About half of Americans support single-payer health care

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

 

• 
   Analysis

About half of Americans support single-payer health care

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/04/12/about-half-of-americans-support-single-payer-health-care/

 

 

By Emily Guskin Email the authorApril 12 at 7:00 AM

Protesters rally outside the office of California Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon in South Gate, Calif., in June as the U.S. Senate prepared to vote on the GOP health-care bill. (Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images)

As President Trump’s administration tries to chip away at the Affordable Care Act by giving more authority to states to regulate private insurance, a new poll finds a slight majority of Americans support a move in the opposite direction, with everyone getting health insurance from a national government-run program.

A Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation poll finds a 51 percent majority of Americans support a national health plan, also known as a single-payer plan, while 43 percent oppose it.

[yuna628 9,676]

51% support it, but it's the very active and vocal 43% that oppose it, and both groups keep electing individuals who are not serious about the subject.

[jg121783 3,915]

Obamacare is NOT single payer healthcare. Not even close. Even those who want a single payer system should oppose Obamacare.

[bcking 3,157]

14 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

Obamacare is NOT single payer healthcare. Not even close. Even those who want a single payer system should oppose Obamacare.

I completely agree with your first sentence, but your third sentence is an oversimplification.

 

Obamacare was not what I would have done if I was given free reign, but I still would have chosen it over what we had before. There weren't better alternatives at the time, and there still haven't been any. I support a single payer system because I think EVERYONE should have access to healthcare as a right. Obamacare obviously didn't achieve that, but it still increased the number of people with healthcare. It also removed preexisting conditions as a limiting factor, which I support.

 

The "penalty" for not signing up was short sighted, at best. It was always going to be a trade off between "which is more expensive? insurance or the penalty?". I also think Obamacare was hampered by being unable to appropriately control insurance providers. The only way insurance works if you have an even mixture of healthy and sick people all in the same pool. As soon as you separate people and then start charging more for those unhealthy people it defeats the purpose. It maintains their profits, but it ruins access to care.

 

At this juncture I'm not going to oppose Obamacare just for the sake opposing it. I think we need a better system but if there is no alternative plan that is better, I wouldn't support just scraping the whole thing and going back to what we did before. The plans that were proposed last year were bad, and I wouldn't have supported any of them.

Edited April 12, 2018 by bcking

[Unidentified 2,930]

I am torn about this subject... I am from a country where we have this system and it is definitively not perfect but people are treated and doesn't have to worry about payment. BUT the wait times can be awful for example if you're waiting for a new hip you might need to look outside your region to find somewhere with shorter wait times. My personal opinion is also that since there's not competition for patients the quality of doctors vary greatly and I never had one specific one I went to, I always got different doctors. I am not sure if it's part of the single payer system but in Sweden medications are heavily subsidized which is really nice. 

 

HOWEVER, everyone should have access to affordable healthcare. People shouldn't have to chose between treating an illness or die depending on their ability to pay and their fear of getting their family into debt. People should also be able to die with dignity (no I am not talking assisted suicide) to be able to receive pain medication ,anti anxiety meds etc without having to worry about the costs. 

 

One of the major issues are these stupid pharmaceutical companies who put ridiculous prices on life saving medicine and say "it goes to research" no it goes to greedy pockets. Same medicine is sold elsewhere in the world way cheaper. A lot of times you're also paying for the brand when you can get the same stuff way cheaper by just buying another brand. 

[bcking 3,157]

21 minutes ago, Unidentified said:

I am torn about this subject... I am from a country where we have this system and it is definitively not perfect but people are treated and doesn't have to worry about payment. BUT the wait times can be awful for example if you're waiting for a new hip you might need to look outside your region to find somewhere with shorter wait times. My personal opinion is also that since there's not competition for patients the quality of doctors vary greatly and I never had one specific one I went to, I always got different doctors. I am not sure if it's part of the single payer system but in Sweden medications are heavily subsidized which is really nice. 

 

HOWEVER, everyone should have access to affordable healthcare. People shouldn't have to chose between treating an illness or die depending on their ability to pay and their fear of getting their family into debt. People should also be able to die with dignity (no I am not talking assisted suicide) to be able to receive pain medication ,anti anxiety meds etc without having to worry about the costs. 

 

One of the major issues are these stupid pharmaceutical companies who put ridiculous prices on life saving medicine and say "it goes to research" no it goes to greedy pockets. Same medicine is sold elsewhere in the world way cheaper. A lot of times you're also paying for the brand when you can get the same stuff way cheaper by just buying another brand. 

Well said.

 

Single payer has its own issues. Queues are commonly mentioned, though I think in some ways that is more inflated than reality. I've done some brief work in UK hospitals and if a procedure needs to happen, it happens. I never once encountered a "delay" just because of a lack of resources. This was in Pediatrics, so maybe adult medicine is different. I also know several cases from my wife's family of people getting procedures done with what I would consider perfectly reasonable wait times. Her aunt is going to get a hip replacement this June (they had tried a conservative surgery first to salvage the hip, and it's not working). She was put "on the list" last month. I don't think that is unreasonable.  Continuity of care can also be quite poor in the UK, where you frequently see a different doctor every time your visit your Surgery.  We have issues with that in the USA but at least from my perspective it seems like we do a bit better at it. That being said, they do better at providing overall primary care to people, with or without continuity of the same provider. 

