Prager: Single Payer Healthcare

Discussion in 'The Thunderdome' started by Tenacious D, Apr 13, 2017.

  1. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    In using the VA as an example, Prager poses what appears to be a entirely valid argument against a single-payer healthcare system.

    Is it wrong, and if so, on what point or where?

    What consideration have they excluded from their argument, if any, or deserves greater consideration?

    If their argument is both correct and valid, and the ills described here are true - where grotesque shortcomings of bueracratic-driven care are perpetuated, even at increasingly skyrocketing costs, and which are so widely evidence even on a tightly controlled fraction of the population, such as Veterans - it seems foolish to want this, at all. We can talk about other countries all day long, but this is a great US-based example, and might be a more pertinent place to look, first.

    If I'm missing something, or fail to understand, please educate me.

    [youtube]VCU1JQzvoyM&ebc[/youtube]
     
  2. NorrisAlan

    NorrisAlan Super Moderator

    The premise if faulty. A single payer does not mean nationalizing healthcare, turning all health care providers into government employees.

    He even states at the end what to do, give the veterans a voucher, ie insurance, and let them go where they want to go.
     
  3. Volst53

    Volst53 Super Moderator


    Won't that just create an issue that Education is facing with college tuition prices
     
  4. NorrisAlan

    NorrisAlan Super Moderator

    How has this caused tuition to go up?
     
  5. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    Fair.

    1. Where does the money that backs up the vouchers come from?
    2. In what ways would the vouchers be markedly different than the current private health insurance model? For example, I have private insurance and can go to any doctor on a list. If I prefer to see another doctor, I can - i.e. the money already follows me.
     
  6. NorrisAlan

    NorrisAlan Super Moderator

    1. Taxes, of course. Just like where the police, military, roads, etc, come from. It isn't Free.
    2. I would assume it is your insurance, go where you want.
     
  7. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

  8. CardinalVol

    CardinalVol Uncultured, non-diverse mod

    Either way the government would be setting prices. Go wherever you want, but we are i it going to pay so much.
     
  9. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    1. Would this likely cause my taxes to go up, or would it be "tax-neutral"?
    2. Is government paid healthcare perfectly - or even suitably - equated to your examples, such as military, roads, etc.? Any notable differences, insofar as you can tell?
    3. So, a single-payer healthcare system wouldn't give me any greater access to healthcare, or provide any additional freedom for me to "take my money with me" than the current system of private health-insurance? If I understand that correctly...then how is it any different, or more specifically, how will it give me anything more than what I now have, or any other advantage?
    4. Are there any risks with a single-payer system - or is it all great, and with no chance of a downside? If it involves some risk, what are the most likely to come to fruition, and how simple, moderate or drastic might they be?
     
  10. NorrisAlan

    NorrisAlan Super Moderator

  11. kptvol

    kptvol Super Moderator

    I want my healthcare to be better, the costs to be lower, my taxes to be lower, and I'd like oral sex on demand. I don't see what's so difficult about that. Get it together Washington.
     
  12. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    I wouldn't think anyone could be more qualified than you to speak on this topic.

    Where do you stand - do you support a single-payer system? What are the best arguments which support or refute it, and what are the greatest benefits / risks, if any?
     
  13. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    Actually, it's precisely that - and this study shows it - the more money the Feds give / loan or back...the higher tuition costs rise.

    The more money the government backs loans, the more lenders will lend, the easier it is for students to receive that money, and the more money that colleges charge for tuition.
     
  14. Volst53

    Volst53 Super Moderator

    They're more than happy to soak up the extra funds.
     
  15. dc4utvols

    dc4utvols Contributor

    Tuition inflation is due to the loans and grants given. Colleges can increase tuition faster than inflation because the bill isn't due until much later and it is done with the monthly fee structure of a loan. But the school gets the money usually and knows who is using those structures.

    Lets say you are a student and college costs 10K well you work min wage and cant afford that up front but you can pay 120/mo when you get out. You rack up 40k at some cheaper state school and expect to pay 480/mo. No biggie unless you cant find a job when you get out.

    But if there was no loans or grants and the college wants as many student as possible then it has to price it to the customer. A college student working 20hrs/week @ min wage is going to have ~550/mo. or about 6K/school year. So the school would need to provide housing, food, tuition and books for less than that amount.

    Vouchers could cause a similar problem in that the HC insurer could see an opportunity to charge more since part of the payment is subsidized. This can be remedied by making the premium payment opaque to the insurer. If they dont know who is getting a voucher then they cant calculate that into the premiums. They have to assume that none of their customers are getting aid and price all customers like the average unsubsidized Joe.
     
  16. RockyHill

    RockyHill Loves Auburn more than Tennessee.

    School: Tuition is $10
    Students: We can't afford that
    Government: We'll loan you the full cost of tuition, no questions asked and no limits on the amount.
    School: Tuition is now $25
     
  17. IP

    IP Grusader Knight Errant of the 8th Order

    You guys are leaving out where that extra money is going, and why, and what has happened to federal and state funding of institutions. How much of UT is funded by the state now?
     
  18. RockyHill

    RockyHill Loves Auburn more than Tennessee.

    I don't want to minimize your point but I think it's also important to recognize schools competing for that federal money by building obscene and unnecessary things that would never exist if the federal faucet was turned off.
     
  19. dc4utvols

    dc4utvols Contributor

    In single payer who determines who your doctor is?
    In single-payer who determines your treatment?
    In single payer is your utility used to determine treatment?
    In single payer is your age used to determine your treatment?
    In single payer how do you pay for it?
    Are the outcomes as good or better in single payer vs private systems?
    Is the idea to improve quality of life and cure people if possible or to ration and control costs?
    Will single payer lead to government intrusion in peoples personal lives?

    We dont have true private insurance as the regulations have gotten to the point that insurers manage a government run system while trying to make a profit. Government should be a referee making sure insurers deliver the product (paying for HC) and are not engaged in fraud or sometimes worse deceptive but legal jujitsu called fine print.

    There are 2 rules
    1.) help or cure the patient.
    2.) pay the bill.

    The right thing to do never requires any subterfuge, it is always simple and direct. - Cool Cal
     
  20. IP

    IP Grusader Knight Errant of the 8th Order

    I agree, but from a different angle and to a different end. A very large part of spending goes to growing enrollment and trying to increase ranking and prestige. None of these things are improving the quality, efficiency, or value of education. They are responding to the market. Yes, a market that is somewhat detached from a price point, but not completely.

    And for-profit schools are on another level of this.
     

Share This Page