Because all that single-payer means is that the government does the reimbursing, it says nothing about how high or low that reimbursement is. I don't really know what you struggle to understand about them being separate concepts. I could give you the exact same argument right back - having many insurance companies competing to make the most profit encourages them to figure out how to pay out the least possible amounts. Determining physician pay should in theory be based on the demand for them, and that is separate from who the hospital sends bills to.
a) Not all physicians are employed by hospitals. Even if they were, reimbursement rates would still be directly tied to physician salary. If each heart cath net the hospital 1 cent cardiologists wouldn't be making the dough.
b) Do you not understand the whole concept of competition/free enterprise? Of course they would try to pay the least amount possible, but they wouldn't be able to monopolize the market because they have to compete with other insurers...
c) Who determines the reimbursement rates for single-payer, government systems?
Have the government researching drugs instead of private companies that will then milk them for as much money and as long as possible with greater emphasis on profit than accessibility and health. Or let the private companies sell them to the government to immediately make accessible at generic costs. And I'll just highlight here again that this has nothing to do with single vs multi payers.
Oh awesome give more power to the government. Aside from that gigantic problem, one could argue that with decreasing reward the incentive for innovation would decrease.
I really don't understand why so many of our generation is so eager to award the US government with so much authority, responsibility and power. Running from excessive government control was the reason this country was founded in the first place - are we really going to make the same mistake twice?
It is clear you have never lived there or otherwise had exposure to their system in action. They are not nations of mediocrity, sub-par workers or laziness. They are not chock full of massive numbers of welfare recipients abusing the system. Shocking as it may be to you, nations which less emphasize work and effort (37 hour workweeks! Insanely generous maternity/paternity! etc) can be full of thriving, productive and happy people who seek education and fulfilling work because they wish to better themselves and realize their society can only function as it does when people contribute. I will say again: you can speak in theory all you want - of course people will abuse the benefits! A nation cannot be industrious with high taxes! Single payer healthcare is economic nonsense, it's ruinous! Yet out there in the world, such a system is functioning beautifully. Perhaps more beautifully than we can mimic anytime soon, but certainly something we can progress towards. A great society is one in which few have too much, and fewer too little. If you want to call giving everyone a high quality standard of living rather than over-the-top excess to a handful "a joke", go right ahead. They're all laughing right back at you.
PS people are swarming to move/live there. It's one of the major political topics there now. The more you say stuff like this, the more you reveal a total lack of understanding on the topic.
a) Exactly, people
are trying to move there. How easy is it to gain citizenship in Norway? IIRC they have strict guidelines, and, as most people there are White Christians, it doesn't seem like things are changing fast. Furthermore, when people move there that cause problems, they have the balls to kick them out. (These countries are already starting to have huge problems with Muslim immigrants - look at the rape/violent crime decrease stats since Muslim deportation began in Norway). Would America do this? Of course not. Is this a policy you're willing to adopt too? Or do you want to pick and choose the ones that best fit your agenda?
b) These Scandinavian countries really aren't as socialist as everyone makes them out to be. So bestowing our government with the responsibility for everything (as your solutions seem to do) isn't really in-line with their policies. For instance, Norwegians can opt-out of the national health care plan if they want to. They allow insurance companies to compete with their government's plan.
Let's not also forget that Norway has a
regressive tax. Most liberals like to conveniently leave this little fact out. The top 10% make 29% of the income but pay only 27% of taxes! The U.S. has the most progressive tax structure of advanced economies, in which the top 10% make 33% of the income but pay 45% of the taxes. Are you OK with making these type of changes too?
c) The Norwegian health care model also isn't as great as you make it out to be. For healthy people (especially young healthy people), you're most likely going to pay a bit more for health care in Norway than you would in America. However, if you're chronically ill, their system is great!
Let's not forget that you can't see a specialist on demand. Like Canada (IIRC?) you have to be referred to one via your GP. And, even if you do need a specialist, the wait times can be long. Fantastic!
d) Everything in Norway costs money, too. If you own a TV, there's a TV tax. It's hard to find free public spaces (e.g. tennis courts). Public transportation is good, but it's expensive. It isn't some utopian dream-world.
e) Norway is a fundamentally different country than the US. It's futile to try to compare the two... We were founded on principles that despise government dominance and embrace people from all religions, cultures, ethnicities, races, etc... We have the strongest military in the world and - whether you agree with it or not - believe in maintaining this military in order to protect ourselves as well as help those countries in need. Consequently, our government spends 2-3x as much money on its military per capita as Norway does. (LET'S NOT FORGET Norway's GDP per capita is 2x America's!) Norway can afford to provide its citizens with all of these benefits because they distribute their money differently than we do. I'm going to go out on a limb here and just assume you're also OK with us changing our military policies. Good luck convincing America to change that.
None of this really matters though, since it's not about how much you spend on health care (obviously). It's about people being healthy. Unfortunately, America is comprised of a majority of unhealthy fat people who eat ding-dongs and hamburgers and a 200 oz soda every day. Until this changes, our health care system will stay screwed.
You can commend the Scandinavian system tell you're blue in the face, but it doesn't change the fact that their system would never work in America. Also, I find it incredibly hilarious that you have "lived" there and yet find yourself back here living in America. That, to me, is telling.
