titles.
---

Most people like single-payer because they don't think they're the ones who are going to have to pay anything. If you told them all they would owe an additional $2-3K in taxes every year to fund it, most of them wouldn't support it.
---

gunplagirl posted...

HIPAA affects patients massively in ways they don't even know. Most never even read those hipaa rights papers that clinics are required to provide.

it really doesn't have that big of an impact outside of data standardization

or at least describe the massive impacts it has please

gunplagirl posted...

And that's my point. It mostly will affect the back end of things, where patients aren't going to see what happens.

I think it would have a pretty big impact on things they'd notice, like what services are covered and who they can go to see.

gunplagirl posted...

But the people collecting money and tracking other costs? They'll have much more work added from the inevitable changes to help simplify it.

I think single-payer would make things more administratively streamlined, not less.
---

The Admiral posted...

Most people like single-payer because they don't think they're the ones who are going to have to pay anything. If you told them all they would owe an additional $2-3K in taxes every year to fund it, most of them wouldn't support it.

yeah. but if you told them that without mentioning that they'd no longer be paying a premium for their employer-provided insurance, then you'd be lying to them about the costs.
---

Darkman124 posted...

The Admiral posted...

Most people like single-payer because they don't think they're the ones who are going to have to pay anything. If you told them all they would owe an additional $2-3K in taxes every year to fund it, most of them wouldn't support it.

yeah. but if you told them that without mentioning that they'd no longer be paying a premium for their employer-provided insurance, then you'd be lying to them about the costs.

The costs are going to be significantly higher no matter how you frame it, particularly since ending the employer subsidy is not going to be offset by a 1-for-1 salary increase. Many of the people beating the drum for these enhanced social programs almost always assume "rich people" will be the ones funding them, while they just receive the benefits.
---

The Admiral posted...

The costs are going to be significantly higher no matter how you frame it. The people beating the drum for these enhanced social programs almost always assume "rich people" will be the ones funding them, while they just receive the benefits.

i expect the costs will be roughly the same accounting for the removal of existing payments and replacement with new taxes, but the coverage will be less than employer insurance typically is.

but yes, either the whole group has to bear the weight of high-risk participants, or high risk participants are left out to dry (and abuse the ER).
---

The Admiral posted...

The costs are going to be significantly higher no matter how you frame it.

definitely not, the overall % of GDP that we spend on health care would definitely go down if we moved to single-payer, if for no other reason than we could negotiate lower reimbursement rates than private insurance gives (and probably even lower than medicaid and medicare currently)

the question is how the costs are distributed and how providers react to the changes.

The Admiral posted...

The people beating the drum for these enhanced social programs almost always assume "rich people" will be the ones funding them, while they just receive the benefits.

I don't think that's true, I'm pretty sure if you polled like literally everyone who supports these things itt we would all be fine with paying more in taxes for it.
---

Balrog0 posted...

if for no other reason than we could negotiate lower reimbursement rates than private insurance gives

Why would you assume it would go in this direction when we have historical examples of just the opposite. Most egregious example:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_big_idea/2006/01/drug_addled.html

Healthcare companies will engage in rent-seeking actions even more aggressively once there is only a single entity to negotiate with. As history shows us, hundreds of millions in lobbying dollars usually pays off in their favor, at the expense of the tax payers.
---

The Admiral posted...

Healthcare companies will engage in rent-seeking actions even more aggressively once there is only a single entity to negotiate with. As history shows us, hundreds of millions in lobbying dollars usually pays off.

a valid complaint, although i think it's an argument more for dramatic and massively punitive campaign finance reform (with risk of jail sentences, not fines), rather than a refusal to reform healthcare
---

Frostshock posted...

If you have single payer, you no longer need your crazy convoluted insurance plans. Just dental and drugs.

I still cannot fathom why dental is not included in national plans, when healthy teeth and gums are so important for overall health.
---

The Admiral posted...

Why would you assume it would go in this direction when we have historical examples of just the opposite. Most egregious example:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_big_idea/2006/01/drug_addled.html

Healthcare companies will engage in rent-seeking actions even more aggressively once there is only a single entity to negotiate with. As history shows us, hundreds of millions in lobbying dollars usually pays off in their favor, at the expense of the tax payers.

I'm not sure what your point is with this article. Prescription drug prices have been skyrocketing across health systems, which is what pushes the price of Medicare Part D up since they aren't allowed to negotiate drug prices. This is a particular carve-out big pharma has given themselves.

If you look at overall health care spending, it is quite obvious that Medicare and Medicaid are more efficient than private insurance with respect to reimbursement rates. Prescription drugs are significant, but represent only maybe 20% of overall health care costs -- costs we could bring down by negotiating prices among other things. For instance, Medicaid has a drug rebate program which causes net prices of prescription drugs under Medicaid to be less than half of what they are under Medicare Part D!

The real historical example is Medicaid and its cost growth vs. private insurance. It couldn't be more clear -- https://www.texmed.org/June16Journal/

Reimbursement amounts for the same procedures differ among payers, with public payers (Medicare and Medicaid) setting a much lower rate than that which private payers establish in contracts. Therefore, the diverse patient payment mix can have a significant impact on a physician's practice. This impact and need for monitoring patient mix can vary by the type of services, which would serve as an indication of specialty practice differences.
---

EyeWontBeFooled posted...

Frostshock posted...

If you have single payer, you no longer need your crazy convoluted insurance plans. Just dental and drugs.

I still cannot fathom why dental is not included in national plans, when healthy teeth and gums are so important for overall health.

Out of pocket dental costs aren't that absurd, really. Yeah, I go for a cleaning every 6 months because I have insurance. But keeping your teeth healthy is something any vigilant person can do for free.
---

I thought it said "single-player" and you were talking about video games :V
---