Originally posted by republicandr
Wow- Thanks for "clearing things up". How could a single-payer system that has so many options for billing decrease paperwork so much? Why would it be so much easier to get permission to do an expensive procedure than it would be in the current system? I don't know- but there are many experts on this thread who are able to educate me. I did not profess to be an expert on the single payer system. My point was that it is complex and it boils down to universal health care and the government runs it, essentially. The "private" doctors still negotiate with the government, right? So the government is paying them, right??? Why would the government pay the "private" docs so much more than the other government docs? Don't feel like you have to answer this though, because I understand it's tedious to explain the system to someone who won't just read the proposal!
BTW, you have no opinion on the trial lawyers' influence on this decision? I can't reconcile why they would go along with a single-payer. Wouldn't it take out their ability to sue via malpractice? Everyone knows, you can't sue the government, right?
Yeah, actually, it is really tedious if we're trying to have a discussion about a topic, there's clear, well-written information on the topic and hand, and people would rather argue uninformed than learn about how the system would work, and then ask questions or raise points about their concern with it. (If you don't have the time to read a 10 page document, try these two factsheets. They're less in-depth, and don't explain things as specifically as the proposal, but they'll at least help you understand it:
http://www.pnhp.org/hcinfo/?go=single_payer and
http://www.pnhp.org/hcinfo/?go=financing_policy
I don't know where you're getting the idea that the SP system has "so many options for billing." Let me try to explain it again: it would be similar to a Medicare-for-all system (just take that at face value, ignore any problems you have with Medicare). Or, a one-insurance-company-for-all program, if that suits you better. Since there's ONE insurance company, every doctor or other health care provider bills the SAME entity. And the SAME entity pays them. So instead of having to fill out one form for Aetna, one for Tenet, one for BCBS, etc., you bill ONE payer.
Also: care is based on need, not ability to pay. You don't have to get permission. That's one major reason why docs support this plan. You don't have to call an HMO administrator who has no medical training to argue over a patient getting a certain test run, or a certain procedure. It's based on need, and evidence-based medicine. If a procedure is shown to improve outcomes and be effective, then it's covered. If it's worthless and doesn't give you any information or help the patient, it's not covered.
The government administers it, and pays for it, yes. They don't run it. It's still privately run, with private doctors, private facilities, etc. The government will pay private doctors for their services based on the procedures they do, and the reimbursement for the doctor's services are negotiated by the doctors. You seem to be under the impression that in this system doctors are, for the most part, employed by the state, and that's not the case. Private practicing doctors tend to make more in a single-payer system than salaried ones, yes. Why would salaried doctors take a lower-paying job, then? Maybe they want to help an underserved population. Maybe they love the hospital where they work. Maybe they want a scheduled work shift, and don't want to feel the pressure of running an office and being a small business as well.
Nope. Don't have any opinion on the trial lawyers, because I don't feel I have enough information to make an informed opinion. If I don't know something, I do my best to read up on it, learn about it, and then form an opinion; it does me nor anyone else any good to just come to a conclusion when I don't know the facts. (Read Marakah2's above post, there's a strong correlation between the doctor-patient relationship and malpractice suits. If you know your doctor, feel comfortable with her/him, you're much less likely to sue.) I'll just say this: laywers may not like it, no, but if the rest of the populous does--or enough of the populous--health care reform will happen.
Look, slavery took a long time to change, so did getting women the right to vote. But those were reforms that I would argue were fundamentally positive and progressive reforms to our country; I think national health insurance is the same. OSHA and the EPA were formed when Nixon was president, even though he was strongly against them. Why? Because people supported them.