Vox (a far left wing tilted site) explains why single payer fell apart in New Hampshire. For @dviss1 https://www.vox.com/2014/12/22/7427117/single-payer-vermont-shumlin Putting a price tag on Vermont’s single-payer plan was a maddening task for health economists after Act 48 passed. In just the past two years, different economic modeling firms have priced the project anywhere from $1.6 billion to $2.5 billion during its first year. ... The Shumlin administration contracted with London and a team of economists at her university last year to estimate the cost of Vermont’s plan. Their report estimated that Vermont will need to raise an additional $1.6 billion in tax revenue in 2017 to pay for a single-payer system. (Lunge says, due to some different assumptions, this report and the new one estimating a $2.5 billion price tag are not completely "apples to apples" comparisons). As the 2017 launch date for single-payer grew closer, the Shumlin administration began to dive into the details of how, exactly, it would work — and began to falter. ... Covering more people meant spending more money. "This is a challenge we face as a state setting up a system, rather than an entire country," said Lunge. "We have borders, and people come in across those borders every day." The increased costs and decreased revenue started to add up. The Shumlin administration estimated it would need to increase payroll taxes by 11.5 percent and income tax by 9 percent. About half of countries who attempt to build single-payer systems fail. That’s Harvard health economist William Hsiao’s estimate after working with about 10 governments in the past two decades.
http://reason.com/blog/2017/05/23/california-single-payer-health-care-cost The latest stop on this magical mystery tour of progressive health care plans is California, where U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) has been campaigning on behalf of a proposed state-run single-payer system. On Monday, state lawmakers in Sacramento got their first look at the price tag for the proposal, which rings in at a whopping $400 billion annually. The Sacramento Bee notes that, even after accounting for an estimated $200 billion that could be saved by replacing current state-run health programs with the single-payer program, the state would still need to come up with $200 billion annually. This year's state budget in California, by the way, is about $180 billion. The state would have to more than double all of its taxes on everything from sales tax to property tax to gas tax to income tax. EVERYTHING.
The cost analysis is seen as "the biggest hurdle to creating a universal system," the Bee reports. If this sounds familiar, that's because it is. Just last week, we reported on a similar single-payer proposal in New York State, which would require doubling (and possibly quadrupling, depending on which projection you believe) the state's tax burden. Vermont's attempt to implement a single-payer health care system collapsed in 2014 because the costs were too high. Colorado voters rejected a proposed single-payer system in 2016 when faced with the prospect of increasing payroll taxes by 10 percent to meet the estimated $25 billion annual price tag.
There's one other thing that's fairly consistent among the states that have proposed single-payer systems in recent years: When voters find out how much a single-payer system will cost, they are much less likely to support one. Single-payer advocates learned that lesson last year in Colorado at the ballot box, as the state turned blue for Hillary Clinton even as 79 percent of voters said "no" to single-payer health care. Other polling bears out that relationship. A recent poll commissioned by the California Association of Health Underwriters, found that 66 percent of California residents are opposed to single-payer health care. Opposition increased to 75 percent when those polled were told the price tag for the system is $179 billion annually—which is actually lower than what the legislative analysis suggests. There's also this analysis from the Kaiser Family Foundation, which shows how support for single-payer health care declines when there is a price tag attached to the idea.
I wonder--and these are legitimate questions in my mind--for those who are in favor of single-payer health systems, are there different levels of what you would and would not have the system cover? All cancer treatments? Organ transplants? Long-term hospitalization? Experimental procedures? Would there be a board that would determine what is/isn't covered? And as far as cost is concerned, would there need to be cost fixing for procedures covered by the single-payer systems? And would prospective health-care providers have the option to operate outside of the single-payer system?
The problems with single payer system are the same as what was uncovered with obummer care and the current VA. The payer determines what it will pay, and many providers opt out. Cost of coverage skyrockets due to what is expected to be covered. Lets face it, if you could buy car insurance after you had an accident, costs would be ridiculous. Well, with pre existing conditions, along with the concept of coverage of adults up to age 26 on parents plans, forcing blanket coverage in all plans etc etc etc. The idea that the Gov will be all things to all people has never been the answer. The free market did a far better job. If you doubt that the insurance companies and medical conglomerates have been the only beneficiaries, check for your self. The best investments from wall street to private portfolios have heavily favored the two.
I don't doubt that the free market is best--for people to whom money is no object. The free market routinely leaves people without money behind and can even be a burden to middle class and lower middle class. Single payer isn't meant to be the best for everyone--it's meant to redistribute the costs for everyone onto everyone. This is a bad deal the richer you are, and a better deal the poorer you are. I won't deny that at all. Money for health care isn't a problem for me, but I think it's a moral duty for society to allow access to health care to everyone, even the very poor. And not just ER care--preventative care, long-term care for things like cancer, all of that.
Anyone with a brain would chose healthcare be available rather than a government managed healthcare waiting list.
I'm sorry that the VA isn't working well for you. Hopefully a proper single-payer system would be better funded and better managed.
Why would it be? The very same people would be overseeing the system. Same people allocating funds. Hope completely without foundation.
I understand the sentiment. Here is the problem. Where do you start and where do you stop? Take California or even Oregon to a smaller extent. Start of with good intentions. It gets politicized. Seen as a vote farm. Next thing its an industry unto itself. Not only does it cover those who were originally intended, but now it covers illegals. Now it is unsustainable.
That's a problem with everything, even something that I assume is near and dear to your heart--military funding. There's a reason why Eisenhower referred to the "military industrial complex." Anything we commit to doing as a society, and spending money on, is going to start to have a constituency and industry around it and thus vested interests which leads to lobbying groups and all the rest. Ultimately, it comes down to what your priorities are--for anything you think is extremely important, you still commit to doing it and you try your best to limit inefficiency or corruption.
It's good to have both successes and failures to examine when we create our own so that we can learn from both to build it right. That's generally the best way to do anything properly.
How about using some basic cost benefit annalist. Personally, I would prefer a stronger military rather than another 30 million illegals that drain every social system we currently provide. http://www.fairus.org/publications/...llegal-immigration-on-united-states-taxpayers