 

Absolutely though I agree that everyone should have access to affordable healthcare. I firmly believe that should be a right of all people, but especially people living in a wealthy "first world" society. I think there is absolutely no excuse to not be able to provide it to everyone.

 

I would not be opposed to a "mixed" system that many European countries have where they have private insurance and public insurance, but there needs to be a basic level of coverage for everyone that provides medications, primary care doctor's visits, medically indicated procedures and treatment in case of disaster (cancer, significant accident). None of that should have to be a financial burden on the person or god forbid be left to the family once they are gone.

 

[jg121783 3,915]

5 minutes ago, bcking said:

None of that should have to be a financial burden on the person or god forbid be left to the family once they are gone.

Debts are not inherited by the family of the deceased under any circumstances. However if the deceased person had assets those can be taken to pay the debt they owe. It is never a financial burden on the family of the deseased.

[Unidentified 2,930]

2 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

Debts are not inherited by the family of the deceased under any circumstances. However if the deceased person had assets those can be taken to pay the debt they owe. It is never a financial burden on the family of the deseased.

It's basically the same thing. The money that they wanted to pass along to their children is used to pay of medical bills. No one should have to worry about money when it comes to their health. 

[Unidentified 2,930]

13 minutes ago, bcking said:

Well said.

 

Single payer has its own issues. Queues are commonly mentioned, though I think in some ways that is more inflated than reality. I've done some brief work in UK hospitals and if a procedure needs to happen, it happens. I never once encountered a "delay" just because of a lack of resources. This was in Pediatrics, so maybe adult medicine is different. I also know several cases from my wife's family of people getting procedures done with what I would consider perfectly reasonable wait times. Her aunt is going to get a hip replacement this June (they had tried a conservative surgery first to salvage the hip, and it's not working). She was put "on the list" last month. I don't think that is unreasonable.  Continuity of care can also be quite poor in the UK, where you frequently see a different doctor every time your visit your Surgery.  We have issues with that in the USA but at least from my perspective it seems like we do a bit better at it. That being said, they do better at providing overall primary care to people, with or without continuity of the same provider. 

 

Absolutely though I agree that everyone should have access to affordable healthcare. I firmly believe that should be a right of all people, but especially people living in a wealthy "first world" society. I think there is absolutely no excuse to not be able to provide it to everyone.

 

I would not be opposed to a "mixed" system that many European countries have where they have private insurance and public insurance, but there needs to be a basic level of coverage for everyone that provides medications, primary care doctor's visits, medically indicated procedures and treatment in case of disaster (cancer, significant accident). None of that should have to be a financial burden on the person or god forbid be left to the family once they are gone.

 

I agree 100% except for the part about lines being "inflated" I don't think it is reasonable for anyone to have to wait 6 months or more to get a new hip and not be in constant pain. That's not humane. 

 

Why even have insurance companies that inflate prices? I just want a system where people don't have to worry about medical costs for cancer etc. Want elective surgery? Go pay that yourself. But if you get cancer, you shouldn't have to worry. 

[jg121783 3,915]

18 minutes ago, Unidentified said:

It's basically the same thing. The money that they wanted to pass along to their children is used to pay of medical bills. No one should have to worry about money when it comes to their health. 

There is a difference between having inheritance withheld to pay debt and a financial burden. A financial burden implies that the family is somehow responsible for the debt which they are not under any circumstances.

[bcking 3,157]

40 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

Debts are not inherited by the family of the deceased under any circumstances. However if the deceased person had assets those can be taken to pay the debt they owe. It is never a financial burden on the family of the deseased.

I think it is in part due to my profession but I was thinking about the unfortunate situations where a child passes away. I'm fairly certain those medical expenses are still owed by the family.

 

35 minutes ago, Unidentified said:

I agree 100% except for the part about lines being "inflated" I don't think it is reasonable for anyone to have to wait 6 months or more to get a new hip and not be in constant pain. That's not humane. 

 

Why even have insurance companies that inflate prices? I just want a system where people don't have to worry about medical costs for cancer etc. Want elective surgery? Go pay that yourself. But if you get cancer, you shouldn't have to worry. 

1 in 10 people needing an "orthopedic procedure" (hip, knee, others) will wait 18 weeks (5 1/2) months.

 

Is that perfect? No of course, but I don't think it is as horrible.

 

Compare that to whatever number of people in the US who need a hip replacement but will never get one because they can't afford it. They will also live in pain, for far longer.

[Unidentified 2,930]

38 minutes ago, bcking said:

I think it is in part due to my profession but I was thinking about the unfortunate situations where a child passes away. I'm fairly certain those medical expenses are still owed by the family.

 

1 in 10 people needing an "orthopedic procedure" (hip, knee, others) will wait 18 weeks (5 1/2) months.

 

Is that perfect? No of course, but I don't think it is as horrible.

 

Compare that to whatever number of people in the US who need a hip replacement but will never get one because they can't afford it. They will also live in pain, for far longer.

That's a good point. I guess I just think 6 months is horrible because in Sweden people don't have to worry about the cost. 

 

I really hope the situation here in the US can be figured out somehow.